[opendtv] Re: Cablevision to offer HBO Now streaming service - MarketWatch

  • From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 22:40:40 +0000

Craig Birkmaier wrote:

>> The service may not exist yet, sure, but the mere fact that HBO has
>> to bend over backwards to convince these ISPs is proof enough. With
>> Title II, it would be a much simpler matter.

> Proof of what?

Do you deny that with Title II as law for broadband, the ISP/MVPDs would be 
required to carry HBO Now tout de suite? The only stipulation being that 
whatever fair, reasonable, equitable terms are in place, and NOTHING TO DO WITH 
any considerations of HBO Now cannibalizing the MVPD's premium tier HBO 
offering? Simple question. Answer that, please. And now, I will demonstrate how 
you keep missing the obvious:

> The only relationship to Net Neutrality is that HBO Now will be
> delivered over ISP pipes,

As of now, the ISPs, except for Cablevision very recently, refuse to agree to 
carry HBO Now, Craig.

> The MVPDs are in a good position to use HBO Now as part of their
> migration strategy to an all IP infrastructure.

Why should HBO care? HBO wants to offer direct to consumer right now. As of 
now, the ISPs, except for Cablevision very recently, refuse to agree to carry 
HBO Now, Craig.

> The MVPDs have used HBO as an enticement. For years.

Good for them. But HBO wants to offer direct to consumer right now. As of now, 
the ISPs, except for Cablevision very recently, refuse to agree to carry HBO 
Now, Craig.

> Most of the promotional bundles include HBO for free for three months

Isn't it wonderful about these MVPD promotional bundles. But you keep missing 
the basic point: you are only looking at this as an MVPD. HBO wants to do give 
consumers this new direct option, no MVPD obstacle in the way. As of now, the 
ISPs, except for Cablevision very recently, refuse to agree to carry HBO Now, 
Craig.

http://consumerist.com/2015/01/30/are-cable-companies-lowering-hbo-rates-in-advance-of-standalone-hbo-go/

> This is according to TVpredictions.com, which reports that Comcast recently 
> dropped its standard HBO subscription rate from $18.95 to $15, which just 
> happens to be the number that most - including Consumerist readers - are 
> predicting for the HBO streaming service.
> What's more, Comcast is apparently offering a promotion that cuts the monthly 
> rate to $10 for people who order online.

Good for Comcast, but so what? This is Comcast attempting to retain HBO walled 
in. But HBO is the boss, or would be with Title II, and they want to go it 
alone, at least as an *option* for consumers. As of now, the ISPs, except for 
Cablevision very recently, refuse to agree to carry HBO Now, Craig.

> With the 50% split for the traditional streaming version of HBO the MVPDs
> have some room to deal. Their cost for HBO is probably about $7.50/mo,

And still you miss the point. None of this matters under Title II. HBO can 
decide how to peddle their wares **without** the MVPD considerations getting in 
the way. There's no "room to deal" necessary at all, except whatever "fair and 
equitable" hookup fee. HBO determined that they need to compete directly 
against Netflix, and the ISPs are being obstacles, blocking HBO's direct path 
to the Internet. It's that simple.

> As long as HBO Now is available nationally from one or more companies
> like Apple, the MVPDs are under no obligation to sell the service;

Whoa!! What an absurd argument, Craig. Net neutrality is not an issue, Craig 
says, if AppleToys can carry the content? Wow. HBO has shown no interest in 
Apple or anyone else acting as another exclusive gatekeeper, and they have 
stated so verbatim.

> The owners of content want one thing - to maximize their profits. They
> will play both sides against each other as Time Warner has done with
> HBO Now.

Sure, the owners of content want to maximize profits. But the simple fact is, 
if these owners of content want to leverage direct Internet sales, Title II 
guarantees them that they can do this. Without Title II, the MVPD/ISPs, with 
conflicting interest, have **PROVEN** that they will try hard to block access 
to that direct ISP pipe. As you have done for your entire post, Craig, you 
consider primarily the MVPD's interests and tradeoffs, promotional bundles, bla 
bla bla,  when Title II instead says they have to be neutral.

This is too obvious to belabor, Craig. Where the majority of the HBO revenues 
come from has no bearing on this new distribution pipe they want to open, 
Craig. All these other considerations are totally tangential to the issue here.

> The larger threat is that people like me will defect to Sling or
> Apple TV - so the MVPDs are going to have to fight to hang onto
> their customers;

Under Title II, the MVPDs **would not** be allowed to hold on to their 
customers **by blocking HBO's direct access** to these consumers, Craig. Title 
II says the ISP pipe has to be guaranteed to be neutral.

> Provide evidence that they intend to block me from getting HBO Now
> from Apple when it launches next month?

Another utterly absurd comment. Should I also "provide evidence" that the ISPs 
aren't intending to block Internet access to that new pizza joint on the 
corner? They are blocking HBO Now, Craig, and that's all that matters.

> You can expect most of the MVPDs to follow Cablevision

Craig says the problem doesn't exist because he assumes it away. Very good 
debating tactic. With Title II, there would be no question about this. HBO Now 
would already be available to any broadband customer.

> No ISP is going to block HBO bits given the high visibility of net
> neutrality,

They already are blocking access, Craig. How many articles have to tell you 
this? Only Cablevision finally relented. Is this like your continued insistence 
that "the bundle" was never ever going to be breaking up, even after it had? Do 
I even need to bother to give multiple other examples? How do you keep doing 
this, Craig?

> Yes HBO wants to be available to everyone. But they have shown no
> sign of wanting to deal with customer service and payments,

Nonsense. HBO has said for a very long time that they want to go direct to 
consumers, to compete against Netflix and others. So now, Craig finds it 
acceptable to deny what HBO has claimed, and to deny that the ISPs are blocking 
access, even after both have occurred.

How do you even dream up this stuff, Craig?

Bert

 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at 
FreeLists.org 

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
unsubscribe in the subject line.

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. opendtv
  3. Archive
  4. 03-2015