[opendtv] Competition
- From: Albert Manfredi <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 19:03:20 -0400
Craig wrote:
The issue is how the TV side of the business will be transformed - what it
will
look like and cost in 5-10 years. You think it will vanish, which is silly.
What's silly is how you invent things I supposedly think. What will vanish is
legacy distribution protocols, sure.
But you are correct that
some types of programming on the linear channels are endangered.
And who cares? It's not like the programming is endangered. That's what I'm
trying to get across, without any success. The only thing "endangered" is a
now-archaic delivery protocol.
Imagine a universe in which we were still constrained to just one-way
broadcast. How would you browse the web, Craig? You'd have to wait forever for
your particular page or pages to come around on some carousel. Imagine you are
just one of, say 100,000 people subscribing to that broadcast network, in your
market. What a crazy way to get information out, right? It's far more
efficient, and you can get a whole lot more information out, if you store it
one time, on many many distributed servers, for anyone to retrieve at any time.
What makes you think this has to be different for TV content? It does not.
But to extrapolate that shift into one where EVERYTHING is accessed on demand
is absurd
The only thing "absurd" is your legacy thinking. For some reason, you can't
wrap your head around the fact that there is nothing unique about TV content.
You cannot seem to appreciate the similarities with most of what's already ion
the web.
I explained this above. People are attracted to fresh, live content. With
news
and analysis on the 24/7 cable news nets, they expect the audience to come
and
go.
Empty words, Craig. 24/7 news and analysis consists of 80 percent or more
recycled news and analysis stories. Essentially that carousel I was talking
about. A waste of resources, but it does work without having to deploy those
video servers. So, once upon a time, it was the ONLY way to get this wide
bandwidth content out to the masses. Craig seems to think the technology froze
ca. 1960.
People still like to turn on the TV to see something fresh
More empty words. What does that even mean, Craig? Does it means that people
prefer to turn on the TV to find a show they might have been interested in,
already half over? Does it mean people like to make appointments with their TV,
and get all annoyed when something gets in the way? You are simply living in
the past.
All that is changing is the transport protocol. I can dedicate a
6MHz channel to a HD program using MPEG-TS, or use the bits in that channel
to
send IP packets. With IP I can even be more flexible and combine packets from
multiple channels.
You made the absurd claim that IP can guarantee some sort of QoS, implying that
MPEG-2 TS broadcast can't. You made an absurd claim that IP allowed VOD,
implying that MPEG-TS can't. Before making these nonsensical claims, you need
to inform yourself. This sounds much like the days when you tried to tell me
that DTV broadcast was part of the Internet. You say, "With IP I can even be
more flexible and combine packets from multiple channels." Explain in complete
detail what you mean, then explain in detail why you think MPEG-2 TS can't do
that. These vague notions of yours are unconvincing.
The important point I was trying to make is that the net
neutrality rules DO NOT apply to the portion of a cable or Fios network
dedicated to MVPD service.
And why did you feel the need to make that "important point," when I have made
that same point time and time again?
Just because we are changing
the transport from dedicated MPEG TS over proprietary networks, to IP
transport
over the Internet does not change the fundamental nature of the service.
Once again, since these things seem to require constant repetition, use of IP
allows a lot more flexibility than having that one single gatekeeper at the
MVPD head-end. IP creates a two-way network. Multiple sources of TV (or other)
content now compete, over the network, as long as the broadband pipe is
strictly neutral. What is hard to understand about this? Of course you CAN use
IP and still remain a local monopoly of content. So what? IP allows you to get
beyond that old model, and people have come to embrace it. This means that
luddites in the TV business will not survive, Craig. You keep trying to press
this notion that the old way must persist. Do you still use the stagecoach,
Craig? Are you going to utter a banality, like stagecoach service will coexist
with cars, in the future?
No it is just factual. Customer service organizations are expensive to
operate.
It's easier now that stuff can be automated through servers, and consumers
are
willing to let their credit cards be billed each month. But even Netflix has
a
customer service number to call.
So, just more legacy thinking, Craig. There are any number of businesses that
use the automatic deduction model, to spare the customer from having to
manually pay those monthly bills. The idea that the single cable bill is any
kind of advantage anymore is just, you know, legacy thinking. Besides which,
there could very easily be OTT sites that do offer that one-stop shopping, for
people who want something other than the few choices their MVPD offers.
Neutrality is totally
relevant.
Neutrality means that other organizations, other than those who own the wire
connecting to your home, can sell TV content now.
Duh.
Oh, so now you get it? Here is how you reacted last time:
Neutrality is not relevant to this discussion;
You're thrashing about again, Craig.
Yes contracts can be rewritten. If the content owners WANT to eliminate the
geographic restrictions. Time will tell.
A glimmer of hope of understanding from Craig? Time *is telling*. Once again,
even the old MVPD stalwart ESPN has eliminated geographic restrictions. So has
HBO. And plenty of others either have or are about to, like the other movie
channels.
In the absence of such a rule, Dish was able to obtain the necessary rights
to
create Sling.
No, Craig. What you should have said is, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE of such a (VMVPD)
rule, Dish was perfectly capable of getting the rights to deliver ESPN and
other previously walled-in content, WITHOUT geographic restrictions, and
WITHOUT needing to pay these channels the same welfare checks they get on the
legacy model. And without having to whine about some new FCC designation
"VMVPD."
As much as you twist your words and misunderstand the technology involved here,
what I said above is simple fact.
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: