[opendtv] Re: How to Watch the Oscars Online, and Why You Probably Can't

  • From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 01:53:59 +0000

Craig Birkmaier wrote:

> Yup. I am not saying I should be prevented from subscribing to the
> Comcast Xfinity TV Go app. That is between Comcast and the content
> owners that are licensing the content that Comcast hosts as part
> of the Xfinity service.

More likely, the obstacle is only between the MVPDs themselves. The content 
owners should have no problem licensing the content to anyone who will pay them 
what they ask, per subscriber. But the MVPDs don't like the extra competition. 
They objected loudly to Verizon FiOS, remember? Why would they not bitch even 
louder against totally open season like this?

> Let's skip forward a few years to the point in time where the
> facilities based linear streaming infrastructure of the local
> monopoly pipes is no longer needed.

> Can Bert and I at least agree that this will happen,

It already has happened, Craig, and I've stated this on **many** occasions. 
Else, TVE couldn't exist. Why are you asking this again? If there are 
bottlenecks created when the increased demand occurs, they can be resolved in 
relatively short order, on a case by case basis.

> This article also tells us how Netflix was transitioning the
> infrastructure to reach subscribers, by deploying its own CDN
> network, and deploying edge servers.

Exactly, and willing to pay for it. We already discussed this too! So again, 
these are fine adjustments, made on a case by case basis, much like deploying 
new cell towers as needed for cell phone service, on a case by case basis. If 
the companies that require a widely distributed set of servers agrees to fund 
these, as Netflix did, then that takes a big burden off the backs of the 
company that wires your house up. We have been over all of this very many 
times, Craig.

> So how does this relate to Bert's question about buying TV
> Everywhere service from Comcast.
>
> The simple answer is that Comcast would need to locate an
> edge server at my Cox head end if the traffic overwhelmed a
> peering interconnection service.

Hey Craig, Comcast ALREADY has to make its TVE available over Cox or other ISP 
nets, right? That's what TVE means. No matter where you are, you can get your 
home MVPD's TVE content. The *only* problem is that if your street address 
happens to be a Cox street address, you can only deal with Cox. A totally 
anachronistic and artificial added-on constraint.

> Unfortunately, the FCC has just injected itself into this
> thorny mess. We will now have a government regulator in
> the middle of all of these interconnection issues,

Explain this concern, please. The FCC is simply mandating that Cox, or Comcast 
or whoever, cannot block or throttle content being sent over the broadband 
slice of bandwidth you subscribe to. The competitive market place **DOES NOT 
WORK** in cases of physically mandatory local monopolies, or in cases of clear 
conflict of interest. This broadband service has aspects of BOTH: clear 
conflict of interest and almost total lack of credibly viable competition.

> History tells us that once they get their nose under the
> tent it won't take long for the government to regulate and tax it.

Yes, that is a definite threat. A non-neutral Internet, caused by broadband 
being the sole province now of cable TV companies, companies with a long 
history of non-neutral behavior, is an even more imminent threat.

> Does Amazon ship everything from one central warehouse Bert?

Thanks for making my point, Craig! Amazon has no problem with billing people 
from anywhere in the world, and similarly, Comcast TVE packages can be made 
available to anyone in the world (or certainly within the US). The fact that 
Amazon may have warehouses located in many places, and Comcast may have video 
servers distributed throughout the country, is totally irrelevant. You 
suggested that billing was a problem. I say bull.

> You can say whatever you want Bert. If you really believe
> this, then the Millennials must be pretty stupid. Instead
> of paying big buck for a fat MVPD bundle that sends money
> to ESPN, even if you don't want ESPN, you can spend $20
> for a slim bundle, and send $14 to other networks you don't
> watch.

Let me repeat this more slowly, then, Craig. Sling TV is for sports fans. 
Instead of paying a huge monthly fee primarily for watching ESPN, they can now 
get ESPN by paying $20. Surely, this is not difficult to grasp.

As to your other point about how nice it is to have a big fat bundle, DO NOT 
FORGET that you were the one who couldn't grasp that concept, back in the days 
when the unwalled Internet was still unable to offer MVPD monopolies any 
competition. Another example of your circular arguments. So once again, when 
the TV distribution medium is a natural monopoly and gatekeeper, a one-way 
passively split broadcast network, it makes total sense for them to want to 
rein in their administrative fees, and offer a small set of big bundles. With 
the two-way Internet, this approach BECOMES UNCOMPETITIVE!

> OK Mr. science, what is the number?

Already told you, more than once, so no, Craig. You have all the information 
you need, from that Ericsson paper. So now, to make the point stick, you need 
to do the math and get the answer yourself. And oh by the way, I also asked you 
whether those numbers pertain to a 30' high receive antenna placement, or 
whether they pertain to hand-held service. It's also in that paper. All things 
you should study, so the points will hopefully stick.

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