[opendtv] Re: MVPD Definition

  • From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:23:58 -0400

On Aug 22, 2015, at 6:47 PM, Albert Manfredi <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Doesn't matter. The point is that the FCC is pushing for this, and yet they
haven't seen the illogic about applying the now-irrelevant MVPD rules to
Internet sites.

Actually, Chairman Wheeler is pushing for this, AND the "illogical" changes to
the definition of a MVPD to include Services delivered via the Internet. At
least we have an NPRM to examine for the latter..

When content owners have to deal with a locally monopolistic gatekeeper, of a
medium that has no neutrality mandates, then MVPD rules make sense. When the
content owners can put their content on a guaranteed-to-be-neutral network,
sourcing that content from wherever makes sense (i.e. not depending on one
single gatekeeper head end), then the MVPD rules are unnecessary.

:-)

Kinda strange...

The Program Access Rules did not exist when the local cable monopolies had no
competition. The first application of the Program Access Rules in the 1992
Cable Act were targeted at vertically integrated cable systems that used
satellites to distribute the cable networks they had created to multiple head
ends. The rules were extended to promote competition from DBS and telco
overbuilds.

This should not take so much effort to get across, Craig. It's rather
obvious. Equally obvious is that the owners of the TV content are NOT
invoking any worthless VMVPD rules. They are setting up new distribution
models with no need for any new FCC regulations. This too should not require
so much effort to get across.

In a sense this is evidence that the marketplace can work, except that it does
not work in an even and non-discriminatory way. For example, Sony has not been
able to negotiate a deal for ESPN.

Name a single example of broadband access in which all of the Internet TV
content the broadband subscriber can receive is controlled by the headend of
the broadband PON or coax passively-split network. You cannot.

Why would I need to? This is totally irrelevant.

Therefore, since this is patently obvious, and Craig continues to pretend he
doesn't get it, I have to assume he has this hidden political agenda, which
he denies. No one can keep insisting on something so absurd, without a hidden
agenda.

Not sure what is patently obvious here. VMVPDs license content directly from
the content owners, not other MVPDs. How they get the bits from the content
owners may vary. For example, Dish Sling was easy to create as all of the
content was already being received at the Dish operations center in Colorado;
and it will be easy to provide local broadcast signals someday in the future,
as these signals are already being received at this operations center.

But Apple will have a tougher time providing local broadcast signals - most
likely they will place servers at every TV station to feed the ISPs in each
market.


Reality is that the one or two supposedly competing MVPDs do not compete.
That model, those technologies, don't allow meaningful competition. And with
broadband service in the equation, even less so (on the non-neutral part of
the pipe), because DBS is left out. Verizon FiOS is only available for 20% of
Verizon subscribers, meaning 20% may have two choices, instead of just one.
So give it up, Craig.

Tell this to those local cable monopolies that have lost almost half of their
subscribers.

When there is no distribution competition, the content owners have a lot more
leverage. They can force people to pay them welfare checks, for instance.
With distribution competition, that can't happen. People won't put up with
paying welfare checks (except Craig). So Craig, check out the publication
date of RFC 1889, and maybe then you'll understand why any rules made in 1992
are irrelevant to today.

So Netflix and Amazon are writing billion dollar welfare checks?

Obviously the content owners have leverage - they have exclusive content that
their distribution partners want. The Internet does not change this reality.

More absurdity. If they're so important, Craig, explain why the clear
majority of TV watching doesn't even these so-coveted "linear streams."

Bert. You are the guy claiming that sports enthusiasts are the problem. That
ESPN is the glue holding MVPD services together.

The mix of live TV and other ways to watch TV has been changing continuously
since the introduction of the VCR. As technology enables new forms of
distribution the landscape changes.

The fact that much of the content delivered via linear channels is
pre-produced, has been a major factor in the decline of live viewing; with time
shifting and VOD, it is expected that the percentage of the audience watching
the live streams would decline.

This does not change the reality that people will still watch live events,
sports and news, and some people will watch the premiers of pre produced
programs. It does not change the fact that a significant percentage of live
stream viewing occurs at restaurants and sports bars.

Makes no difference anymore. ESPN has agreed with Sling TV, an OTT site every
bit as much as Sony's, and as ESPN subscribers continue to decline, John
Skipper will make deals with these other OTT sites. He does not need to be
coerced. He'll do so because it's in his own interest. That is what
competition does. Instead, if there is no significant competition, then ESPN
and others can play a lot more hardball, as I've explained to you multiple
times.

Riiiiiiiight.

Regards
Craig


----------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 08-2015