[opendtv] Re: MVPD Definition

  • From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 07:53:40 -0400

On Aug 24, 2015, at 8:48 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

You're welcome, but you apparently did not read it. You were the one who
claimed you were "confident" that "linear streams" were mentioned, but I knew
full well that they are not.

I don't think I said linear streams were mentioned, but if I did my apologies.
I said the the legislation only authorizes the FCC to regulate linear streams.
It is clear that the legislation was created to regulate the lineR programming
networks developed by the cable industry, and broadcast stations - both are
"live" linear services, not VOD.

I explained this many times already to you, Craig. In 1992, TV VOD from the
passively-split broadcast net was not available, so there's no issue with
differentiating the uses these "channels" are put to. It is you who have
proclaimed that they must continue to imply "linear stream," just because
that was the only option then. Your definition of VMVPD, insisting only on
"linear streams," is guaranteed to lose value over the short term. Most
successful OTT sites won't bother trying to comply.

Thank you. Clearly the legislation says nothing about VOD or the use of
"channels" to deliver VOD services. It regulates lineR stream services.

I'm pretty sure that's false.

You would be wrong.
For example, do you think that Aereo could have stayed in business, if they
only offered their DVR service for TV broadcast networks, but not the "live"
stream?

Irrelevant. they did not have the rights to offer either - that's why the
courts shut them down. And networked DVRs are not VOD, just remote storage
under the control of the viewer.

How about, a DVR service that introduced at least 3 minutes of delay, to
sidestep the "linear stream" requirement? My bet is that the broadcast nets
and broadcasters would be just as upset.

Of course. We are talking about rights here.

Read the document, Craig. Must carry is certainly still in there.

Yes. Broadcasters were given a second option in this legislation -
retransmission consent. If the station has popular content, retrans consent can
be used to negotiate carriage with the MVPDs. If a station has a tiny niche
audience, it can elect must carry to gain MVPD carriage.

My point is that the act works to guarantee that the MVPD middlemen have
access to content, on an equitable basis, but it also works to guarantee that
local broadcasters have access to these MVPDs. So it addresses the
obligations of both sides, with the goal of serving the PUBLIC.

Correct. These were the two major points that I highlighted.

Are you a mouthpiece for Sony? Or Apple? Or old-tech MVPDs? The only people
who have any reason to support any "VMVPD" idea would be such mouthpieces,
Craig. This is why I have always wondered what motivates your arguments.
Always, for years.

Just saying that the current situation allows content owners to pick winners
and disadvantage others. This is one of the major reasons the 1992 Cable Act
authorized the FCC to create the program access rules.

What if Verizon decided to build a Fios System in your neighborhood but could
not get the most popular networks carried by the local cable monopoly? Would
they be able to compete?

The point is, the govt does not need to intrude in an open marketplace, where
competition is assured and the public good is served. As long as the govt
mandates neutral service of the still-monopolistic 2-way broadband pipe, it
has done its job.

This does not solve the problem. It gives the content owners all the leverage
to decide which services they want to succeed. They could even start their own
services and refuse to sell to competitors.

If Giant Food can't agree with Uncle Ben's to sell their rice, for whatever
reasons, you simply go to Safeway. The govt does not need to intrude in such
minutiae. The problem existed ONLY because people were tethered to just one
MVPD, with very often no other choice. That's how MVPDs are structured.
The problem existed because the vertically integrated cable monopolies created
networks that could only be sold by their affiliated systems.

It's bigger than that. The whole umbilical monopoly model is what makes MVPDs
anti-competitive. The fact that you have one gatekeeper for all the TV
content you could get. With OTT sites, that is starting to change, and there
is simply no need to re-create the old umbilical model online. Dish proved
it. They did not invoke any special privileges.

The one provider problem was addressed by the 1992 legislation. There are
multiple competitors today - the "unintended consequence" of the legislation is
that they broadcast network oligopoly used retrans consent to take control of
90% of the content offered by MVPD systems and forced the distribution
oligopoly to follow a monopolistic pricing model.


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