[opendtv] Re: MVPD Definition

  • From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 00:26:03 +0000

Craig Birkmaier wrote:

No, Craig, the definition is not at all as clear as you feel the
need to pretend.

First off, the MVPDs themselves disagree with your view. They
think being an MVPD depends on owning the facilities. Of COURSE
they need to support that point of view. Because a big part of
being an MVPD is that you have that local monopoly. Allowing
others access to your same customers, with that same walled-in
content, simply won't do. Bad enough OTT services exist.

Not true.

As usual, Craig argues against the obvious. Is it a wonder why I've always
disagreed with him? It's his habit! So, let's start with what the FCC
originally said:

http://www.dwt.com/FCC-Media-Bureau-Tries-to-Define-MVPD-for-New-Technologies-04-03-2012/

"In an interim ruling, the Bureau denied SkyAngel program access eligibility,
because its over-the-top Internet mechanism does not include 'channels' that
'include a transmission path' the way facilities-based service providers like
cable, satellite and telcos do."

And further down:

"The Media Bureau seeks to address some of these questions by analyzing
technical and legal definitions and considering policy implications. It asks
whether it would advance consumer choice to treat online and **other
non-facilities-based video distributors*** as MVPDs. It asks whether the
benefits would be outweighed by the burdens placed on program suppliers faced
with almost unlimited requests for access, or by unexpected obligations by
online providers to comply with MVPD rules like separating security in their
video devices (the "integration ban"), carrying certain content, and obtaining
retransmission consent from broadcasters. It asks whether the set of
non-facilities-based providers could be narrowed by requiring some contract or
affiliation with an ISP, or by limiting it to those who carry pre-scheduled
linear services. Then it worries whether it would lose its own authority as
MVPDs move increasingly to on-demand or cloud-based distribution."

So at this point, 2012, the **only** question is about owning the facilities,
owning those "channels." The existence of "linear" programming wasn't even
mentioned. And that's what the cable companies insisted on repeating back to
the FCC, then and since then:

-------------------------------
http://www.multichannel.com/news/policy/what-mvpd-exactly-cable-ops-weigh/263867

NCTA: "Under the statutory definition, MVPDs provide 'multiple channels of
video programming.' The language of the definition, its legislative history and
purpose, and the Commission's past decisions all support the Bureau's
interpretation that the term 'channels' includes a transmission path."

Comcast: "Congress did not and could not conceive of OVD services - which rely
on the customer to acquire and use a transmission path that is offered and
operated separately and apart from the OVD service - as MVPD services."

HIGH (STAKES) DEFINITION The following is the Cable Act and FCC rule language
on MVPDs and channels. The Media Bureau has signaled it plans to decide whether
these definitions from two decades ago still fit the video distribution
marketplace.

MVPD: "A person such as, but not limited to, a cable operator, a multichannel
multipoint distribution service, a direct-broadcast satellite service, or a
television receive-only satellite program distributor, who makes available for
purchase, by subscribers or customers, multiple channels of video programming."

Channel: "[A] portion of the electromagnetic frequency spectrum which is used
in a cable system and which is capable of delivering a television channel (as
television channel is defined by the Commission by regulation)."
-----------------------------

This is what I dug up on the spur of the moment, but there's more written that
explains this same definition. The MVPD is supposed to supply the "transmission
path," MVPDs claim. Craig feels obliged, for his own political motives, to deny
this.

Most importantly, not a single article I've read, and feel
free to search out yourself, has ever called Sling TV a
VMVPD.

Keep reading:

http://www.lek.com/sites/default/files/virtual-mvpds_mvpds_ott-tv_over-the-top-tv_over-the-top-tv-market-trends_ott-series-part2.pdf

Craig found one! Amazing! An article that is just as make-believe as his
arguments. And just like Craig, they never define VMVPD as opposed to OTT. In
spite of that, call it what you like, this is what they claim:

"But new virtual MVPD services such as Apple TV or Sling TV are potential
substitutes to traditional cable subscriptions. These services could contribute
to a drop in the share of households subscribing to traditional MVPDs from ~89%
currently to ~70% in 2019."

Since I'm not a mouthpiece for old-school MVPDs, I simply rewrite the first
part of that sentence as, "But new pay-OTT services ..." They say 70% by 2019.
A guess, obviously, but even they can't deny the trends. By calling unwalled
OTT services "VMVPD," instead of what they are, they can continue to pretend.

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. 08-2015