[opendtv] Re: MVPD Definition

From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 01:19:50 +0000

Craig Birkmaier wrote:

I said the the legislation only authorizes the FCC to regulate
linear streams.

Not true. The FCC regulates "channels." What those "channels" have carried,
during the time the legislation has been in effect, varies from "live," to
playback of recordings, to carousel playback, to recorded specifically for use
by individual subscribers. The OTA TV spectrum, specifically, is used for the
first three types of transmission only, naturally, because there isn't enough
OTA spectrum to accommodate exclusively an individual user. (That would require
cellular topology.)

Clearly the legislation says nothing about VOD or the use of
"channels" to deliver VOD services.

Nor does the legislation say anything about "linear." Not a word. Please read
it, Craig. It mentions "channels," not the specifics of the information on
these "channels." The fact that VOD, in particular, was not technically
feasible from cable systems in the 1970s, may lead you to assume that the
intent was only to regulate linear streams. But that's just your assumption.

Example: I'll bet you a lot of money that if you use your cable system's DVR
service, to watch an ABC show time shifted, that your local ABC affiliate will
want his retrans consent agreement in place first. Proving that use of a VOD
channel has to follow the same rules as a linear channel.

Just saying that the current situation allows content owners to
pick winners and disadvantage others.

This does not matter, *when* you have open competition for distribution. The
govt *does not* mandate that every food producer *must* supply every
supermarket, Craig. The only time such regulations are necessary is when there
is inadequate competition among distributors, for reasons that the marketplace
cannot address. For example, because multiple cable companies cannot dig up the
same neighborhoods, each laying its own cable.

In cases like these, the content owner has too much leverage. Why? Obvious.
Because he knows that the MVPD is a monopoly, or quasi-monopoly, in that area,
so one or a gaggle of content owners can extort whatever they see fit. Think
back at pre-DBS 1992. The market distortion is caused by the MVPD, and the
content owners can take full advantage of it. Eventual arrival of DBS, and
later Verizon FiOS, did not change the picture dramatically. **Too few
competitors**. They just duplicate the others' business model. It's not so easy
to build out these physical plants.

So, the act of 1992 was meant to regulate this monopolistic business model,
initially so your neighborhood was not significantly disadvantaged, compared to
the one in the next township. With a *neutral* Internet, and web sites with
access to everyone, the problem vanishes. If one content owner or web site gets
too greedy, it becomes a lot more difficult to keep all the other content
owners and web sites in line.

What if Verizon decided to build a Fios System in your neighborhood
but could not get the most popular networks carried

This question proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, how Craig finds it difficult
to get past the old walled garden model.

The problem existed because the vertically integrated cable
monopolies created networks that could only be sold by their
affiliated systems.

Fine. And the neutral Internet has made that problem statement obsolete.
THEREFORE, Craig, that act of 1992 need not be applied to OTT sites. The whole
idea of VMVPD is totally anachronistic.

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.

Follow-Ups:
- [opendtv] Re: MVPD Definition
  - From: Craig Birkmaier

[opendtv] Re: MVPD Definition

Other related posts: