[opendtv] Re: MVPD Definition

  • From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 15:01:35 -0400


On Aug 17, 2015, at 7:30 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



If what I said was "not true," then why are you contradicting yourself now?
Especially when the FCC itself asks, in the NPRM you quoted:

"We also seek comment on an alternative interpretation that would require a
programming distributor to have control over a transmission path to qualify
as an MVPD."

Because it is not true as I explained. The question above was raised as is the
tidal style of an FCC NPRM, because an affected industry is claiming that they
should be protected from the very competition that the NPRM seeks to enable. It
is not unusual for the FCC to ask for comments that run counter to what they
are proposing.

Once again you ignored the text from the NPRM that states what the FCC is
proposing. The fact that they are allowing everyone to comment on whether
facilities are required is a core issue. You can expect the companies that own
facilities to explain why facilities should be required, and that potential new
competitors will explain why this is a barrier to competition sought to protect
the incumbents.

So like I said, the definition of VMVPD is not set in concrete yet, by any
means, and ownership of the delivery pipe is still in play.

As I said, let's wait to see what the FCC decides. The introduction to the NPRM
makes it quite clear where the commission is leaning; there would be no need
for the NPRM if they wanted to maintain the status quo.

I think that the lawyers of the FCC, and the trade scribes, are now trying to
hang their hats on this requirement for "linear/live streams." Perhaps that's
because they think that the mention and definition of "channels," in the
current definition of MVPD, implies that these "channels" transmit linear
streams. So, let's hang onto that idea, they figure, and require the VMVPD to
carry linear streams.

Yes, linear streams from multiple content sources has been the basis of the
definition for decades. Thus OTT sites that only deliver content on demand,
like Netflix are not MVPDs, and sites that deliver linear streams from only one
source like CBS All Access are not MVPDs. So yes, linear streams will be an
essential service to be considered a (V)MVPD.

But that's bogus too. "Channel" applies EQUALLY to on demand content, when on
demand content is transmitted using the non-IP techniques the MVPDs have
offered, since 2001. These are, in fact, channel-switched services too. So
the requirement for "linear streams" is pretty silly. It makes no sense
technically, and even market-wise. We are living in a time when any service
that supplies only linear streams is going oh-so out of fashion.

Not bogus. You are stretching language again. Yes a cable system may tell a STB
to access a specific channel for an on demand program. But that's just the
mechanics behind the connection.

And MVPDs have been offering more than linear channels for a long time. With
TVE a MVPD subscriber gains access to live streams and large content libraries
that can be accessed via the Internet. I agree that just linear streams is no
longer going to cut it, lest the cord be cut.

Besides which, any OTT service, if intent on exploiting the new definition of
VMVPD, should have little trouble cobbling up some BS "linear streams," just
to meet the letter of the law. Assuming that's how this law is written. And
like I've said more than once, this would make the term VMVPD and OTT
completely interchangeable.

Whatever. OTT simply referees to ANY service that delivers video over the
Internet -
it is the top down catch-all. And I doubt that the FCC is going to expand the
definition of an MVPD to say a server that lets you access a bunch of webcams.

As I noted yesterday, this is evolutionary. IMHO, the purpose of the NPRM is to
create a new class of MVPDs that deliver their service over the Internet,
extend the program access rules to these new MVPDs, and likely require them to
offer your local broadcast stations, not a national network feed.

Ultimately, what is going to happen is that both new entrants in the market,
and the traditional MVPDs, are going to morph into OTT sites. With national
footprint and, by necessity, offering different services and bundles. Quite
unlike what the traditional MVPDs got away with.

I refer you back to the history I provided yesterday. The regulations
concerning MVPDs have evolved many times, as new competitors have been enabled.

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