[opendtv] Re: Migration to Internet-delivered TV
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 09:22:00 -0500
On Mar 3, 2015, at 10:16 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>
> Craig, by now I hope you realize that I don't just buy your arm-waved
> assertions.
You never have. That is why you are so useful. You help re-enforce the points I
try to make in these exchanges.
> Provide proof. As I explained to you already, as quickly as people would ever
> make the switch, the ISP nets accommodate these people. Using various
> techniques, which include placing mirrored servers (topologically) at the
> edges of their nets, as demand for different content requires.
It's obvious Bert. The amount of content consumed via OTT services (and TVE) is
still about 5% of all TV viewing. I posted articles about this recently. And
then there is the small matter of broadband penetration. According to the FCC,
in 2013, 8.3% of U.S. homes did not have access to broadband at 10 Mbps or
higher. A much larger percentage do not subscribe to a high speed broadband
service.
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-329160A1.pdf
You are correct that the ability of the Internet to deliver OTT video continues
to scale with demand. The problem with your argument is that it cannot grow to
handle the other 95% of video consumption overnight. And the traditional linear
streaming MVPDs are not dying anywhere near as fast as you keep telling us. The
report I posted this morning tells us the net loss for the past two years was
just 0.2% of approximately 95 million subscribers.
>
> If your cousin, who is a Comcast subscriber, comes to visit you, Craig, he
> can access his Comcast TVE bundle through your Cox broadband. So, that part
> is already in place.
Correct. I already addressed that. No problem if the number of non Cox
customers accessing TVE via Cox is small. It would become an issue if a large
percentage of Cox broadband subscribers could choose Comcast as their MVPD
provider - this would likely force Comcast to place an edge server at the Cox
headend.
>
>> You can repeat this until you are blue in the face. That
>> does not make it correct. We are not there yet.
>
> Hey Craig, is HDTV still a niche product?
Depends where you live. In many parts of the world yes. In the U.S. No, but
there are still many millions of U.S. Homes without HD.
> Can SFN towers simply be located around the Beltway? You need to inform
> yourself before being credible. The future is now, and as happened already,
> it's passing you by.
All the towers needed to build out the Broadcast LTE infrastructure already
exist. The nature of that deployment will vary in each market.
>
> Remember that the original Title II came from previous rules and regs, which
> required AT&T to allow the small competing local telephone companies to
> connect to the backbone. Nothing has changed in that regard. When walled-in
> and un-neutral cable TV companies morph into Internet and telephone service
> providers, they need to be neutral to the same extent as the telcos from that
> previous era. Same problem recurred, same solution has to be applied.
The issue is how the FCC will regulate the interconnections, and the rates. The
bright line rules say no fast lanes, no blocking. It remains to be seen how
this will play out.
>
> Again, whatever it takes, this happens. There are tons of businesses from all
> across the country, and the world, ALREADY operating over the Internet. TV
> content distribution is only unique if you make it that way in your own mind.
> Any issues with franchises and taxation get muddled through.
Yup. Governments already take in billions in revenues from franchise agreements
and taxes on telecommunication services, including cable and DBS. And there are
all kinds of laws that limit competition - the FCC is attempting to overturn
them in two states as part of the Net Neutrality order.
Nobody is denying that the Internet is a vital part of the new economy, or that
OTT delivery of TV content will not keep growing. But the transition from 5% of
all TV viewing to 100% (or even 80%) will take many years - at least another
decade if not longer.
>
> Not at all. They simply get into both businesses, Craig. They provide the
> Title II broadband service, and they can also provide the OTT TV content
> distribution service, over their own and others' pipes.
They are already in multiple businesses as I pointed out. But they cannot be
neutral when they sit at both sides of the table, as a content owner licensing
programming to MVPDs, and as a MVPD provider buying content from themselves and
other content owners.
>
> No different from anyone else doing business over the Internet. Aren't we
> still debating to what extent local taxes have to be applied to merchandise
> bought online? This will get resolved in time. No reason to think TV content
> should be any different.
In time this will all be worked out. I essentially agree with you, which is why
I stated that in the long term the taxes will apply to the ISP carriage, not
the content they carry. The sales tax ax issue is interesting, as it involves
selling physical goods in specific geographic locations. Thus when Amazon opens
its new fulfillment center in Florida, we will start paying sale tax on items
purchased from Amazon. Applying sale tax to services and virtual goods like TV
content could be an avenue the politicians will try.
> You are making it sound like Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc., don't exist yet.
> You are making it sound like there's some special reason why we need any sort
> of TVE interim period. I don't buy it, Craig. TVE attempts to retain the old
> limitations, when they are no longer necessary.
Nonsense. I subscribe to Netflix.
And I am not saying that TVE is an interim solution. It is the end game that
the content owners and MVPDs are moving toward as we migrate from linear
streaming networks delivered via DBS, cable or fiber, to IP delivery via the
Internet.
You think of MVPD services as limitations. Clearly they don't allow you free
access, but that is not a limitation. It's called a product.
And it is a product being purchased by 95 million U.S. homes.
It is absurd to think that MVPD bundles will go away, when in reality the
services you point to like Netflix and Hulu Plus are just SVOD bundles.
>> Sling IS a MVPD Bert.
>
> Not even close. For one thing, anyone with broadband can subscribe, just like
> they can to Netflix. Can you do that with the TVE from Comcast? Can you do
> that with TVE from TWC? So quit with the political tactics, Craig. Sling TV
> is just like a Netflix or Hulu, except that it carries ESPN.
We are not talking about Comcast Bert, we are talking about Sling.
I can subscribe to Sling to obtain - PLEASE PAY ATTENTION - Multiple Video
Programs Delivered for my viewing pleasure. I can also get MVPD bundles from
Cox, DirecTV and Dish.
Sling is NOT a SVOD service Bert, although it does provide some access to VOD
libraries via TVE. The core bundle being developed by Sling will have 20 live
streaming channels - you cannot get any of these from Netflix or Hulu - they
are VOD services.
> The FCC did not mandate a monopoly, Craig. When competition is viable, it
> always improves matters. When it's not viable, then regulations have to be
> imposed.
The Government created the monopolies Bert, and the FCC to manage them.
We paid dearly for telecommunications services for many decades. When Many Bell
was broken up the costs started to plunge.
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: