[opendtv] Re: Migration to Internet-delivered TV
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:31:26 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> 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.
Think again, Craig. First off, and I posted another article about this
recently, as of now, between 90 and 95 percent of fixed connections are at or
above 1 Mb/s, where certainly 1.5 Mb/s is adequate for TV streams, and 87
percent of the population in the US was connected as of a year ago. So, the
last mile part is not much of an issue, except for those way out in the
boonies, who could use satellite broadband, even if ping times are long.
http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/0086/akamai-reports-on-k-internet-readiness/273392
http://www.internetworldstats.com/am/us.htm
Secondly, check out the graph in Figure 4 of the first article. This
increasingly steep rise in mobile data usage is being handled as the need
arises, Craig. No one is waiting around for "the infrastructure" to be get past
some imaginary threshold, as you are doing. And that's mobile, a bigger problem
than fixed service.
Third, I don't buy your 5 percent. Take a look at this survey, from 5 year ago
now, especially wrt the under 25 demographic:
http://mashable.com/2010/04/12/tv-online/
It says "most" of their TV viewing, way back then, was Internet for 8 percent
of people, and 23 percent of young folk. And, way back 5 years ago, 51 percent
of people watched "some" Internet TV, while 54 percent of the younger
demographic did. So all of this shows you that the demand is being met as it
arises. Only you are sitting back waiting, Craig. If you have the broadband
connection, or even 1.5 Mb/s, there's no waiting involved, Craig. Go ahead and
begin streaming tonight.
> According to the FCC, in 2013, 8.3% of U.S. homes did not have
> access to broadband at 10 Mbps or higher.
I watch 100 percent of my prime time TV from the Internet, and *I* don't have
10 Mb/s or higher, Craig. So that's quite irrelevant. You're fishing here.
> The problem with your argument is that it cannot grow to handle
> the other 95% of video consumption overnight.
That's a specious argument, Craig. The 95 percent figure is wrong, and nothing
can happen overnight, in this regard. Look at the very steep rise in the graph
in that first article, to understand what matters here. Besides which, anyone
now connected to a cable system, who isn't connected to broadband, CAN be
connected to broadband "overnight." Rural locations can use satellite
broadband, as much as they would use DBS now. So you're overstating the
problem. The shift to online viewing can happen as fast as people decide to use
online TV, and it can also be hurried up by the MVPDs themselves, if they chose
to do so. No one is waiting for "the infrastructure" to do anything special,
Craig. The speed is only slowed by the luddites, not by "the infrastructure."
Not anymore.
> 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.
A problem that has been solved time and time again, for any number of web
services, Craig. Any problem that has been solved many times CANNOT be
considered a show stopper. If the MVPDs do what Dish did with Sling TV, they
could gracefully morph into OTT sites, competing directly against each other,
starting tomorrow morning.
>> Hey Craig, is HDTV still a niche product?
>
> Depends where you live.
No, Craig. It depends on nothing. It was simply a false statement. The only
point here is that there has not been a **single** example of you obstinately
digging in, on any of many many topics, in the past equally many years,
including very recently, where you ended up being correct. Not a single one. I
can list multiple examples, if you insist. So, you'd think you would have
learned by now, eh? It just takes forever to make the most obvious points to
you, Craig. Years, in many cases. Astonishing, really, not to mention
aggravating.
> The issue is how the FCC will regulate the interconnections,
> and the rates.
Does the FCC regulate your telephone rates? Nope (except in prisons). Does the
FCC regulate cable TV rates? No again:
----------------------------------
http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cablerates.pdf
Your local franchising authority - the city, county or other governmental
organization authorized by your state to regulate cable television service -
legally may (but is not required to) regulate the rate your cable TV provider
can charge for "basic" cable service. The rates you pay for other cable
programming and services, such as expanded cable channel packages, premium
movie channels and pay-per-view sports events, are set by your cable TV
provider.
----------------------------------
So, why invent problems that don't exist? We have had demonstrated to us,
already, that the fox cannot be trusted to guard the henhouse. Therefore, the
FCC had to step in to preserve net neutrality.
> 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.
I can't even make sense of that. If Cox wanted to become an OTT site, as well
as providing broadband service, they can do both jobs. They can provide a
neutral broadband service, and they can stream TV content to subscribers on
their own and on other companies' physical networks. Why waste time worrying
about "neutrality" when dealing with TV content owners, to get the rights to
stream content? I mean, are you finding excuses to practice your typing skills
or something?
> You think of MVPD services as limitations.
Do you really not understand this yet? Is this another example of having to
take years to get a simple point across? The MVPDs have geographic restrictions
in who they can serve. Even DBS has these. TVE simply carries these artificial,
irrelevant geographic restrictions into their Internet streaming offerings. Is
it possible you still don't understand such an obvious point, Craig?
> I can subscribe to Sling to obtain - PLEASE PAY ATTENTION -
> Multiple Video Programs Delivered for my viewing pleasure.
And is it possible you can't get past this point either, Craig? Let's see, "I
can subscribe to Hulu Plus to obtain - PLEASE PAY ATTENTION - Multiple Video
Programs Delivered for my viewing pleasure." Gee, that makes Hulu an MVPD! And
Netflix. And Amazon. So, Craig, clearly you're off track on this too.
Your MVPD is a monopoly within geographic restrictions, or close to. And priced
to be so. Sling TV is not. Hulu is not. Amazon is not. Sling TV is in every
possible respect analogous to any other SVOD site, Craig, and unlike MVPDs and
their TVE service.
> The Government created the monopolies Bert, and the FCC to
> manage them.
What "monopolies" did the government create, Craig? Be specific. Did "the
government" create MVPDs, Craig?
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: