[opendtv] Re: Painful explanation of TVE
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 02:13:01 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
The entire country is suffering from "legacy thinking" Bert. The
regulators do not view "change" from your perspective. They view
it as an opportunity to create new regulations.
Or maybe the truth is, Craig sees everything as an opportunity to very
copiously (and repetitively) air his libertarian political views. I think the
simple explanation is usually the correct one. From reading the FCC blogs,
there are enough internal inconsistencies to suspect that legacy thinking is
the problem. An inability to grasp that once they, the FCC, have mandated a
neutral Internet, the rest of it falls in place. VMVPDs, non-standard STBs, the
need to fuss over QAM "channels," become irrelevant.
Obviously the answer is that they are beholden to special
interests and guided by their K Street lawyers. With respect to
the FCC, I saw this first hand and "played the game," with the
development of the U.S. DTV standard.
Not this old saw again. In my view, the FCC was possibly NOT informed
completely or correctly, but then again, neither were you, Craig. Some of your
assertions, as you reported them, were flat wrong. One wonders why you continue
to fall into this same trap. At best, it was a case of the blind leading the
blind?
This surcharge is the result of retransmission consent, which
was enabled in the 1992 Cable (re-regulation ) Act. That act
also included the loophole that allowed cable rates to keep
rising,
Craig calling for more regulation? It's certainly true that when there is no
practical competition possible, regulation is needed. It is the lack of MVPD
competition in local communities that creates these market distortions. The
congloms are merely exploiting that lack of competition, **on the MVPD media**.
Over other media, such as OTA and on the Internet, guess what? They don't! Why
can't you move on, beginning from this point?
So it looks like Bert is stuck between a rock and a hard place.
On one hand he tells us that regulation is no longer needed
because of the Internet. Then he tells us that regulation of
the Internet is required in order to ensure Network Neutrality.
All this proves is that Craig is more interested in copious political
demagoguery than understanding the point, and moving on to topics he hasn't
already beaten to death.
Net neutrality is the essential component. As long as the infrastructure itself
is inadequately competitive, neutrality has to be regulated. What is carried
over the neutral 2-way pipe is another matter. Competition there can and does
thrive.
O'Reilly is warning us what his peers are contemplating...
It always helps when the warnings come with logical and correct arguments,
Craig. If they instead include internal inconsistencies, such as we don't need
STBs and yet we do need proprietary STBs for security, that's when arguments
lose their punch. I explained this in detail.
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: