[opendtv] Re: Painful explanation of TVE
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:36:48 -0500
On Mar 9, 2016, at 9:13 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Or maybe the truth is, Craig sees everything as an opportunity to very
copiously (and repetitively) air his libertarian political views.
I am doing nothing more than millions of other Americans who are fed up with
the growth of government, especially at the Federal level. The fact remains the
regulations are impacting every aspect of our lives and causing small
businesses like those I work with, and the one I am trying to start untold
grief.
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.
Like my "beliefs," you are entitled to yours. But the record speaks otherwise.
If you were right, there would have been no need for the STB order or the MVPD
NPRM. And as I have clearly explained, there WAS no threat to network
neutrality, and there IS no need for the FCC's attempt to regulate it using the
"legacy thinking" of regulations created in the last century to create a telco
monopoly that endured for decades.
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?
Your opinion again Bert. I was there and can back up everything I have said.
Where were you?
No one was blind to what was happening. It was business as usual in the
Nation's Capitol.
Craig calling for more regulation?
Hardly. This is another example of politicians addressing a popular issue with
legislation ostensibly designed to address those concerns, while they were
actually helping out another special interest. This was a classic case study in
"the law of unintended consequences."
If you prefer, it was another attempt at government regulation of an industry
that utterly failed to address the issue it attempted to fix.
But that's giving the politicians too much credit. In this case we are talking
about giving more power to a government authorized oligopoly that is critical
to accomplishing their political goals.
It's certainly true that when there is no practical competition possible,
regulation is needed.
Did you learn this in business school? Oh wait, you're an engineer...
Last I looked, almost all so called "competitive" industries are suffering
under the burden of excessive regulation. The notion that no practical
competition can exist is a canard - especially as it relates to utilities. It
is to the benefit of governments at all levels to regulate. And it is to the
benefit of the entrenched leaders in competitive markets to turn to the
politicians to create regulations that protect them.
Hence the reality of paying off the politicians with campaign contributions,
and spending billions on lobbyists and the K-Street lawyers.
Competition has existed in TV entertainment for nearly FOUR decades. The level
of regulation over those decades has increased dramatically, while competition
has been reduced as a result.
You now have at least three options for MVPD service, but as you often state,
there is no competition. You claim that OTT services and the Internet eliminate
the need for regulation! Yet you have blasted connected TV devices because of
what you perceive as "collusion," when the marketplace is allowed to work. Then
you become a huge fan of these boxes when the FCC attempts to regulate them.
It is the lack of MVPD competition in local communities that creates these
market distortions.
This is clearly by design, as I have pointed out. Another example of how
governments have embraced the concept of "natural monopolies," to justify
regulation and to create perpetual revenue streams.
Yet these communities are also served by two DBS systems and now a VMVPD
service (2 in some communities) via the Internet. Yet you tell us no
competition exists.
I agree the market for MVPD service is distorted, but not for the reasons you
state. It is distorted by the ability of two oligopolies to sustain monopoly
business practices with full support from the governments and politicians that
reap the benefits.
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?
Do you have any clue how ridiculous that paragraph is?
The content owners are exploiting their oligopoly over ALL of these media.
The fact that I cannot access much of the popular content I want over the
Internet should tell you something. The fact that the content owners REFUSE to
license individual networks so that consumers could buy only the content they
want should tell you something.
The Internet is just another pipe Bert. And guess what? It is home to a number
of businesses that operate as defacto monopolies. Yet the politicians pick and
choose those they go after.
Amazon completely disrupted the publishing market by selling books and then
e-books below their cost - this is called "predatory pricing" or predatory
dumping" in anti-trust parlance. When the industry and Apple tried to
re-establish a competitive landscape, THEY were hauled up on anti-trust
charges.
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.
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.
And net neutrality was working without the FCC moving to regulate it. We have
plenty of laws that can be used to protect against abuses. And we have the
ability to apply pressure to bad actors through the marketplace.
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.
No you simply demagogued the Commissioner, claiming he knew not what he was
talking about. The issues he raised about security, preservation of
advertising, and the potential for theft of service are very real. The use of
"borrowed authentication credentials" to access TVE services is very real, and
this is happening with the Internet technologies you claim are the solution.
Your positions evolve to suit your arguments. To say the least they are
inconsistent.
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: