[opendtv] Re: Painful explanation of TVE
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 03:04:41 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
If you were right, there would have been no need for the STB order
or the MVPD NPRM.
Bingo (assuming you mean VMVPD and this new STB order). Exactly what I said
many times.
No you simply demagogued the Commissioner, claiming he knew not
what he was talking about.
Sorry, Craig, but I explained exactly what didn't track. I guess I'm not as
keen on vague, generic, broad brush, anti-regulation rhetoric as you are.
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 easily resolved. The legacy STB is no solution, since people want access
from more places than just home. The borrowed credentials problem can be solved
several ways. For instance, allowing only one user at a time, with that set of
credentials. It can also be solved, more cumbersomely, by listing the hardware
addresses of devices from the subscriber household, and allowing just those. It
can be solved with proper encryption/authentication certificates. O'Rielly
correctly stated that STBs were a thing of the past. He should have stayed on
message.
Your opinion again Bert. I was there and can back up everything I
have said.
It's like this, Craig. You went to the FCC with some thoughts, which you have
expressed on very many occasions. The FCC dismissed some of what you told them
they should do. They did remove Table 3, but they didn't go far enough,
according to you, on removing other standards. Your reaction to this was that
the FCC must have been listening to "special interests." Why else would they
ignore all your great ideas, right? Hey, maybe the "special interests" had some
pretty good ideas too!
Fact is, what the ATSC and the FCC did was eminently reasonable, for what is,
after all, a one-way broadcast medium. Including the ATSC retaining Table 3.
Where were you?
I was following this very closely, Craig. If I had seen that the ATSC and/or
FCC had ignored establishing standards all the way up, I would have said, these
guys are clueless. This will never work. Which is why, when you revert to that
story, I always react as I just did this time. If you want to express how bad
"special interests" are, then use a good example.
You now have at least three options for MVPD service, but as you
often state, there is no competition.
Three is under the most ideal conditions, plus DBS does not provide broadband.
So in fact, often one choice only for legacy MVPD service, and for wired
broadband, most often, one choice only. That's not competition.
This is clearly by design, as I have pointed out.
Hardly "by design." Unless you mean that "by design," people refuse to have a
dozen companies digging up neighborhoods to lay cable. "By design" sounds like
next thing, you'll warning us about those black helicopters, Craig. Come now.
Yes, possibly wireless broadband will provide adequate competition in broadband
access. So far, it's not good enough.
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.
It was indeed working fine, until the conflict of interest occurred with
streaming TV. And we do have laws to protect us from this. The one that applies
here is the neutrality mandate that was placed on telephone service, about 110
years ago initially. For exactly the same reason.
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: