[opendtv] Re: Painful explanation of TVE
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: OpenDTV Mail List <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 13:43:34 -0500
On Mar 8, 2016, at 12:48 PM, Albert Manfredi <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I wrote this that I will agree is wrong:
"The number of TVE programs the MVPD has negotiated the rights to transmit
over IP, are not identical. "
(It was late.)
The correct way to say it is that user access to a given TVE program is
authenticated based on his MVPD subscription. This means that by extension, a
user's TVE choices are based on his home MVPD costs, bundles, tiers, etc.
Yes, progress. Thanks for conceding this point.
It's basically a matrix, Craig. For any given TVE program, a user is
authenticated based on the MVPD he belongs to and whether the user is
subscribed to the bundle/tier that includes that program, in his home MVPD.
Therefore, try as you might to deny it, TVE for your neighborhood will not be
identical to TVE from another neighborhood.
This “may” be true. I already qualified regional sports networks, as they are
geographical. And Inoted skinny (Dish Sling) and incomplete (Sony) bundles.
But most of the TVE Apps are for the broadcast networks that every land based
MVPD is required to include, and the popular networks in the extended basic
bundles. The DBS services are allowed to sell local stations as an additional
tier.
There may be a system here or there that is different, but extended basic is
fairly consistent across the nation. Remember, the content congloms force the
MVPDs to buy their bundle of channels - they do not allow them to buy only the
most popular channels as Apple and others are learning.
What may be different is add on channels, such as some sports networks, and
some foreign language networks. And obviously, the premium channels like HBO
and Showtime are separate subscriptions, although they are often included for a
promotional period for new subscribers.
No charge? So, you're saying TVE is free for anyone to watch? Great.
DOn’t go there again. You just admitted above that you must pay for a channel
to have access to the companion TVE channel.
I say again, you pay for access, or there wouldn't be any authentication
issue involved. And, we have seen, not every program available for TVE is
capable of being viewed from subscribers of every MVPD. Which is another
MVPD-related limitation.
So yes, it is obvious people are paying for access. But the whole business
model is based on enhancing the underlying content delivered via the “umbilical
service” with anywhere anytime access. And as the report you linked to later
clearly stated, this is part of the industry migration strategy to IP streams
and Internet access.
What is truly amazing is that it looks like you did not even read the Wiki
article. You would have found all kinds of detail that supports your
position.
Which is why I asked you to quote the differences.
There really were no significant differences. But there were a few paragraphs
about pushback on this business model that parallel your positions. And as I
stated my most recent response about the report you liked to, there are some
very interesting technology linkages, especially to facilitate local commercial
insertion, that I was not aware of.
As for "last ditch," I believe you are trying to support your belief that
the
Internet will make live linear TV channels unnecessary, and that MVPD
bundles
will disappear.
No, Craig. You are fixated on your old-fashioned viewing habits, and seem
unable to think beyond.
I stand by what I said.
Last ditch meaning that there is no logical, no technical, no sensible
reason, why in order to access TVE, you must authenticate based on being tied
to a specific infrastructure, with its specific neighborhood boundaries.
And as I pointed out, there are multiple MVPD services that are not
geographically constrained by franchise agreements.
Last ditch means, the final hurrah for artificially retaining a constraint
that only made sense 40 years ago. For some odd reason, I'm still having to
repeat something that should be obvious.
The franchise agreement are not going away Bert. They are growing stronger
because of the ability to offer multiple services over the pipes that at one
time were limited to TV. I do not know whether these existing franchise
agreements prevent a company from moving into an adjacent territory to offer
broadband, telephony and home security. But I’m willing to bet, as Google has
learned, that they will need a franchise agreement to access these new areas…
unless they can do it without physically having a presence, as is the case for
the DBS services.
Franchise agreements involve messy details like pole attachment, digging up
streets, etc.
Finally, it is clear that the FCC is actively working to preserve the
monopoly
structure of the TV industry.
I doubt very much that this is their intent. The FCC is, more simply, steeped
in legacy thinking. This comes through very loud and clear in their fussing
over this VMVPD idea and the third party STB idea.
The statement from the Republican Commissioner clearly states his opinion that
his colleagues want more regulatory control over industries they do not
currently regulate.
It was even loud and clear when O'Rielly expressed his disagreement on the
STB concept, not taking it to its logical conclusion, and contradicting
himself when worrying about security issues.
I think O’reilly was crystal clear about this concern in this paragraph from
his statement:
Just as with a 3D movie you need to look through both the red and blue sides of
the glasses to see the whole picture, to make any sense of this item it must be
viewed together with its other half, the Commission's proposal to reclassify
OTTs as MVPDs. If both of these NPRMs are followed to their logical
conclusions, an entire class of innovators who bear no similarities to MVPDs,
except that they also offer video, will be redefined as MVPDs and subsumed into
Title VI. Meanwhile, all MVPDs, whether existing or newly minted, will be
forced to provide all of their content to each other under an FCC mandated
scheme. And providing the "three flows" to all comers will be only the
beginning of the new regulatory burdens on OTTs captured by Title VI. Who wins?
Why, the FCC, of course.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts: