[opendtv] Re: Rules which applied to CATV systems in the past
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 01:03:57 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
>> So here's a bit of a cheap shot. If I buy a portable TV, do the
>> broadcasters need to know? Should I be given some sort of permission
>> to use their signal outside the home?
> The shot also misses the target.
>
> The issue us not the home, but the private performance. It really
> does not matter where the TV is if you are watching it
What's less "private" about watching broadcast TV, while on the move, on your
iPad, vs watching it over some ATSC portable TV set? I mean, in terms of this
being "private." Don't forget that Aereo is UNICASTING its streams to
individual subscribers only.
> So you hook a Slingbox up to Bert's antenna and stream the broadcasts
> to your house.
>
> Is this legal?
I already asked a similar question. If I run a coax, split from my antenna, the
neighbor's house, is that legal? It does seem astonishing to me when
broadcasters favor making reception of their signal more difficult for people.
In ad-supported FOTA TV, the only thing that SHOULD matter is to maximize the
audience in your market, and beyond it (as long as you're not offending the
next broadcaster over). Not to find arcane excuses for making the signal
unavailable.
> Not relevant. The MVPD owns the wire (or satellite) that delivers the
> bits. The FCC is simply saying that the MVPD must provide (or allow you)
> to use a device that decrypts the content, ala cable card.
Uhh, no. The FCC specifically mentioned IP, because they knew by 2012 that
CableCard was not the solution. And it is at least as relevant as the DISH
hopper scheme. You will note that three of the justices did not buy this
"public performance" excuse, because they are well aware that what goes over
the Internet is not necessarily a "public performance" at all. In these
examples, it is destined to a user, over a device, rather than be a service for
any and all comers (like a public web site might be, or like any example where
the "performance" is displayed in an auditorium). The only "public performance"
is what the broadcasters in that market transmit.
> There are two problems with this analysis:
>
> 1. The virtual cable service relies upon the infrastructure provided by
> your ISP. So the consumer will pay two services to duplicate what one
> is providing today.
If the consumer can add, he will be able to decide which option is best for him.
> 2. To date companies that are covered by the compulsory license do not
> compete on price, nor do they offer ala carte programming - you must buy
> the bundle.
I thought the piece was very good about explaining how the FCC giveth and then
taketh away, with this "compulsory license" business. Compulsory license was
initially meant to guarantee carriage of the FOTA channels on MVPDs, but then
it led to retransmission consent. So that's why I didn't use that angle.
Your points about relative costs are really irrelevant, Craig. If you allow
virtual MVPDs, the most obvious result is that the much greater competition
will force down the prices. Reason being, as I already explained, you have
local competition between any number of these. As opposed to the current local
monopolies.
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: