[opendtv] Re: Rules which applied to CATV systems in the past
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 08:35:22 -0400
On Jul 2, 2014, at 9:03 PM, "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>
> 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.
On its face, nothing.
But from a technical perspective very different.
With a portable TV you are receiving the broadcast. You can do exactly the same
on an iPAD with an ATSC add on receiver.
In order to watch the same program on an iPAD via WiFi or a cellular link, you
need to receive the broadcast, convert it into a compatible (h.264) stream,
then send the bits from the receiver to your iPad across a "public" Internet
connection.
I am sympathetic to your argument. I do not have a big problem with what Aereo
did, however, they WERE offering a presumably "for profit" service, which the
court considered to violate the content owners copyright.
My problem is at a fundamental level. IMHO, when a program is broadcast, the
content owner is being compensated for that performance. I do not believe that
ANY technology used to get THAT performance to a viewer should require an
additional payment to the copyright owner. The technology is helping the
broadcaster increase the audience for that performance, which in turn may
result in increase compensation based what the broadcaster charges for the ads
in that program.
Obviously the courts and Congress disagree. IMHO, where the line is crossed is
when that performance is recorded, then someone charges to watch that
recording.
This also extends to another realm of "public performances." We cannot put a
radio station on in our tasting room, or play music (we paid for) off of an
iPOD, without paying royalties on that performance. Likewise a sports bar must
pay royalties if they have TV screens showing sporting events, even if an event
is being received via an antenna via a FOTA broadcast.
My solution is simple - if you want to get paid for your content, don't
broadcast it in the clear. If you use the public spectrum, essentially for
free, to deliver ad supported content, that performance has been paid for.
>
>> 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.
We agree. The deal for the spectrum was simple - you can make money selling ads
in the content you are placing into the public commons. Maximizing your
audience is a benefit, not a reason to seek additional compensation.
>
> Uhh, no. The FCC specifically mentioned IP, because they knew by 2012 that
> CableCard was not the solution.
I said "ala cable card." All the FCC said is "if you encrypt" you must offer
the ability to decrypt the stuff that must be offered in the clear.
>
> 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.
Really two different issues. The compulsory license assured that the MVPD would
have the right to take a broadcast and deliver it via their private
infrastructure. Then Congress came back and decided the content owner can
charge for the compulsory license, which means it is no longer compulsory, but
compensated. Hence we see broadcasters withholding their content during retrans
consent "negotiations." In other legal circles this is called blackmail.
>
> 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.
More than 98% of U.S. homes have access to two MVPD services; a significant
percentage have access to three service providers. There is no real price
competition.
I do not understand why you believe adding another player to this oligopoly
will result in meaningful competition. I base this on the assumption that the
licenses that a new virtual MVPD would need, would require them to protect "the
bundle."
It is the bundle that is propping up the MVPD business model. The content
owners DO NOT want competition - the bundle is helping them make a bundle, and
protecting them from new competitors.
It all falls apart with ala carte, which would create real competition across
ALL MVPD services.
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: