[opendtv] Re: Spectrum is too valuable

From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 08:51:36 -0500

Regards
Craig

On Nov 13, 2015, at 9:58 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

You said no such thing, Craig. Look it up and quote where you think you said
that. The post is dated 10 Nov 2015 08:53. You simply said:

Here is a chart from a company that does high quality h.264
encoding for OTT streaming:

http://www.lighterra.com/papers/videoencodingh264/

The exact bitrates chosen are...

And you copied a long list. That's it. You got lost in the long series of
mostly irrelevant numbers, is the problem.

The sentence immediately after the chart read:

These rates are aggressive, and probably do not reflect high action content,
as frame rates are not mentioned.

More crap from Bert ( most deleted):

So once again, Craig tries to wing it, fails, and then tries to weasel out.
To achieve the 10 Gb/s PON, those points 1 and 2 must apply, as the standard
indicates. There is no arguing that, Craig. You might have argued that going
to 1.8 GHz would perhaps require new cabling in some cases, but that would
have been a pure guess.

I never said a thing about reaching 10 Gbps because that phase of deployment is
still years away. I ran the numbers for a 1 GHz HFC plant because that is what
will happen over at least the next two years, if not longer.

In a follow-up post debunking your two points, I wrote specifically about the
challenges of upgrading to a 1.788 GHz plant. Cabling is a huge challenge both
in terms of external emissions and the level of noise required to reach the 10
GHz theoretical limit for DOCSIS 3.1.

To be fair, I misinterpreted the point about no MPEG-2TS on the PON. I thought
you were telling us that DOCSIS 3.1 required the full bandwidth of the PON; I
now understand you were talking about reaching the theoretical 10 Gbps
throughput.

As I was NOT talking about the theoretical end game, but rather real world
deployment in existing HFC systems, I missed that you were once again changing
the subject to suit your argument. Fortunately Ron came back with the slide
deck that builds on the analysis I was making.

I wrote:

What MVPD net?

The MVPD network, Craig. The passive, previously all-coax, now HFC plant's
head end, or the DBS broadcast. Only the MVPD decides what goes into those
nets, Craig. Do you understand how this stuff even works?

There is no MVPD network Bert. You just invented the term. If you insist on
creating language, at least do it properly. It would have been correct to say
that there are MULTIPLE MVPD networks

To be exact, there are multiple companies using multiple technologies to
deliver MVPD services over infrastructures that they own as you outline above.
And it is not correct to call any of them gatekeepers, as no single company
controls consumer access to MVPD bundles - i.e. there is competition, and it is
increasing...

We now are seeing competition from Virtual MVPDs using a network they do not
own...the Internet.

So I would advise against using the term MVPD Network at all. The correct term
is MVPD, or Virtual MVPD if you insist on referring to the infrastructure
behind the service. Then again the FCC is working on a revision of their
definition at this very moment.

I'll repeat: CBS All Access is all their stuff. All CBS-owned original
content. Unlike, for instance, Netflix.

This is not true.

Before the Fin Syn rules were eliminated in 1995, broadcast networks were not
allowed to have a financial interest in prime time programming. After the
revocation of these rules there was massive consolidation and vertical
integration. The paper does an excellent job of explaining what happened:

http://www.ifta-online.org/sites/default/files/32.doc

The Emergence of a Vertically Integrated Oligopoly in Television
This paper examines the impact of three major policy changes in the early and
mid- 1990s on the production and distribution of video content, primarily
broadcast television programming in America: the repeal of the Financial
Interest / Syndication rules and the enactment of both the Cable Act of 1992
and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The paper also considers how the
production and distribution of movie programming for cable and theatrical
release were affected. It shows that these policy changes led to the formation
of a vertically integrated oligopoly in television entertainment and a dramatic
shrinkage of the role of independent producers of content. The policy changes
and resulting alterations in market structure and behavior were not limited to
the broadcast sector, however. They also affected the syndication market,
cable television and theatrical movies because prime time programming plays a
critical role in the overall video entertainment product space. If not
amended, these same policy changes could have a major impact upon the ability
of independents to offer product through the Internet and other developing
digital platforms, including the rapidly approaching digital multi-cast
channels.
Over the course of a decade, the content aired on prime time network
television, TV syndication, basic and pay cable channels, and theatrical movies
came to be dominated by a handful of vertically integrated entities. Dozens of
independent entities that produced video content were replaced by a handful of
firms that own major movie studios and television production units, hold
multiple broadcast licenses and own the dominant cable networks. The role of
independent producers has been squeezed across all distribution platforms.

Today the networks do produce a significant portion of their content, but not
all. And the studios owned b the conglomerates produce programming for other
networks and emerging Internet services like Netflix.

Here is a snapshot of the ownership situation in 2003:

So what exactly has happened since fin-syn was dismantled in the early 1990s,
and why is fin-syn under consideration once again? First, the Big Four networks
currently control, whether through in-house production or co-production, about
76% of primetime network television (Gardner and Ziffren 2003). Depending on
whose numbers are cited and how those numbers are calculated, the six major
networks control anywhere from 55% to 85% of their own line-ups, with CBS and
FOX controlling the most and NBC the least (McConnell 2003b; Mermigas 2002).
These numbers are essentially the reverse of a decade ago, when about 85% of
primetime network series were produced by companies unaffiliated with a network
(Fries and Hill 2002). Similarly, in weekly hours, independents now average 17
hours of prime time on the Big 4, down from 47.5 a decade ago (McConnell
2003b). Moving beyond network television, a recent Morgan Stanley study showed
that 85% of primetime television, whether network or cable, is controlled by
only five companies (Jessell 2003),5 and a Writers Guild of America survey
found that 70% of compensated writers in Hollywood are paid by only six
companies (Slocum 2002).6

Unfortunately I cannot find any current stats on program ownership, but no
broadcast network owns all of the shows they air.

I wrote:

It is not possible to stream programs from a service that
did not exist in 2005.

When did the congloms start streaming, Craig? Are you claiming that they
didn't start until 2010? Prove it!

It was no earlier than 2008, as I already pointed out. 2010 was when streaming
entire episodes of shows started to gain a significant number of viewers.

Regards
Craig

References:
- [opendtv] Re: Spectrum is too valuable
  - From: Manfredi, Albert E

[opendtv] Re: Spectrum is too valuable

Other related posts: