Tech Transitions, Video, and the Future
fcc.govThis is fantastic. Consumers have been showing for a long time now that they desire better access to cable tv content. Hopefully the cable companies don't abuse their power as ISPs to limit competition online.
While on the surface this seems positive, I am gravely concerned. When you change the rules to allow OTT transmissions it is possible that this could further solidify FCC control. Claimimg the imternet itself is public airwaves and that it has sole regulatory authority over the matter. Need to learn more than a simple blog post to have the information. Hopefully this is just cynicism, however the FCC has never been a friend. I will beleive it has changed when it allows broadband competition (actual infrastructure development) and unfettered access to the WWW.
This is just the commissioner starting a process to identify rules. This is the beginning of a long process to try and figure something out about OTT content.
"Specifically, I am asking the Commission to start a rulemaking proceeding in which we would modernize our interpretation of the term “multichannel video programming distributor” (MVPD) so that it is technology-neutral."
If you have opinions about what kinds of rules should be developed, then send them a comment.
I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "solidify FCC control." The Internet is of course a global network, but the FCC already has tremendous regulatory authority over the Internet in the USA. They don't exercise much of that authority, and that's largely what the network neutrality debate is about.
While I'm happy this may finally allow me to watch live sports over the Internet, it sucks that they're limiting it to "linear programming".
In the context of the internet it isn't clear what "linear programming" even means. The concept requires the notion of a channel and what is that for the internet, a URL?
That's an odd argument. First its a government term and second it's right in the article:
> So-called linear channels, which offer the viewer a prescheduled lineup of programs, have been the largely exclusive purview of over-the-air broadcasting, cable, and satellite TV.
People still do this. Isn't this a perfect description of if someone says that my Twitch stream will be showing me playing again between 4 and 5 PM?
I thought we had decided that adding "on the Internet" doesn't fundamentally change things. Why would it here?
Just because people want to watch what they want when doesn't mean the FCC should automatically force everyone to put all shows up on-demand on the Internet.
Without the snide I would have appreciated that clarification.
I think of this as a foot in the door. Once OTT MVPDs exist and have paying customers they may have leverage to incrementally negotiate better licensing.
Once OTT MVPDs exist and have paying customers they may have leverage to incrementally negotiate better licensing.
How and why? Viacom's not giving anyone "better" fees to get their programming and you're going to have to get the whole Viacom bundle as well so if you want MTV and Comedy Central you're going to need to license VH1 Classics as well.
Any cost savings you're going to get would be as an OTT MVPD is from infrastructure savings but even then why would an OTT provider severely undercut on pricing?
The real win here is accesiblity on new devices.
I was thinking more flexible licensing, like the ability to stream shows on demand, possibly without commercials.
If it's free I'll deal with the commercials. Gives you time to get up and stretch/use the restroom/ play with the dog/ etc.
Sounds more like the FCC wants to regulate the internet
While I was very pleasantly surprised as I read the letter, I had this fleeting thought as well. But although the FCC has been an occasional nuisance in the last 25 years, they naively seem to me to have been a generally good force in broadcast competition.
They already do to some extent. Hence the debate over network neutrality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v....