<<   <   Page 3 / 3
gconnery 1/29/2016 | 3:11:42 PM
Re: Thanks, but... Well, OTT is still a very small player compared to traditional video.  Certainly it is growing and reasonable people think they can already hear the death-knell for traditional video in the long run but we're talking very long term.  Like a generational change.  It is going to be a lot of years before most people aren't getting their media from a traditional video operator.

Today even with all the innovation in the OTT space, your typical cable/satellite STB still looks pretty much the same as it did 10 years ago.  A grid guide.  Maybe VOD in some limited cases (5 minute clips of year old Australian Open matches say for ESPN on Comcast to quote just one example).  The VOD content is organized very poorly by channels and doesn't work very well.  Really?  This is the best that can be done?

Imagine a world where TiVo, Apple, Google, Sony and others could innovate on the user interface.  You still pay Comcast or TW or DirecTV for your channels, but the content is served up via an interface from the STB you choose.  Something that doesn't cost too much.  Something you can throw out and buy and new one if something new and different comes out. 

Now, its perfectly reasonable to be skeptical of all of this.  CableCARD for example could have done all of this.  But it didn't.  The cable companies made sure it didn't.  They controlled the standards, the back-end configuration, the certification and made sure the thing was awful unless you got it bundled pre-configured into a STB from them.  This could EASILY happen again, especially with the FCC not specifying the standards.  And maybe even if they do.  We'll have to see. 
Stillgridlocked 1/29/2016 | 2:00:00 PM
Dead Issue The big issue is not the set top box - that should have been taken care of a decade ago.  Cable will just build in higher costs for any effort they have to put forth meeting a mandate or losing revenue.

Video will take care of itself. The oligarchy will fail as they nickle and dime customers.

The big issues are internet caps and quality of service.  I want to get all my video needs via the net and don't want that to be capped while Comcast etc rolls out uncapped OTT services.  

I also don't want to see buffering when I'm paying for a 100mbps connection.
marjsdad 1/29/2016 | 1:59:17 PM
FCC's Set-Top Plan So, Mari, in the case of satellite signals, would the "virtualized headend" be a software upgrade to the satellite receiver on the side of a customer's house? Certainly we don't mean an entirely new delivery protocol for satellite signals?
marjsdad 1/29/2016 | 1:50:13 PM
Mari's response to Carol's comment Mari says: "Their options are limited today because so much content is still locked up by the traditional SPs." Meanwhile, Wheeler has taken pains to point out that there will be no need to throw out existing programming contracts. If it's indeed "locked up," how can it be unlocked if no programming contracts are nullified?
msilbey 1/29/2016 | 1:48:52 PM
Re: FCC's Set-Top Plan You're right. Not just cable. Virtualized video headend idea applies to all service providers.
marjsdad 1/29/2016 | 1:43:52 PM
FCC's Set-Top Plan I'm confused. I thought a solution was supposed to apply to both cable and satellite providers. How does virtualizing a cable video headend apply to satellite service/signals?
msilbey 1/29/2016 | 12:50:57 PM
Re: Thanks, but... The problem is that not everybody wants to be an OTT service provider. It's difficult to be in the content acquiring business, and there are companies that would prefer just to innovate at the hardware and software interface level. Their options are limited today because so much content is still locked up by the traditional SPs.
cnwedit 1/29/2016 | 12:44:19 PM
Thanks, but... This really clarifies a lot for me. But I still have the feeling this ruling by the FCC is years too late and addresses a problem that OTT video plays have largely eliminated. Am I way off base here?
<<   <   Page 3 / 3
Sign In