# An FCC rule change could put internet TV on a level playing field with cable



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

*An FCC rule change could put internet TV on a level playing field with cable*

(engadget.com) - Right now internet services don't always have the opportunity to show the same content as traditional TV, but the FCC might be about to change that. Chairman Tom Wheeler described in his blog post "Tech Transitions, Video, and the Future" the "first step" to open cable programs and local TV to internet services, by giving them the same classification that cable and satellite providers have. That wouldn't apply to Netflix or Amazon (as they currently exist), but anyone streaming live TV channels over the internet -- like Sony, Verizon and Dish are planning, Intel tried before selling to Verizon, and Apple's TV project has been rumored to include -- would be covered....

Full Story Here


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I'm not sure what this article really says. It's very vague... but even at that... there's nothing that I'm aware of that is stopping anyone from streaming a channel via the Internet today.

CBS is doing it... HBO is doing it... others are thinking about doing it... lots of free and subscription offerings out there for streaming over the internet... and I could even put up my own Web site and stream my own video if I wanted! I don't have to launch a satellite or invest in more than the server-side infrastructure... so if I can pay for very high-speed broadband and the servers and create the content, I could start my own channel and charge people to subscribe to the video today.

So what new FCC "rule" would change that?


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

From the FCC chairman's blog (linked in the article):

"In Title VI of the Communications Act, Congress created rules to ensure that cable companies that own video content can't raise artificial barriers to competition by refusing to let their video competitors have access to the programming they own. That worked for satellite providers, and also helped telephone companies entering the video business. I believe it makes just as much sense - and will have just as positive a consumer benefit - for an OTT.

Such benefits follow from innovation. Taking advantage of this rule, new OTTs may offer smaller or specialized packages of video programming, so consumers will be able to mix-and-match to suit their tastes. Aereo recently visited the Commission to make exactly this point - that updating the definition of an MVPD will provide consumers with new choices. And perhaps consumers will not be forced to pay for channels they never watch."

In another paragraph:

"A key component of rules that spur competition is assuring the FCC's rules are technology-neutral. That's why the definition of an MVPD (multichannel video programming distributor) should turn on the services that a provider offers, not on how those services reach viewers. Twenty-first century consumers shouldn't be shackled to rules that only recognize 20th century technology."

My take on this is he wants to eliminate different rules for different types of content providers, where currently many of those rules are based on the provider's technology.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Athlon646464 said:


> "A key component of rules that spur competition is assuring the FCC's rules are technology-neutral. That's why the definition of an MVPD (multichannel video programming distributor) should turn on the services that a provider offers, not on how those services reach viewers. Twenty-first century consumers shouldn't be shackled to rules that only recognize 20th century technology."
> 
> My take on this is he wants to eliminate different rules for different types of content providers, where currently many of those rules are based on the provider's technology.


I like some leveling of the playing field, but there still needs to be some respect for the differences between service delivery. Forcing the new entrants to follow rules that apply to cable and/or satellite is not all bad. It gives a company like Aereo someplace to begin. If a company wants to offer MVPD type services then they can - so long as they follow MVPD type rules.

The question (unless the playing field is 100% leveled) would be would an Aereo type of company that wished to provide primarily local channels be held to the cable standard of being able to pick and choose which locals they offer carriage to until their quota of channels is met ... or would they be held to satellite's standard of "carry one, carry all" (but limited by strict market boundries).


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

It looks to me like all technologies would have the same rules, if the current chairman had his way. That would be a sea change as you (*James Long*) point out. Lobbyists will have something to say about that I suppose. It will be interesting to see if he gets his way.

These are exciting times. New delivery systems are evolving faster than 'laws' and 'rules' can be enacted/imposed. Having the same rules for all technologies would allow the most cost effective tech to win my business. My choice in the end may not be the best solution for everyone, but at least I would have choice, and more technologies would be able to compete fairly for my content delivery system.

If a current technology goes away because a new one takes their subs, well, that's happened before. I don't remember the last time I saw a buggy whip factory for example.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I have faith that given a choice between two sets of rules for MVPD, Congress would choose the worst rules. 


The "over the top" nature of the new providers is key ... As it stands, satellite and cable providers (and others such as UVERSE/FIOS) provide their own bandwidth along with the content. The "streamed via another service" portion of their service is minor - but growing. The primary delivery is over their own private network.

OTT providers don't have a network ... they rely on bandwidth purchased separately. In the case of cable and fiber internet, that bandwidth is purchased from a company that provides competitive video services.

So lets say DISH wants to start an OTT company (they do!). They want to sell their service to anyone who wants it, including Comcast and UVerse customers. Comcast may not want DISH to deliver a competitive video service over the Comcast system ... so they could refuse to sell Comcast cable channels to DISH's OTT company. Currently the OTT company is not protected in the same way DISH satellite is protected from companies that own systems and content.

Treating an OTT provider like a MVPD forces companies that own delivery systems and channels to negotiate fairly with the OTT.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

Agreed. This article and associated FCC chairman blog gets right to the root of everything. This will be fun to watch. (No pun intended. :grin: )


----------



## tommiet (Dec 29, 2005)

My hope is for ala carte coming back for a reasonable price. Like Satellite C band was years ago. Let me build my own packages and not pay for overpriced channels.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

CBS, one station, at $6 a month. Do you consider that reasonable? It only is if you want all their old shows too... Otherwise I personally don't think it is considering you can get it over the air for free...

Strait a la cart will never be cheaper overall to what you get today... Smaller packages, yes maybe...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Perhaps a la carte per content provider, such as all the Viacom channels in one package separate from all the Turner channels in one package separate from all the ABC/ESPN/Disney channels in one package.

The current scheme is content providers selling channels to as many people as possible through MVPDs that bundle in tiers - paying content providers for 80-100 million "subscribers" even though many don't want the channels. The further content providers get away from the current distribution schemes the more they will need to charge more per subscriber to compensate for those who choose not to pay for what they are not watching. Or choose to do without.

In other words, if $6 OTT CBS content packages cut into what CBS collects via MVPDs don't expect the price to stay $6. The same goes for other content providers who go OTT on their own.


----------

