[mythtv-users] Network terminals, regulation, and regulation avoidance

[Brian Wood]

On Tuesday 15 September 2009 12:00:13 jedi wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:47:21PM -0400, Daniel Kristjansson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 18:17 -0400, John Drescher wrote:
> > > > What they need to do is to make a "Network Terminal" box.  This box
> > > > would sit on the outside of your house (like the phone company) and
> > > > connect to their network.  There would be a few connections off this
> > > > box.  One would be
>
> [deletia]
>
> > I'm not of the mind that the Cable companies should be regulated,
> > in fact I think municipalities should just make their monopolies
> > mostly irrelevant by planting fibers to the home and leasing them
> > to all comers at or below cost, much the way city streets are
> > handled. Then a number of information aggregators could compete
> > for my business, just like multiple sellers compete for my business
> > when I go buy my oranges and tomatoes via the city streets. But
> > I'm of a libertarian bent, regulation would be better than the
> > current state of affairs; if that is the only viable option,
> > I'd go with the EFF plan, no encryption allowed on "standard cable"*
>
>     My standard would be commercials.
>
>     If the channel has commercials then it can't be encrypted. This
> should also be the line that defines what can be freely retransmitted.
>
>     Content with commercials should be considered "non-pay" content
> and should be eligible for far less access control.

Then you get into "what is a commercial?" HBO, Showtime and the like run a LOT 
of non-program material, often just promos for their own stuff, would these 
promos be "commercials"? I think they are, they are something other than what 
I paid for and might want to watch. Essentially they are "unwanted material", 
that nobody wants to watch, and often they are trying to sell you something 
(like an upcoming PPV event), and isn't that the definition of 
a "commercial"?

I never understood why they run so many promos telling you how great their 
programming is, especially since you can't see such promos unless you already 
subscribe. Talk about preaching to the choir.

Back in the 80's, when United Cable in the Denver suburbs launched the Disney 
Channel, Disney shipped in tapes of some (supposedly) better-class movies 
that United was to run during the launch ("Tron" was one of them). The Disney 
rep explained "nobody would want to subscribe if they saw the usual crap we 
put on".  Finally, an honest rep.

>
> > and below (with "Network Terminals" to handle access control for
> > more basic levels of service), but allow box requirement for
> > premium content and allow encrypted outputs for super-premium
> > content (like say Pay-Per-View programs that cost more than $50.)
> >
> > * "Standard Cable" can be defined various ways, but a decent way
> > is to group all the lowest priced packages until you hit a threshold
> > of 80% of the subscriber base. That tier is "standard cable", any
> > more costly packages are premium. This prevents the companies
>
>      Use the classic way of doing this. If you don't have HBO and don't
> want any pay-per-view channels then you should not be required to use
> any sort of "box". Everything should be in the clear on the cable just
> like the "good old days".

I agree, that's the way it should be, but I doubt it ever will be so again.

In the old days there were a couple of "features" that the TV makers tried 
hard to sell: "Cable-Ready" and remote control (yes folks, remotes used to be 
an extra-cost option). Then the cable company would come along and tell the 
customer that he couldn't use either of these extra cost features. Of course 
the poor installer, who had to explain this, took the brunt of the customer's 
wrath.


-- 
Brian Wood
beww at beww.org