The End of OTT TV?

Discussion in 'Cord Cutters Club (Internet TV)' started by Jackonearth, May 15, 2018.

  1. Jackonearth

    Jackonearth Topic Starter SatelliteGuys Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2018
    Posts:
    446
    Likes Received:
    194
    Location:
    San Francisco, California
    Now that net neutrality is history, will OTT TV survive? The way I see it, all forms of ISPs what to put an end to OTT TV. Cable companies want to retain or even gain TV customers, so they'll be the first to sabotage OTT. Many phone companies now offer their own TV service, so same as cable. Mobile providers already don't like OTT because it bogs down the networks they don't want to spend money upgrading. And finally, there's satellite internet, I've never found a truly unlimited internet plan over satellite so I suspect they don't care for OTT either. Even if you can get DSL from a phone company that doesn't have their own TV service to sell you, they'll probably try to bundle you with satellite TV. And if you get your DSL from AT&T, you know what they'll be trying to sell you. I can't think of any ISP that doesn't profit from breaking OTT. Where does this leave OTT TV?
     
  2. comfortably_numb

    comfortably_numb Dogs have owners, cats have staff
    Pub Member / Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2011
    Posts:
    3,951
    Likes Received:
    3,227
    Location:
    Missouri/Kansas
    It’s not going anywhere. The title of this thread reads like a fake news clickbait story.
     
    pamajestic, SamCdbs and Ziptied like this.
  3. Jackonearth

    Jackonearth Topic Starter SatelliteGuys Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2018
    Posts:
    446
    Likes Received:
    194
    Location:
    San Francisco, California
    Then why did the ISPs fight so hard to kill net neutrality?
     
  4. comfortably_numb

    comfortably_numb Dogs have owners, cats have staff
    Pub Member / Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2011
    Posts:
    3,951
    Likes Received:
    3,227
    Location:
    Missouri/Kansas
  5. spencer7779

    spencer7779 SatelliteGuys Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2015
    Posts:
    194
    Likes Received:
    48
    Location:
    central florida
    Once cable companies start doing something similar to Spectrum choice with a full cloud Dvr, it will kill OTT.
     
    primestar31 likes this.
  6. ncted

    ncted SatelliteGuys Pro
    Pub Member / Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Posts:
    2,387
    Likes Received:
    786
    Location:
    Durham, NC
    I'm still not clear on why they think it was worth the money.
     
  7. Juan

    Juan Supporting Founder
    Supporting Founder

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2003
    Posts:
    18,567
    Likes Received:
    3,618
    Location:
    Moscow Russia
    It was the complying with the onerous regulations that cost them money

    Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!
     
    comfortably_numb likes this.
  8. harshness

    harshness SatelliteGuys Master

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Posts:
    13,617
    Likes Received:
    1,386
    Location:
    Salem, OR
    I point out that for the time being, Net Neutrality remains the order of the day.
    Given the state of "cable TV" programming, will anyone care?
     
    osu1991 and comfortably_numb like this.
  9. ncted

    ncted SatelliteGuys Pro
    Pub Member / Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Posts:
    2,387
    Likes Received:
    786
    Location:
    Durham, NC
    I assume you are joking, unless you mean the regulation preventing them from overcharging people just because they could is onerous, in which case, that is a matter of opinion. Honestly, the existing provision that allowed zero rating seemed like it was all they really needed. No one was telling them they couldn't cap data usage or charge big consumers more. The US version of Net Neutrality is/was so neutered (see what I did there?), the only reason it seems like they fought NN was because they thought it was something they should do, not because it was costing them any money, or preventing them from building and managing their networks. It is as if the people ultimately responsible for the Internet at this point have no clue how it actually works. All they understand is some kind of feudal worldview.

    They claimed they didn't want to be regulated under Title II. Fine, give back all those billions of dollars in Title II money you took to build your networks, and we'll give it to someone who is willing to not prioritize traffic for money.
     
    Cheddar_Head, osu1991 and TheKrell like this.
  10. Juan

    Juan Supporting Founder
    Supporting Founder

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2003
    Posts:
    18,567
    Likes Received:
    3,618
    Location:
    Moscow Russia
    No..they were regulating it like traditional phone service..creating tariffs and other taxes...end result would be subscriber paying more for less service

    Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!
     
    Jillian2 and norman881 like this.
  11. Zookster

    Zookster SatelliteGuys Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Posts:
    3,164
    Likes Received:
    272
    Location:
    Here and Now
    With so many lawsuits and states passing their own net neutrality laws, nothing will ever come of the repeal of net neutrality before a new administration appoints new FCC commissioners that reinstate NN (assuming Congress doesn't act before then).

    Besides, ISPs are already charging $50-$100 for basic internet service (increasing prices at a rate that leaves cable price hikes in the dust), banking on the continued growth of OTT TV, which includes all streaming platforms, such as Netflix, YouTube, Hulu, Prime, which aren't going away any time soon.
     
    TheKrell likes this.
  12. Jackonearth

    Jackonearth Topic Starter SatelliteGuys Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2018
    Posts:
    446
    Likes Received:
    194
    Location:
    San Francisco, California
    Exactly, the only reason to spend the time and money going to court is because they know they can profit (at our expence) from the end of net neutrality.
     
    TheKrell likes this.
  13. harshness

    harshness SatelliteGuys Master

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Posts:
    13,617
    Likes Received:
    1,386
    Location:
    Salem, OR
    The lawsuits are against the FCC, not the carriers.

    Surely the carriers are filing amicus briefs like they were going out of style but thus far, there's been no real showdown that the carriers are party to.

    expense has no c in it.
     
  14. ncted

    ncted SatelliteGuys Pro
    Pub Member / Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Posts:
    2,387
    Likes Received:
    786
    Location:
    Durham, NC
    Title II allows states and municipalities to assess taxes on the service (i.e. to us customers), yes, but that does not equal less service (broadband investment and last-mile speeds actually increased after NN went into effect). The FCC however, had imposed no taxes or tariffs, nor did they express any intention to do so.

    If the telcos had said we don't want to be regulated under Title II, then they never should have accepted the government handout to build their networks in the first place. That is kind of how things are supposed to work with government and public money, by the way. The government collects taxes, which they they use to make things better in some way for the populace (building the Internet in this case) by contracting companies to do the work per the standards and specifications the government decides on. It isn't like Verizon and AT&T just decided to do this all on their own. The initial capital costs were too high. We paid them to do it, and everything was fine until they got greedy and decided to throw out decades of established procedure for dealing with bandwidth increases at peering points to extort money from Netflix and others (who were already paying their ISPs for their bandwidth BTW), that NN became necessary for the FCC to require. Before that, it was the defacto standard. It is the effing Tragedy of the Commons all over again.
     
    Cheddar_Head and TheKrell like this.
  15. Juan

    Juan Supporting Founder
    Supporting Founder

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2003
    Posts:
    18,567
    Likes Received:
    3,618
    Location:
    Moscow Russia
    Wow..you just like paying higher rates

    Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!
     
  16. ncted

    ncted SatelliteGuys Pro
    Pub Member / Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Posts:
    2,387
    Likes Received:
    786
    Location:
    Durham, NC
    No, I don't want a suit in an office deciding that I have to pay more to get Netflix than DirecTV Now or what have you just because of why my ISP might be. Getting rid of NN doesn't result in lower prices any more than having NN raises prices. The only thing that can be done to keep broadband prices low is competition.

    I happen to be lucky and live someplace where I can get broadband from 3 different providers, each for less than $50/month (no contract). That same service elsewhere without competition costs more just because they can, not because it costs the ISPs any more. Of course, incumbent ISPs do their best to make sure there is no competition in their markets. I wouldn't be surprised if an investigation one day shows collusion between ISPs to stay out of each others' markets.

    You know one of the side effects of NN? It makes it easier for new companies to get into the broadband market because they are guaranteed to get interconnects from the incumbents, with their traffic treated the same as everyone else's traffic traversing the existing networks. This is exactly the kind of thing the big telcos don't want to happen because it encourages competition.

    People ask, "why should the big telcos allow competitor traffic to traverse their network without charging a premium?" The answer is simple. When the government invented the Internet, along with those same telcos, that is how it was designed. If they didn't want it setup that way, why did they build it that way?
     
  17. comfortably_numb

    comfortably_numb Dogs have owners, cats have staff
    Pub Member / Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2011
    Posts:
    3,951
    Likes Received:
    3,227
    Location:
    Missouri/Kansas
    I thought Al Gore invented the internet :usa2
     
  18. ncted

    ncted SatelliteGuys Pro
    Pub Member / Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Posts:
    2,387
    Likes Received:
    786
    Location:
    Durham, NC
    One thing I forgot to mention. I don't think Title II is the answer to the NN question, but it was all the FCC could do under the rules they have to follow. I'd be perfectly happy with a NN solution that didn't include Title II, but that requires Congress to pass a bill and get the President's signature, so, in the mean time, Title II would have sufficed.
     
  19. jayn_j

    jayn_j Press On Regardless
    Supporting Founder

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2003
    Posts:
    10,083
    Likes Received:
    2,179
    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    Actually, while the original ARPANET was a government funded and developed project, the internet today is mostly due to the hard work of members of the IEEE standards committees, particularly the 802 working group. This is made up of a collection of commercial, government, educational and private members.
     
  20. Zookster

    Zookster SatelliteGuys Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Posts:
    3,164
    Likes Received:
    272
    Location:
    Here and Now
    ncted likes this.

***

Separate names with a comma.

More...