What if STBs accepted bits over IP vs the parallel universe of RG-6?

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

________________________________________
From: Bob Frankston [Bob19-0501 () bobf frankston com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 4:29 PM
To: David Farber
Subject: What if STBs accepted bits over IP vs the parallel universe of RG-6?

I had my hopes raised by misreading a press release and thought Intel was advocating opening up the STB to IP only to 
be told that I misread it and it’s only about IP output for local use. Nice but incremental. Yet once you realize how 
simple it would be …

Content is already moving to IP but we maintain the illusion that it’s all about the STB (Set Top Box). In a sense we 
are rapidly heading towards Divestiture II as the Regulatorium and reality continue to diverge. It’s useful to look at 
the problem from the perspective of today’s “Cable” since that is the primary justification for handing over our 
rights-of-way to silos.

What if we could tweak the existing STB software to use the existing Ethernet jack on existing STBs that accept 
existing VoD that is already over IP [FiOS, Uverse] – a capability that is latent as per the Moto NIM-100. The only 
problem is that those IP bits are partitioned out from the other IP bits over the same fiber (or whatever) and then 
they are herded into the parallel universe of RG-6 in the existing Verizon default configuration. Perhaps if I had the 
documentation I could reroute the bits but that’s purposely unavailable.

Technically it may be a simple as removing a statement that disables the Ethernet path. Politically it’s like 
explaining why pi isn’t exactly 3.14.

What if the FCC focused attention on the major leverage point – the thread that ties content to transport. It’s fraying 
anyway. Imagine if I could get my transport from Verizon and my content from Comcast … and others. Since there would be 
a silo I could mix and match. But then I already can do that with Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, ABC, NBC, Fox and on and on.

The entire concept of silo-based policy is at risk … so why not face up to the reality? It’s hard to defend the 
privileges given up just to keep the silos profitable at the cost of our right to communicate. Not to mention the 
economic damage and other consequences.

Once we snip the thread then we have a market for pure bit transport. The word “natural monopoly” is very tainted but 
since bits are bits we’d collapse the infrastructure into a common local transport. Without having to control the path 
we’d quickly go to a very cost-effective physical infrastructure. Without being forced into a service model the 
perversity of charging for value of each bit out of context would become obvious and indefensible..

The content business will continue to evolve except that carriers wouldn’t be in the position to abuse their control of 
the transport.

Before that happens the carriers would want to negotiate a deal and as much as I might criticize them the FCC has a 
duty to help them transition – and without the need to manage synthetic competition the FCC would be able to devote all 
its resources to a real transition that creates value – unlike the DTV debacle.

Sometimes it helps to step outside the Regulatorium and get a reality check.



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com