OCAP- Who is capping whom?

Advertisements

iTMS is STILL a PRODUCT (service), NOT A MARKET.

It isn't a "monopoly on products." That is not the correct use of monopoly.

There are plenty of substitutes for purchasing music. iTMS is the only for iPod but that doesn't matter. I and others have named many.

You want to stick to your very distorted definition of monopoly, you can do so. It just makes no sense. Keep to your view, Justin. Changing it does nothing for me. It does make a conversation much more difficult as you are the ONLY one here using the term (incorrectly) like that.

iTunes music store is NOT a monopoly. It plays in the downloadable music arena in which there are MANY choices from HUGE players.

_ITV

 

Well considering it's our equipment, I think we should be able to dictate on how it communicates with us in a way that makes it most effiecent for us and our customers.

We have to deal with the customers and it makes it much easier to have a standard way to access our content.

 

In general most of the headend equipment is the same with Motorola and SciAtl being the biggest providers. The same as well providers of VOD though different companies, SeaChange for example.

As far a server side virtualization, that isn't how the headend is setup as more or less the DAC controls the whole market processing authorizations, orders, etc so it has other things to do rather than virtualize the implmentation. By the same token the VOD servers do what they are supposed to do, receive requests for content, stream the content and send the information back to the billing system for charges if needed.

The low-end STBs are basically just sending a call out to the servers and then the servers are responding with the requested content. They need to talk via a standard so that it works across all cable systems like OCAP is designed for as well as make the customer experience worth it by having those of the less technology inclined being able to call and be told where to go to access said content in a reasonable amount of time, especially those who have a hard time understanding that the box AND television need to be one. Plus the whole security provided by DCAS as well.

 

Mentioned several times already in this thread. NO ONE forces you to buy an iPod or use iTunes. MSN Music, Napster, Real, Musicmatch, Walmart -- all sell music and you have a choice of players to pick from.

Because one guy and three law firms filed a lawsuit a year ago, that certainly isn't proof that Apple holds a monopoly for online music commerce, nor that their solution is the ONLY solution. What it proves is that a guy can file a lawsuit, and a judge is willing to hear the case (though several motions were already thrown out).

Isn't Dish doing the same thing with Arcos? Their content will only play on an Archos player.

Didn't Sony try something similar -- Connect. Connect music only plays back on Sony portable products.

An anti-trust "expert" from the BBC said: "Slattery can win if he can prove that the iTunes brand is 'a market in itself separate from the rest of the online music market.' iTunes isn't different from other music stores, though--it just chooses a different way of presenting the media you buy." And let me add... it is only choosing a different model for portable playback... every other type of playback is pretty similar to other online music shops.

Not for nothin', and this is just my opinion, but this reminds me of the guy who sued McDonalds for making him fat. This guy went and bought his music through iTunes and then went and bought an iPod to play them on-the-go, and now he wants to be "rewarded" by the courts because big-bad-Apple forced him to buy an iPod. Sorry. Not buying it.

If we're citing lawsuits lets look at one from abroad that touched on this exact issue. VirginMega filed an anti-competition suit against Apple in France for this exact scenario... because anyone buying music from IT'S store couldn't load their music into an iPod, and because Apple refused to license Fairplay to them to make iPod plug-n-play compatibility possible.

The decision:

"The Conseil de la concurrence concluded that FairPlay was not an essential facility for the following reasons: First, the competition authority found that only a minor share of the market would listen to music from a portable device, the majority would listen to music via the computer or burn songs onto a CD. Second, and rather unorthodoxly, it described in detail a method how consumers could get around the existing lack of interoperability and download music from VirginMega onto their iPod. Third, the French competition authority found that the market for portable music players was sufficiently competitive and offered several portable players in addition to the iPod. In other words, there were alternative players available that could process VirginMega’s DRM standard. In conclusion, the French competition authority did not consider FairPlay an essential facility because consumers had a choice"

 

And you seem to think that because the Judge agreed to hear (and let Slattery resubmit) some of the motions, that means Slattery will win. Our courts don't work that way. Agreeing to hear a case just means it's worth listening to -- it doesn't at all mean it warrants a decision in the plaintiff's favor. Even an obviously insane fan of David Letterman got a temporary restraining order based on obsurdities, but ultimately, in the end, it didn't play out in her favor.

If you don't think international law bares relevance in a global market, you're sadly mistaken. Even the Supreme Court has made decisions citing international legal opinion.

 

Which way was Lexmark originally ruled? Heck, a Fed judge TAKING a case means very, very little. He was shopped for.

Don't hang your hat on that, Justin. It's like finding the guy in the stands with the sign that says, "The End is Nigh" and using it as proof of the end of the world.

Telling anyone they're "making stuff up" is not only a sign of your rudeness and your complete inability to listen to anyone else's opinion, it is a sure sign that you, Justin, continue to grasp at ANY straw.

I'm done. Pound the table to open all APIs and open the world. It's like the guy with that sign...

_ITV
http://www.calahouston.org/best.html

My personal favorite which probably gets a chuckle from the techie crowd here:

According to the San Antonio Express-News, a dozen students who took a Microsoft computer certification course at the Houston branch of Southern Methodist University are suing the school, contending they were misled the course would be easy.
The 12 enrolled in June 1997 and all failed certification tests that would have made them eligible for jobs overseeing Microsoft computer systems.

Jason Crowson, the group’s attorney said: “They were told all they had to know how to do was point a mouse and click.”

 

"Forced" functionality / mandatory supported features ...

JT:

Ok ... you seem to have an aversion to CableLabs writing specs that "force" features or functionality on bi-directional cable-ready (BDCR) CE devices ...

Do you have a problem with anyone forcing functionality and mandatory supported features on CE devices (or just CableLabs)? For example ... going back to your "Public but closed" scenerio in your following post:
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=3677712&&#post3677712

Let's say CableLabs publishes a full set of APIs that define VOD, iPPV, switched broadcasts, an EPG and guide data, etc ... very robust ... every possible functionality of the cable system is available to be used as desired by CE devices ... or not.

Ok, now Tivo wants to release a BDCR that supports iPPV, switched broadcasts, and all other linear services. But they don't want to support VOD at all. Or ... perhaps they want to support (some) VOD ... but they've made a deal with Netflix so that they only offer VOD titles from the cable company that Netflix does not also carry. Anything Netflix carries can be downloaded and viewed from them ... but not the cable company.

I'm not talking minor tweaks that potentially provides additional functionality (your own guide that integrates your own GUI and potential content from other sources). I'm talking major functionality ... and mandatory support (or not). Should the CEA be allowed to sell "Advanced Cable Ready" devices that don't support VOD at all for example ... or don't support anything above 750Mhz ... or don't support the (rather funky) MPEG2 profile cable uses on their digital music channels ... etc.

Can the CEA just pick and choose whatever functionality they want (or not). Or is it acceptable to have some set of baseline mandatory supported features.

 

What you have is a perceived monopoly, not a defacto monopoly.

You are perceiving the "market" as iTms/iPod, when the market is online music and PMPs as a whole.

The same applies to multichannel providers.
Cable is a perceived monopoly, as you can purchase your progamming from two or more satellite providers, plus numerous new technologies such as VDSL and FIOS, despite you each being a perceived monopoly unto themselves.

 

IMO:

Cable labs should release the low-level APIs directly to the CE manufacturer, or as OCAP "stubs" with an established standard "interface", so that CE manufacturers can access the advanced features of the cable system they care to, using the UI of the STB, and the cable providers be obligated to provide that access.

Conversely, the 3rd party STB should have the full OCAP VM, so the end user can fully access the Advanced features that the STB manufacturer may not care to implement, for whatever reason they choose, or uses the advanced features through the OCAP VM, with the full OCAP applet.

And at that, in either case, none can block access to content or sevices from the one, when a competing affiliation agreement exists on the other.
For examle, Comcast, which may have a Shop-At-Home channel purchasing agreement and applet, cannot prevent a TiVo QVC applet from running, nor can Tivo prevent the Shop-At-Home applet from running.

 

Because they can write the VOD/PPV/guide app they want in low level native processor code, and massge a particular version for a provider to match their system.

You need the 300 Mhz CPU on the aftermarket STB to run basically an emulator, to do what the original STB would do.

 

Just for sake of space I cut your quote down... but I'll probably address multiple parts of it.

What you seem to be missing is that each company you want to readily cooperate is a business, and those businesses have a right to fairly compete with one another. Cable has a right to offer services that others cannot and vice versa. Making stand-alone set-top-boxes that cooperate is almost a separate argument.

I say "almost" because it isn't completely fair for Cable to take over the market making it's own set-top-boxes a required purchase/lease... if a consumer chooses cable. Why is that? Because cable is in a unique position to take advantage of their customers by forcing them to buy/lease their own boxes (while iTunes is NOT in that position).

Here's the analogy:

If I want cable TV (content), and choose to go to Cable (company) then I must purchase or lease their box/DVR (product) just to see and record said content -- UNFAIR, and LOCKS OUT all STB competitors.

If I want music (content), and I choose iTMs/Apple (company), I do NOT have to buy/lease their box (product/computer/software/iPod). I have a multitude of ways to listen to that music (including the FREE software itself), or on other devices (CD players, iPod, and even other softwares/portable devices). FAIR, it doesn't lock out anyone.

So because of Cable's position, it IS fair for the proper legal entities to step in and say "no, you can't force people to buy or lease additional equipment from you" -- and if that's the case, to set the guidelines and rules on how everyone needs to cooperate with one another.

It is in Cable's best interest to be sure that stand-alone set-top-boxes will interface well with their offerings... and that is not an easy task... and to get there, YES, some functionality may have to suffer, or you may have to put up with "java" windows that provide their own interface. But can you imagine the nightmare for Cable to try to support a zillion different boxes if they all don't follow a specific standard -- both in design and performance? If I own a TiVo Series 7 that won't properly interface with VOD content, who do I blame and, as a customer, call for support?

And again, I say "almost" because all of this doesn't preclude Cable from continuing to offer their own set-top-boxes and compete with the stand-alones. That is fair and gives consumers choices. What isn't fair is locking everyone into only THEIR boxes.

Should they be allowed to offers something unique above and beyond what stand-alone set-top-boxes can do? Such as the iTMS + iPod tie-in. Sure, why not? TiVo will certainly be offering services Cable cannot provide (Netflix as an example)... so why shouldn't cable be able to do the same to fairly compete? Then the consumer can say "well, I'd prefer the choice of Netflix over PPV content" (just as an example). What Cable CANNOT do is lock out all the competition, and try to compete unfairly.

Same for Apple. They are allowed to give you the benefit of the iTunes + iPod combination. That doesn't preclude you from listening to the music you purchase from iTunes anywhere you like... because you can. But the benefit is the "plug-n-play" aspect of it. It's completely your choice, as a consumer. If you like the Creative Zen better, think it's a better player, you can buy it and buy your music from anywhere you like... including iTunes. The only thing you won't get is the ability to plug your Zen right INTO iTunes... and you don't HAVE to have the ability, because lots of other sources will provide it, for the EXACT same content.



ps. running out the door, so excuse an typos or misphrasings

 

Justin, perhaps you should re-read Phish's post. He quoted from http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2005Jan/bma20050107028590.htm correctly, including the quote within a quote (' versus "). I can see your confusion but assuming that Phish "made it up" rather than giving him the benfit of the doubt is where I take issue. He DIDN'T make it up. Sourcing would have helped it but assuming he "made it up" is rather a drastic opinion to come to. Don't you think?

Of course it is, Justin. You know, it's funny, I don't pretend to be a geek and understand even 10% of some of the stuff around here. Yet, with one (STUPID) lawsuit filed you believe you have a legitimate arguement even though you don't seem, from my standpoint, to understand anti-trust 101.

But, hey, what do I know? Keep telling yourself it's a legitimate arguement. Personally, I don't care. It just makes for a tough conversation when you use a different definition of word than everyone else.

You're kidding, right? Do you have any idea how many MORONIC cases get heard that have NO legitimate arguement? Just because a judge takes a case on docket doesn't mean squat. Next you'll tell me all briefs are meaningful.

Justin, you're out of your realm here. "Hearing a case" means nothing. You can judge shop -- and some are REAL crackpots but a job for life is not bad -- you can get someone bored, or, more often than not, it might sound like an interesting twist even though it doesn't really cut the mustard. Always fun to break ground and judges love it. Helps you move up. Of course, not this judge. He's never moving up.

I gave you an example of some really stupid lawsuits. You think those were legitimate arguements?

You can find a class action lawyer for just about anything...


_ITV

BTW: Ware's name MIGHT sound familiar if you ever followed the saga of the stolen sex.com domain. His name is familiar to other judges when up for an appeals court slot he got nailed in a total fabrication. But that's another story and not a pretty one