Earlier this week, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler proposed a far reaching rule change (detailed in this blog post) that would level the playing field and give non-traditional video suppliers access to programming that is currently only available to cable and satellite providers.
Back in 1992, the satellite TV industry was new and floundering because they didn’t have access to the same programming is the cable companies. In response, the FCC passed the Communications Act.
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.
The new rule would allow companies that distribute TV/cable programming over the internet, so-called over-the-top suppliers (OTTs), access to that same programming. And that’s where Apple could come in. In this excellent piece for Seeking Alpha (free reg wall), Mark Hibben writes:
Wheeler’s proposal is a recognition of a simple fact: the Internet is the future of content delivery, any content, including video. Wheeler recognizes that most cable companies have become high-speed Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and many are converting to Internet Protocol delivery of their video content as well.
How is this over the top distribution different from Apple TV, Chromecast, Xbox, and other plug-in devices that put web-enabled programming on your TV? There’s this:
iTunes could become a central hub for all iOS content, able to stream purchased, rented, subscription and “free” network TV content. All it takes is infrastructure, and Apple has plenty of that, and the capability to build and acquire more. Under this scenario, you would be able to watch a live TV event, such as the Super Bowl, anywhere on your iPhone or iPad. For a nominal fee, of course.
And this:
I think Apple still needs a discriminator to set it apart from the pack of Internet-connected smart TVs. The most important discriminator that Apple can offer is some enhanced level of iOS capability. Of course, Apple TV and any future Apple television will be based on iOS, but future Apple television products need to offer greater access to iOS apps and games than the current Apple TV does.
There’s a lot to chew on in this FCC blog post. The new rule change needs to be fleshed out and the terms clarified. But no matter how it plays out, this seems a huge opportunity for Apple and a boon to consumers.
Of course this is interesting from a technological perspective, but the really intriguing part is the political realities it reveals. The last 2 years of a President’s second term the shackles really come off. Like a CEO who’s announced his retirement, and isn’t taking a seat on the board, President Obama has the ability to have initiate some truly disruptive policy.
Regardless of whether the Democrats retain the Senate, the filibuster rule has basically paralyzed that body. The House isn’t going to change from its position of opposing the President if he came out in favor of the idea that the sky is blue. So the President, literally, has nothing to lose by pissing off Congress (more than how much he does so already by merely existing), and I think this is the first example of it.
Comcast and Time Warner are big political donors and they want to maintain the status quo. The Congresspeople they buy can, and have repeatedly, blocked the President’s agenda for 6 years, directly or through the threat of further obstruction if he steps out of line. Now that threat is neutered. None of his pending nominees are going to get approved in the next two years (and even if they did, so what?) And nothing but the lowest common denominator most bi-partisan legislation is going to get passed. So use Executive Orders and cabinet Secretaries to create departmental rulings/regulations that neutralize all that corporate lobbying.
I wonder if Apple’s lobbying efforts are finally starting to pay off. As for that “nominal fee,” content creators just aren’t aware of that term. They’d rather dabble in “maximizing profits” and “double-dipping.” And you can bet that everything will involve those dreaded advertisements.
I don’t think this the result of any kind of success in a lobbying war, as the entrenched establishment has a lot more money in play than the disruptors. I think it’s more of a reflection that the status quo isn’t particularly popular with anyone except those established interests.
This really has nothing to do with Obama. The timing is due to companies like HBO and Starz saying they are considering such stand alone service. Which means that contracts with the cable companies are coming up for talks. This gives the FCC a great opening for such a change because if they did it when there are several years left on the contracts the cable companies would be in a position to argue that the change shouldn’t be forced on them until the contracts are up.
Plus there are way more choices in the tech needed to support this kind of things both in terms of set boxes and smart tvs and things like faster internet services
I seriously doubt it.
If you think that this is not politically motivated, think again.
The article says Apple needs a “differentiator” but Apple can easily do it. A subscription that works for iOS and Apple TV would be a unique benefit Apple can provide, and I think the Internet-streamed TV market will explode when a la carte programming is available. I’d gladly pay $40-50 a month for the few channels I actually watch.