Debunking Anti-App Claims 888011000110888 Except if the path is altered soon, the particular FCC is on course to force adoption of a set-top-box (STB) technology mandate that will harm U. S. video distributors, content suppliers, local advertisers, and ultimately consumers – without any assurances of preserving one thin dime. Even if this plan is adopted by the Commission, it will be multiple years, if ever, before everything actually materializes. During this time, video delivery innovation will be slowed, if not stopped altogether, as the industry muddles through the Commission’s latest edict. In other words, it will eventually stunt the deployment of video programming Internet applications, or apps, as providers are obligated to cope with Commission mandates contained in its convoluted scheme. It doesn’t have to be this way. The common-sense, technology-friendly replacement for STBs is presently before the Payment in the form of downloadable apps used every day by millions of American consumers. The argument in support of apps has been increased further by new details provided by various video providers, including company commitments on timing and price,[1] offering further comfort to those worried about an app-centric option. However , given the substantive discussion and political winds shifting away from the Commission’s illogical regime, advocates have started to attack the apps solution as a counteroffensive tactic. It appears only appropriate to address some statements made, debunk inaccuracies, and see in case any legitimate objections remain. Claim: Apps usually are good enough and/or consumers don’t understand how to use apps To examine this claim, it seems suitable to review consumers’ experience with mobile apps. While mobile apps are just eight years old, there is little doubt regarding their availability. Today, there are over 2 . 2 million Google Perform apps, 2 . 0 million Apple Store apps, and another 1 . 3 million or so in the Amazon . com, Microsoft and Blackberry stores.[2]Even with overlap, that puts the overall apps marketplace at over 2 million. Further, consumers seem quite familiar with app operations. In fact , the typical consumer’s mobile phone contains over thirty apps,[3] with use of over 40 hours per month[4] and mobile smartphone transmission at nearly 70 percent with tablets at almost 50 percent.[5]Globally, apps have been downloaded countless billions of times in their short history. With regards to their importance to daily lives, consumers are using apps to obtain health information, navigate educational materials, manage their own financial accounts and conduct financial activities, interact with friends and family, provide entertainment through video and gaming features, and all sorts of other helpful purposes.[6] Apps are also working with a dramatic impact on the everyday lifestyles of those Americans with disabilities.[7]The importance of the app economy even has been recognized and touted by current Administration, which has launched efforts to further stimulate innovation and growth in this area.[8] Collectively, these data points – plus hundreds of others – assist demonstrate that consumers are familiar with applications, have a general knowledge of how to download them, and do in fact use them. Moreover, nothing in the move to an app-centric video distribution approach requires customer adoption; they would be free to preserve their current STB if desired. Claim: Apps won’t provide unified search It should be noted that nothing in the statute actually demands any search function, let alone a unified search capability between a current video provider and content outside of its system, such as edge company programming. Section 629 of the Marketing communications Act, on which the overall STB strategy is based, does not mention anything distantly close to some type of integrated, unified research requirement. It just isn’t there. Additionally , no one knows that consumers are really seeking such functionality. Specifically, consumers (e. g., the cord cutters and cord nevers) are moving away from traditional video providers, so why obsess over a feature that may or might not have little to no customer value? Setting aside individuals facts, making an app that allows integrated search is achievable. Indeed, cable providers are already working to create the precise code to make this functionality a reality, as demonstrated during my recent visit to the INTX Show in-may. And some devices like Roku, or TiVo already offer some edition of an integrated search function. Accordingly, video providers will be able to offer applications with unified, integrated search capabilities for most content in the near to immediate term. State: Apps won’t fix unreliable tools To the degree that consumers voluntarily move to the apps environment, equipment – dependable or not – would no longer be an issue. On point, there is never any physical equipment to acquire from movie providers; never any equipment to be serviced; never any reason for specialist visit; and never any equipment to be returned at service termination. Customers would just need to download an app via Internet access, which they may or may not obtain from their video service provider. Past consumer experiences of broken cable boxes, dealing with “customer service” to get an appointment, and questionable company tech visits during the generally difficult to rely on service window are completely eliminated with app usage. And like other apps today, video development apps can be updated at the consumers’ convenience – day or night. Claim: Applications won’t drive down monthly rental costs In an all-app world for video distribution, to become alarmed for a STB, meaning no monthly rental or separate purchase is necessary. This would result in consumers saving most or all of the money they invest today to rent or buy devices they generally loathe. To the level that estimates are accurate that consumers spend $231 per year plus a cumulative $20 billion annually regarding STB rentals (and there are genuine reasons to question these figures),[9] these funds would return into the pockets of consumers who chose the app route. Several have argued that video suppliers are likely to charge a monthly fee for any video app. That seems like a farfetched assumption given the shrinking demand for their overall product. However , this seems like a point on which to work with the industry as a whole to ensure that these types of apps are offered to consumers for free, just like Comcast’s XFINITY app will be today. * 2. * As a firm believer in the ability of Web apps to transform everyday connections, I find it hard to fathom that individuals would attack apps with such specious claims. More importantly, it is troubling to think that the Commission would deny this modern approach in favor of one which leads us down a regulating black hole. It’s time for that Commission to discard the effort defined in the NPRM and embrace an apps-based future for video submission. If that means that this approach becomes a resolution point for the entire issue, therefore be it. For me, getting it right is preferable to getting the credit.

June 27, 2016 – 3 or more: 29 pm

Michael O' Rielly | Commissioner

Unless the path is altered shortly, the FCC is on training course to force adoption of a set-top-box (STB)…


No Responses to “Debunking Anti-App Claims 888011000110888 Except if the path is altered soon, the particular FCC is on course to force adoption of a set-top-box (STB) technology mandate that will harm U. S. video distributors, content suppliers, local advertisers, and ultimately consumers – without any assurances of preserving one thin dime. Even if this plan is adopted by the Commission, it will be multiple years, if ever, before everything actually materializes. During this time, video delivery innovation will be slowed, if not stopped altogether, as the industry muddles through the Commission’s latest edict. In other words, it will eventually stunt the deployment of video programming Internet applications, or apps, as providers are obligated to cope with Commission mandates contained in its convoluted scheme. It doesn’t have to be this way. The common-sense, technology-friendly replacement for STBs is presently before the Payment in the form of downloadable apps used every day by millions of American consumers. The argument in support of apps has been increased further by new details provided by various video providers, including company commitments on timing and price,[1] offering further comfort to those worried about an app-centric option. However , given the substantive discussion and political winds shifting away from the Commission’s illogical regime, advocates have started to attack the apps solution as a counteroffensive tactic. It appears only appropriate to address some statements made, debunk inaccuracies, and see in case any legitimate objections remain. Claim: Apps usually are good enough and/or consumers don’t understand how to use apps To examine this claim, it seems suitable to review consumers’ experience with mobile apps. While mobile apps are just eight years old, there is little doubt regarding their availability. Today, there are over 2 . 2 million Google Perform apps, 2 . 0 million Apple Store apps, and another 1 . 3 million or so in the Amazon . com, Microsoft and Blackberry stores.[2]Even with overlap, that puts the overall apps marketplace at over 2 million. Further, consumers seem quite familiar with app operations. In fact , the typical consumer’s mobile phone contains over thirty apps,[3] with use of over 40 hours per month[4] and mobile smartphone transmission at nearly 70 percent with tablets at almost 50 percent.[5]Globally, apps have been downloaded countless billions of times in their short history. With regards to their importance to daily lives, consumers are using apps to obtain health information, navigate educational materials, manage their own financial accounts and conduct financial activities, interact with friends and family, provide entertainment through video and gaming features, and all sorts of other helpful purposes.[6] Apps are also working with a dramatic impact on the everyday lifestyles of those Americans with disabilities.[7]The importance of the app economy even has been recognized and touted by current Administration, which has launched efforts to further stimulate innovation and growth in this area.[8] Collectively, these data points – plus hundreds of others – assist demonstrate that consumers are familiar with applications, have a general knowledge of how to download them, and do in fact use them. Moreover, nothing in the move to an app-centric video distribution approach requires customer adoption; they would be free to preserve their current STB if desired. Claim: Apps won’t provide unified search It should be noted that nothing in the statute actually demands any search function, let alone a unified search capability between a current video provider and content outside of its system, such as edge company programming. Section 629 of the Marketing communications Act, on which the overall STB strategy is based, does not mention anything distantly close to some type of integrated, unified research requirement. It just isn’t there. Additionally , no one knows that consumers are really seeking such functionality. Specifically, consumers (e. g., the cord cutters and cord nevers) are moving away from traditional video providers, so why obsess over a feature that may or might not have little to no customer value? Setting aside individuals facts, making an app that allows integrated search is achievable. Indeed, cable providers are already working to create the precise code to make this functionality a reality, as demonstrated during my recent visit to the INTX Show in-may. And some devices like Roku, or TiVo already offer some edition of an integrated search function. Accordingly, video providers will be able to offer applications with unified, integrated search capabilities for most content in the near to immediate term. State: Apps won’t fix unreliable tools To the degree that consumers voluntarily move to the apps environment, equipment – dependable or not – would no longer be an issue. On point, there is never any physical equipment to acquire from movie providers; never any equipment to be serviced; never any reason for specialist visit; and never any equipment to be returned at service termination. Customers would just need to download an app via Internet access, which they may or may not obtain from their video service provider. Past consumer experiences of broken cable boxes, dealing with “customer service” to get an appointment, and questionable company tech visits during the generally difficult to rely on service window are completely eliminated with app usage. And like other apps today, video development apps can be updated at the consumers’ convenience – day or night. Claim: Applications won’t drive down monthly rental costs In an all-app world for video distribution, to become alarmed for a STB, meaning no monthly rental or separate purchase is necessary. This would result in consumers saving most or all of the money they invest today to rent or buy devices they generally loathe. To the level that estimates are accurate that consumers spend $231 per year plus a cumulative $20 billion annually regarding STB rentals (and there are genuine reasons to question these figures),[9] these funds would return into the pockets of consumers who chose the app route. Several have argued that video suppliers are likely to charge a monthly fee for any video app. That seems like a farfetched assumption given the shrinking demand for their overall product. However , this seems like a point on which to work with the industry as a whole to ensure that these types of apps are offered to consumers for free, just like Comcast’s XFINITY app will be today. * 2. * As a firm believer in the ability of Web apps to transform everyday connections, I find it hard to fathom that individuals would attack apps with such specious claims. More importantly, it is troubling to think that the Commission would deny this modern approach in favor of one which leads us down a regulating black hole. It’s time for that Commission to discard the effort defined in the NPRM and embrace an apps-based future for video submission. If that means that this approach becomes a resolution point for the entire issue, therefore be it. For me, getting it right is preferable to getting the credit.”




By submitting a comment here you grant a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate comments will be removed at admin's discretion.