Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : LAST MILE TECHNOLOGIES - Let's Discuss Them Here -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (5816)	11/2/1999 6:35:00 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 12823

Mike, very briefly, and equally vague - since it's been a while - OVS was instituted in order to allow independent programmers and other content providers the ability to sell spot programming to cable providers. In this scenario, an independent provider could send his content to an MSO, say, and the MSO would send it over their cable system to the end user. At first this was to be on a prearranged basis , and then there was supposed to be a progression to allow customers access to the independent provider's library, on demand, or video on demand (VOD) via a switched platform. Switched ADSL, believe it or not, was seen as an up-and-comer in this regard. And at this time, the 'net hadn't undergone proof of concept yet, leastwise not where video was concerned. There was even great concern back then that streaming video could never work on the 'net due to scaling and predictability issues. Some may recall that before they broke their vows, Ray Smith and John Malone had this thing with Stargazer? was it? Was that its name? Anyway, this was to be their finished service product when all was said and done, that would allow several hundred channels, many of which were either or both interactive and video on demand. OVS was the fulcrum point for several celebrated VOD tests during the mid-Nineties, if I am recalling correctly. I think that if Tim WTC or Ray Jensen are looking in, they would be more than happy to fill in the blanks... and hopefully correct me where I've fallen off track. I have subsequently heard of OVS in connection with some regulatory issues in recent years, but never in the context of an actual working model. I was wondering if anyone else has. While the idea may have been shelved momentarily, in the framework of legacy cable TV system model, it is far from dead, IMO. On the contrary. Internet-influenced technologies that are now emerging for streaming services and such, along with new virtual set top feature sets, will provide a more optimized means of providing this type of delivery, even on existing cable systems. And competition -if it is allowed entry- will see to it that it is done. This is in no way any different from the open-Net initiative which is led by AOL against the T, ATHM and the other MSOs. Only, this one speaks to classic video, for the moment. But even this is morphing. If not, it may take a little longer to do the good streaming video (even programmed, if not On Demand) over the 'net itself, but then where would that leave the cable operators? The incumbent operators must decide if they are going to go with the tide, or be taken out by it. All IMO. Regards, Frank Coluccio

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (5816)	11/2/1999 7:15:00 PM
From: Ray Jensen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Mike, "OVS" is an FCC-invented acronym that is supposed to mean "Open Video Systems", or "Open Video Services". It originated from a mid-1980s white paper written by Robert Pepper (chief of the FCC common carrier bureau) called "Through the Looking Glass". I still have a copy of that somewhere in my files. OVS evolved from the FCC's lengthy inquiries in the early 1990's involving what they called "video dialtone". The idea of video dialtone / OVS was an attempt by the FCC to encourage more competition in the delivery of video services to the mass market. First, some background.... A traditional cable TV company obtains a cable franchise from a municipal authority and builds a broadband local network (cable system). Then they decide what programming or content to offer to customers over their network, to attract as many customers as possible. That has been the success model for cable MSOs (multiple system operators). If I recall correctly, The OVS idea was that more many companies could be involved in the delivery of programming to the customer. For example, the company that builds and owns the local broadband network might sell out rights to deliver channel capacity on their entire network to many other companies. This would be almost like the the broadband network owner was a common carrier like exists in the traditional telephone side of our industry, selling capacity to anyone who pays the price. As the owner of the OVS network, they would fall into an entire different regulatory capacity than a traditional cable company, i.e, a company that controls the entire menu of channels that are delivered to customers. I think the idea of OVS was to give some other door for telephone companies to go through in order to compete with cable companies. Ever since the internet explosion in the last few years, most big phone companies have become more interested in the data business than the video business, so OVS never reached any high interest level in the telecom industry. I don't have any idea if the economics of an OVS model are any good. If the economics of OVS were good, then market economics says that lots of cable companies should be embracing the idea of OVS instead of remaining as traditional cable companies that control the programming menu. I can't name any major cable company that has expressed any interest in OVS, so that may explain why so few people have ever heard of OVS. It was a nice sounding idea, but if it doesn't make money,....you know what happens.