InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 0
Posts 8
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 12/24/2016

Re: janicen_98 post# 136

Sunday, 01/01/2017 1:49:45 PM

Sunday, January 01, 2017 1:49:45 PM

Post# of 255
Seems like team Plotkin and a few other internals are crying in their soup, monthly, to the FCC :

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?filers_name=Hauppauge%20Computer%20Works,%20Inc.&proceedings_name=16-42&sort=date_disseminated,DESC&submissiontype_description=LETTER

I tried to read through it and basically came away with Hauppauge saying the only way they can "protect" consumers and protect the copyrights of the industry (for which content is paid for) is for the FCC to continue to act as a policy enforcer for new entrants on this new ruling

I think, but not sure, but the FCC is looking to back away from an electronic handshake that has enabled Hauppauge to build its market with this added layer of regulation (since getting access and approved for handshake isn't a given but you have to get the right lawyers working and the right engineering tests done).

So isn't that ironic? Now that Hauppauge has what they want, the just figured out that the FCC wants to go wide open which means they will lose 100% of their moat. So now they have more than they want. They need open access but not "too" open. The literally will go out of business within weeks if they can't get this protection.

So...the battle goes on. Hauppauge isn't going to build any boxes until the FCC tells them that they will protect poor little Hauppauge and its tiny Long Island oasis in the process. So to read this another way, in my opinion, Hauppauge is fine with an open pipe to build cable boxes as long as they don't have to compete with new entrants or bigger yet unnamed new entrants from China.

Crying in their soup. Bunch of babies. Now to figure out if boxes are even in play here or if Hauppauge is suggesting a cloud based solution ( which totally ignores the cabins in the woods which goes against unilateral access so its a long shot).