"If the OVD opts to become an MVPD, that is an expensive proposition. The OVD must consider the costs of deploying networks, negotiating carriage and programming rights, and obtaining local franchises, as well as the prospects of being deemed another cable company."

From what I have been reading recently (http://www.fcc.gov/document/annual-assessment-status-competition-market-delivery-video-programming-3 ), the FCC is lumping together all linear programming providers under the MVPD banner and is identifying VOD providers such as Netflix & Hulu and website based video providers such as abc.com, hallmarkchannel.com under the OVD banner.

In this case I don't see how it is possible for an OVD to remain an OVD once they carry a linear channel unless the criteria of transmission over the open internet is the over-riding determiner that keeps an OVD from becoming an MVPD.

Your thoughts?

PS: Also what appears to be happening is that the FCC knows it can't govern the internet directly so instead they will do so indirectly by putting rules in place that identify any linear channel distributor of broadcast or cable programming as an MVPD. No OVD will be able to negotiate with an FCC sanctioned programming provider for linear channels until they opt-in to become an MVPD and sign-up with the FCC. In this case it becomes clear that the FCC is attempting (and succeeding) at governing content distribution even that which will not directly be carried from the broadcast source to home via RF.. IP content distribution, regardless of source should be a Copyright Office issue, not an FCC issue since it does not affect the public airways after downlink.