TV vs. Cable

The Media Wonk spent last week in Las Vegas at the Consumer Electronics Show where, everybody said, 3DTV would be the big story. And sure enough, nearly everywhere you went on the show floor folks were sporting either polarized shades or the full Geordi La Forge wraparounds and squinting at the new 3D displays tucked into carefully light-controlled alcoves of the display booths, like so many bug-eyed NFL refs going under the hood.

Yet for all the hoopla over 3D, the really important TV story out of CES was the explosion of embedded applications on Internet-capable HDTVs and Blu-ray players for bringing over-the-top (i.e. Internet-delivered) video into the living room. A year ago at CES there were only a few such TV sets on display, from a handful of manufacturers, and about all you could do with them was run a few Yahoo widgets and stream Netflix movies. At this year’s show, it was hard to find a home entertainment device that wasn’t Internet-ready, and if it didn’t come with its own app store it came embedded with one of the growing number of online content platforms from the likes of Vudu, DivX, Rovi and Boxee, among others.

Far more than 3D, set-makers’ growing commitment to enabling over-the-top video delivery to HDTV screens holds the potential to shake up the future evolution of the TV business. Read More »

Getting nowhere on TV Everywhere

The Media Wonk is en route to Las Vegas for the Consumer Electronics Show as this is being written, where I expect to be inundated with all things 3D. Between taking off from Washington, DC and a stopover in Minneapolis, however (there’s a reason Delta Airlines went bankrupt awhile back, by the way), my BlackBerry was bombarded with “urgent” communiqués from all sides of what looks to be shaping up as a nasty policy fight over TV Everywhere.

The hoo-hah appears to have started with an item in the Washington Post Monday about calls on federal antitrust regulators by various public interest groups spearheaded by Free Press to begin immediately to investigate TV Everywhere. The calls were ostensibly prompted by a “study” paid for by Free Press, which purportedly discovered that TV Everywhere is actually a plot by “giant cable, satellite and phone companies,” along with Time Warner, to “eliminate the threat of online competition,” so they can continue to gouge consumers.

“This is a textbook antitrust violation,” thundered University of Nebraska law professor Marvin Ammori, the study’s author. “The old media giants are working together to kill off innovative online competitors and carve up the market for themselves…The antitrust authorities should not stand by and let the cable cartel crush Internet TV before it gets off the ground.” Read More »

Comcast's over-the-top lobbying

Here in Washington, DC, TV viewers are treated to an unusual array of commercials: a fairly steady drumbeat of obscure issue-advocacy ads sponsored by industry-funded front groups aimed at influencing Congress by showing off the group’s lobbying muscle. Generally speaking, the more blandly benign-sounding the group’s name, the more mendacious the policy proposal. Groups calling themselves something like Americans For Opportunity, for instance, are a good bet to have something to do with strip mining, or promoting child labor in American Samoa.

Last night, The Media Wonk saw something new: a straight-up, undisguised plug from Comcastfor its dealto gain control of NBC Universal. Presumably, the intended audience was the small group of lawyers and civil servants at the FCC, FTC and the Department of Justice who will be reviewing the deal and have the power to change or block it. How’s that for targeted advertising?

comcast-nbc-monopolyI’m puzzled by why Comcast is trumpeting this thing, though, especially here. The message of the ad (I wasn’t taking notes so I can’t quote from it) concerned all the wonderful new things Comcast would be bringing viewers now that it controls one of the largest media companies on the planet. Given all the groups here peppering the FCC et. al. with concerns over all the new things  Comcast will be able to do now that it controls one of the largest media companies on the planet, I’m not sure Comcastwouldn’t be better off laying low and not drawing any more attention to its size and reach (you can read my full analysis of the strategic implications of the deal at GigaOm Pro (very modest annual sub. req’d)). Read More »

The un-reality of Partygate

The White House party crashers is not a subject that would usually occupy The Media Wonk. But here in Washington, with so many people running about, flapping their arms like frightened hens over the horror of it all, it’s a very difficult story to ignore. After the crashers themselves and White House social secretary Desiree Rogers declined to appear before Congress to explain themselves (the latter on separation of powers grounds) some on the Hill are talking subpoenas, three Secret Service agents have but put on leave and could lose their jobs, the crashers are lawyering up and the cable news networks have created logos and assigned theme music to the story, a sure sign we’re about to go wall-to-wall on this.

salahi-obamaFeh. I’m with White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, who had to remind overheated reporters at the daily brief Thursday that this isn’t exactly Watergate. It’s a security screw-up in which no one got hurt and the president was in no proximate danger. Worth an internal reveiw by the Secret Service and White House to be sure. But Congressional hearings? Please.

That said, if Congress is determined to start firing out subpeonas, here’s my suggestion: Bravo. The network has been asked little and said less about the incident, even though it was following Michaele Salahi around with a camera all day leading up to the state dinner as part of the preliminary screening for Real Housewives of DC. They followed when she crashed the Washington Redskins Cheerleaders reunion party, where she pretended to be a former member of the squad and made a nuisance of herself.  I’m sure more such stunts will surface in coming days (they always do, like sex tapes.) So why isn’t anyone asking Bravo about its role in encouraging, or perhaps even participating in,  what was, at a minimum, silly and annoying behavior and at worst, possible criminal activity?

Now would be the perfect time for a little reality show reality check. Bravo is owned by NBC Universal, which just announced its pending merger with cable giant Comcast, creating an new media behemoth with myriad conflicts of interest, potential antitrust problems and potential to have a significant and baleful impact on media diversity. Regulators at the FCC, FTC and DOJ are just beginning to pick through the details of the deal. I say, put Bravo under the hot lights and let’s see what the hell it thought it was doing encouraging a freak show act like the Salahis to crash a state dinner.

The TV Everywhere MacGuffin

psychoI wrote a long-ish post for GigaOm Pro the other day on TV Everywhere headlined, Split Decision on Paying For TV Everywhere. Most of the post is behind a pay-wall but nothing in the analysis it provides would be unfamiliar to readers of The Media Wonk. The post drew an interesting response from GigaOm subscriber MichaelMcNabb. In it, McNabb offers four predictions:

 1) TV Everywhere is available as an add-on to your basic cable subscription and free for premium subscribers;

2) Hulu goes behind a paid wall;

3) Cable programmers significantly restrict availability of free content in return for an increase in affiliate fees;

4) Free to air Networks agree not to increase re-transmission fees in order to participate on new On Demand networks – including network DVR’s.

 Net result – continued shift from linear to On Demand model leaving linear channels as “barker” channels for on-demand platforms.

I have no idea who McNabb is (his subscriber profile is a blank slate). But I wouldn’t argue with any of his prognostications. Much of what we’re seeing in the debate over TV Everywhere is a business negotiation among incumbent service providers and programmers over how to divide the revenue pie as its ingredients shift. As is usually the case when incumbents are driving “innovation,” the object is the preservation and enhancement of the incumbents’ leverage, rather than actual innovation, with its potential to disrupt established business models.

“TV Everywhere,” as first articulated by Time Warner and now taken up with gusto by Comcast, is not so much an example of geniune innovation as what Alfred Hitchcock called a MacGuffin: a plot element that drives the story forward but is ultimately irrelevent to the drama. Think: the stolen cash in Psycho. It’s the reason Janet Leigh ends up at the motel. But it’s not the reason for the shower scene.

TV Everywhere needs a better Mouse trap

The Media Wonk was attending the NewTeeVee Live conference in San Francisco this past week wearing his GigaOm Pro hat, where much of the discussion focused on TV Everywhere. Comcast Interactive Media president Amy Banse made news by announcing on Thursday that On Demand Online, Comcast’s “expression” of TV Everywhere, will be available to subscribers at no extra cost “by Hanukkah,” which begins on December 11 this year.

hanukkah_dancing_sevivons_16At nearly the same moment, however, just down the coast in LA, Walt Disney Co. CEO Bob Iger was tossing a turd into the TV Everywhere punch bowl during the Mouse House Q4 earnings call by explaining to analysts that not charging consumers an extra fee to access their TV content Everywhere is a non-starter as far as ABC, ESPN, The Disney Channel and ABC Family are concerned. Disney, he made clear, expects to be compensated by Comcast and every other MSO and satellite provider for the right to distribute Disney’s cable networks over broadband:

Look, TV Everywhere is maybe an example of what we have talked about often, and that is digital technology providing us with more opportunities to reach consumers and consumers more opportunities to consume our product. And to the extent that TV Everywhere serves consumers better, we are in favor of it. However, when you serve consumers better, when you provide more convenience or more utility, you should be able to charge for that and charge an appropriate amount. And some of what we have heard about TV Everywhere suggests that interest in charging the consumer for greater access is not necessarily a priority and we believe it should be.

What’s more, he added, Disney does not intend to be bound by any subscriber authentication system distributors might come up with and will retain the right to make its cable properties available online to non-subscribers as well as Disney sees fit:

We also believe that we should still have the ability if we go to a world where there is authentication and TV everywhere for the multi-channel subscriber, we should not be precluded from offering our product directly to consumers who may not be subscribers to multi-channel services, because we believe that would — and even though there aren’t many of them, that wouldn’t necessarily be good for consumers and while we realize we are trying to serve many masters, the master that is most important to serve for us is the consumer.

The Media Wonk isn’t exactly surprised by the message. Iger had been making Disney’s lack of enthusiasm for TV Everywhere clear for months. But I hadn’t expected the gauntlet to be thrown down quite so pointedly, quite so soon, either. I had expected programmers to let MSOs get a bit more invested in TV Everywhere before springing the retransmission trap on them. But with Hanukkah less than a month off, perhaps Iger felt Comcast was far enough down the TV Everywhere road that there was nothing to be gained by waiting.

What the contrast between Banse’s comments and Iger’s reflects, it seems to me, is the potentially fatal flaw at the heart of the TV Everywhere vision: The interests of the programmers and the cable/satellite service providers are not quite aligned.

For service providers, TVE is essentially a defensive strategy: an effort to forestall cord-cutting and competition from over-the-top delivery platforms by enhancing the value of a basic subscription by including broadband access as part of a package. For programmers, on the other hand, the real upside of TVE is the opportunity it presents to squeeze the MSOs for higher affiliate fees in exchange for the expanded distribution rights. If they’re successful, that would dramatically alter the economics of TV Everywhere for pay-TV providers, and not for the better.

True, there are some programmers who seem genuinely concerned with preserving the cable networks’ dual-revenue stream business model (advertising + affiliate fees) by enhancing and protecting the value of subscribing to a pay-TV service. But that call has always been theirs to make: If you’re worried about over-the-top distribution undercutting the value of a pay-TV service don’t make your content available to over-the-top distributors. TV Everywhere is not a necessary condition to decide not to go over the top. It’s only a necessary condition if you’re goal is to scare pay-TV providers into paying you higher affiliate fees by threatening to go over the top. In organized crime circles they call that a protection racket.

Disney at least is being honest about its intentions.

amy-banse-ntvlAll of which is not to suggest that Comcast is without wiles of its own in its approach to TV Everywhere. As Banse noted at the NTVL conference, On Demand Online users will be able to register up to three different authenticated devices as access points for subscription content. That means subscribers will be able to register their laptop so they can access On Demand Online content while traveling, for instance (or, as one wag whispered to The Media Wonk at NTVL, “I’m going to bring my laptop when I visit my mother over the holidays because she’s a Comcast subscriber and she’ll never register anything, so I’ll just register my laptop with her subscription”).

The three-device rule will certainly make On Demand Online more attractive to subscribers. But it’s also a neat way for Comcast to colonize a bunch of mobile devices before some over-the-top distributor can claim the same turf with the same content. Once you’ve registered your smartphone with On Demand Online, why bother with someone else’s app, especially one you might have to pay for? TV Everywhere, in other words, is likely to set off a device-focused land grab, and it’s a shrewd move by Comcast to get a stake in the ground first.

Can TV survive TV Everywhere?

One of The Media Wonk’s day jobs is as an analyst and curator at GigaOm Pro, the subscription-based offshoot of the popular GigaOm web site (to which I also occasionally contribute some blatherings). On Monday, the Pro site is issuing a new report The Media Wonk wrote (subscription required) on TV Everywhere, the effort by leading cable MSOs as well as some cable programmers to make pay-TV content available online to cable and satellite subscribers.

TV-EverywhereFor those of you in the Bay Area, The Media Wonk will also be appearing on some panels at the NewTeeVee Live conference in San Francisco, where the TV Everywhere report will be distributed free to attendees. Come one, come all.

The report is a good read (if I do say so myself) on the nuts, bolts, whys and wherefores of TV Everywhere. But there’s one question I didn’t really discuss in it because anyone professionally interested in TV Everywhere has probably already answered it to their own satisfaction, and it sort of would have obviated the need for the report in the first place.

First proposed by Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes and quickly taken up by Time Warner Cable (soon to be a separate company), along with Comcast and Verizon FiOS, TV Everywhere is self-consciously an effort to preserve the traditional pay-TV business model as viewership shifts irresistibly away from  traditional pay-TV platforms.

Multichannel News, earlier this month:

At a National Association for Multi-Ethnicity in Communications Conference general session Wednesday, panelists said operators and programmers need to find a solution quickly, as consumer demand to access content on multiple platforms continues to grow.

Mark Garner, senior vice president of distribution, marketing and business development for A&E Television Networks, said the industry continues to face a challenge in finding the right business model to offer content on multiple screens. The current strategy taken by some networks to offer content free on their Web sites jeopardizes the current affiliate fee-based distribution model with operators that, he says, represents 45% of A&E Networks’ overall revenue.

“There’s a lot of enthusiasm for maintaining the current business model,” Garner said.

And from September:

“TV Everywhere is an all-around win for those of us who love television,” Time Warner Cable chairman, president and CEO Glenn Britt said in a statement. “It will give our customers more control over content and allow them greater access to programs they are already paying for, while enhancing the distributors’ and networks’ robust business model that encourages the creation of great content.”

Fine. But how many cases can you point to in other media businesses wherein the incumbent providers were able to sustain their traditional business models with respect to digital distribution? Not many, I’d venture to say.

Bob-IgerMusic? Fuhgetaboutit. If “record companies” survive in something like their current form (which I would call a long-shot in itself) the single revenue-stream model of selling high margin “albums” containing 10-15 songs will not be how they do it.

Movies? Ask Bob Iger.

Broadcast television? As I wrote last month for GigaOm Pro:

In addition to his Hulu comments, [News Corp. COO Chase] Carey also suggested last week that News Corp. is laying the groundwork for a battle with cable operators over retransmission consent for Fox Broadcasting content. “We need to move that business [broadcasting] to a place where we are getting fair value,” he said, according to a report on the SportsBusiness Daily web site. “You have to have conviction and do what’s necessary to do.”

What’s necessary to do, in Carey’s view, is to get cable MSOs to pay for the right to retransmit free broadcast programming. “It’s about trying to get our business to a place where it can be a healthy, long-term business,” he said. “It starts with making dual revenue.”

Newspapers? Please.

Books? Too early to tell but the pricing structure emerging for e-books suggests publishers are going to need to start thinking in terms of multiple revenue streams.

If the pay-TV companies manage to pull it off it will be notable not just for their own sake but because it would mean they had bucked the tide of both history and technology.

Apple still messing with people's heads on video

For a company that has never been terribly friendly toward ordinary press coverage Apple has had a remarkably sophisticated media operation over the years when it suits Apple’s purposes. They’ve been masterful at winking, nodding and leaking just enough juicy bits to the fanboy sites and a few carefully selected mainstream outlets to get everybody hyped up ahead of new product announcements, often managing to turn not much into big news. But it has been outdoing itself lately in its manipulations around online video.

Apparently unsure what it wants to do itself in video, Apple seems to want to make sure no one else figures it out first.  So it’s sowing FUD about video industry initiatives by leaking “news” of purported video plans of its own that borders on vaporware.

apple-tv-2Last month, the Wall Street Journal broke the “news”of iDisney’s Keychest technology that will supposedly let consumers buy permanent access to movies and then retrieve them from the cloud using a variety of devices. “People in the entertainment industry,”  told the Journal “it would be reasonable to infer that Apple would cooperate with such an initiative.”

And The Media Wonk is telling you it’s reasonable to infer that it was Apple who told the Journal that. It is also reasonable to infer that the story’s appearance on the eve of the Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem discussions in Seoul was not a coincidence. Neither Apple nor iDisney are members of DECE, which is attempting to devise a system to let consumers, well, buy permanent access to movies and then retrieve them from the cloud using a variety of devices. And it’s certainly not in Apple’s interest for DECE to succeed.

But if Apple is really on-board with Keychest, it’s a fair bet the system will be limited to Apple devices, using Apple DRM. The alternative would be for Apple to design its devices to be interoperable with others, and with other online services. I’ll believe that when I see it.

Today, Apple struck again, once more in the Wall Street Journal. This time, we’re being told that Apple is shopping a plan content owners to create a $30 per month subscription video service through iTunes “if Apple is able to get enough buy-in from broadcast and cable TV programmers.”

I’m willing to bet no actual “broadcast and cable TV programmers” have really been pitched on the idea, apart from iDisney’s ABC and ESPN networks, who I’m sure were enthusiastic. And I’m also willing to bet that the timing of the trial balloon is related to Comcast’s recent announcement that it plans to rollout its On Demand Online (i.e. TV Everywhere) service to all 24 million subscribers by January. Comcast has had strong support from the pay-TV networks for its ODO trial in 5,000 homes, but a number of those networks are on the fence about whether they want to be part of the broader rollout. Hey, maybe they should see what Apple is offering before signing up with Comcast. No wonder Comcast is so anxious to buy NBC Universal. At least then it can play the same game Apple is playing. (Does it need saying that Disney has been cooler toward TV Everywhere than other pay-TV programmers and is not involved in the Comcast test?)

Everyone would be better off if Apple just figured out what it wants to do in video so the rest of the industry can get on with business.

iDisney

One of the more interesting subtexts to the battle between Disney and Sony Pictures over the work of the Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem consortium (DECE) is the degree to which the studios have come to resemble each other. Sony Pictures has long been a captive of Sony Electronics. Decisions on what technologies or which formats to support are not made independently by Sony Pictures; they’re made by Sony Corp. in accordance with Sony Electronics’ technology or device strategy. That’s why Sony bought Columbia Pictures and CBS Records, after all: to be sure it had content to feed its devices.

steve_jobs_mouseketeerIn Disney’s rejection of DECE we see a similar dynamic at work with respect to its technology master, Apple. The parallel isn’t exact; Apple doesn’t literally own Disney. But Steve Jobs is Disney’s largest individual shareholder and sits on its board of directors. He obviously has a loud voice on what technologies and which formats Disney supports.

How do I know Apple is a factor in Disney’s DECE stance? I don’t have direct knowledge of it, of course. And I’m sure Disney executives would sputter and fume at the allegation. What makes it a reasonable conclusion, I think, is that there is no obvious or compelling reason for Disney not to support DECE, at least officially, if not enthusiastically.

I can see lots of reasons to be skeptical of DECE. It’s already taking too long to produce results and it’s likely to require so many compromises as to be only marginally useful at best. But I don’t see a big downside for a studio in keeping a hand in. It could, of course, turn out to be a waste of time, but the studios waste time on inter-industry groups all the time. Disney Home Entertainment president Bob Chapek has, himself, served as chairman of the Digital Entertainment Group, for instance, which is a complete waste of time, to say nothing of the $10,000 per company in dues. It’s possible the work of DECE could lead to something useful, which can’t be said of the work of DEG. I don’t see the downside to a studio from being involved, or the upside in trying to scuttle it.

Apple’s opposition to DECE, on the other hand, makes perfect sense. Apple has never believed in device interoperability, unless they’re all Apple devices. And it has done very well by following that strategy, as its Q3 earnings report this week makes clear. But a large part of Apple’s success in the device business has also come at the expense of content owners, as the music companies can explain (Disney, of course, was the first studio to sign a deal with iTunes). DECE’s success would be Apple’s failure. But it’s hard to see how it would harm Disney, were it not for Steve Jobs’ interest.

comcast-nbc-monopolyAs is happens, another major studio, NBC Universal, could soon come under the control of another technology company, Comcast. Comcast’s interest comes at a time of technological upheaval in the pay-TV business, and Comcast officials have made no secret of their desire to control the technological exploitation of NBC’s content assets, particularly its cable networks.

Should a Comcast/NBC deal come to pass, three of the six major studios will be controlled — if not literally owned — by technology companies with distinct agendas regarding the evolution of media business. Rather than playing kingmaker among technology providers as in the past, the studios are becoming the pawns.

Neutrality on net neutrality is not an option

Continuing its campaignagainst the FCC’s planned net neutrality regulation, the Washington Post launched its new Post Tech blog Thursday with an interviewwith Carnegie Mellon computer science professor and net-neutrality skeptic,  David Farber. According to Farber:

[I]t’s very hard to define [“neutrality” and “reasonable network management”]. The problem here is everyone talks about reasonable network management, but if you look at it from a technical perspective, someone trying to build new ways of operating networks is going to sit there saying, “I wonder if this new brilliant idea is reasonable or not. And if I go through all the energy of implementing it and testing it, will someone in Washington say that that violates some reasonable network management criteria?”

[snip]

It is also attacking a problem which doesn’t seem to exist. The one or two cases where things that I would say fall into network neutrality have been taken care of easily. The FCC looked at this and said “You aren’t doing things right, so let’s look at it.” Having a whole set of regulations for something you don’t understand hasn’t happened is sort of tricky.

comcast_fccFair enough as far as it goes. But as a practical legal and political matter we’re way past the point of debating whether we should or shouldn’t have net neutrality regulation. The question on the table in Washington is who’s going to write the rules: Congress, the FCC or the courts?  The issue for the ISPs is to pick their poison, because the status quo is not an option.

For starters, you have Comcast’s litigation against the FCC over the agency’s reliance on its informal Broadband Policy Statementto order Comcast last year not to throttle BitTorrent traffic over its network. At this point, Comcast should probably consider dropping the case because there’s no plausible outcome that could benefit the ISP. Should the DC Circuit Court rule that the FCC’s “principles” have no legal force, or that the agency overstepped its jurisdiction — technically a “win” for Comcast in a narrow legal sense — the key committee chairs on the Hill would almost certainly move quickly to give the FCC to “correct” the jurisdictional problem. The FCC, meanwhile, would simply have more incentive to conduct a formal rulemaking so it wouldn’t have to rely on legally dubious policy principles. Read More »

Net neutrality is Comcastic! Or not.

The Media Wonk co-produced and moderated the panel discussion at the first Digital Breakfast DC event on Thursday and if you missed it, boy did you miss some first-class jaw-boning over net neutrality, fair use and the mysteries of HADOPI. Not to mention chance to practice your skills at balancing a bagel and fruit plate atop a cup of coffee with one hand, while handshaking and schmoozing with the other. There was some genuine talent in the room in that category, let me tell you.

fcc-sealOne person who was scheduled to be there but wasn’t was Rick Cotton, general counsel of NBC Universal. Cotton’s office sent word on Monday that he would likely have to cancel his planned trip to DC this week because, “something had come up,” back in NY so he wouldn’t be able to make the panel. They didn’t say what the “something” was but when the first reports of talks between GE and Comcast over a deal involving NBC broke Wednesday night two and two seemed to come together neatly to equal four (for the record, his office cautioned against putting two and two together).

While it was unfortunate that Rick couldn’t make it (thanks again to Michael O’Leary of the MPAA for stepping in at the last minute), if his absence was in fact related to the reported Comcast talks it at least was on topic. Among the issues discussed by the panel was the FCC’s recently announced plans to conduct a formal rule-making on net neutrality, and in particular chairman Julius Genachowski’s proposal that in enshrine a “principle of non-discrimination”: Read More »

The Washington Post's muddled view of net neutrality

The net neutrality debate, already heating up here in Washington since FCC chairman Julius Genachowski’s speech to the Brookings Institution last week, got additional fuel on Monday when the Washington Post weighed in with an oddly snide editorial opposing the chairman’s proposal to regulate the way ISPs manage their networks.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski promised that his agency’s plan for regulating Internet service providers (ISPs) will be “fair, transparent, fact-based and data-driven.”

That’s nice. But Mr. Genachowski failed to convincingly answer the most important question of all: Is this intervention necessary?Genachowski-Brookings

[snip]

He and other proponents of federal involvement cite a handful of cases they say prove that, left to their own devices, ISPs such as Comcast Corp. and AT&T will choke the free flow of information and technology. One example alluded to by the chairman: Comcast’s blocking an application by BitTorrent that would allow peer-to-peer video sharing. Yet that conflict was ultimately resolved by the two companies — without FCC intervention — after Comcast’s alleged bad behavior was exposed by a blogger. Read More »

An uneasy alliance on TV Everywhere

I have a guest post up this weekend over at GigaOm where I discuss some of the potential technical and anti-trust problems with Time Warner  CEO Jeff Bewkes’ concept for TV Everywhere, particularly the amount of cooperation and information sharing among nominally competing service providers necessary to make the system work.

But there are other potential problems that could also scuttle the industry’s best-laid plans. Like the imperfectly aligned interests of programmers and service providers.

It’s striking, although perhaps not surprising, that much of the impetus for the plan is coming from programmers. The idea was first articulated by Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes, who coined the term TV Everywhere (at the time Time Warner still owned Time Warner Cable but was in the process of spinning it off). But other programmers have been quick to jump on board. Read More »