The Washington Post's Cecilia Kang reports this morning on a serious story: The attempt--plot is probably a better word--by old-media cable and phone companies to gain control of Internet programming. The issue is "TV everywhere," the nice-sounding idea that the same cable and phone companies that currently deliver cable and phone services will also be providing TV content--on their systems. For a huge monthly fee, of course. That is, shows that are currently found for free, online, on services such as Hulu, Vuze, and Boxxee will now be available only to Comcast or Verizon subscribers.
Fortunately, some groups are rising to oppose this plot, as Kang reports:
"The old media giants are working together to kill off innovative online competitors and carve up the market for themselves," said Marvin Ammori, a law professor at the University of Nebraska and senior adviser to Free Press. Ammori wrote a report submitted to Justice and the FTC on how TV Everywhere could affect video distribution online.
Professor Ammori is absolutely right. More from Kang:
The public interest groups point to reports by the general media and trade publications that say cable, satellite and telecommunications providers met secretly to launch the TV Everywhere initiative. The competitors agreed to divide markets, raise prices, tie products and exclude new competitors, Ammori wrote in his report.
Let's take another look at some of those words: "met secretly" . . . "competitors agreed to divide markets, raise prices, tie products and exclude new competitors."
Of course, if Comcast et al. met secretly and agreed to divide markets, raise prices, tie products together into costly bundles, and exclude new competitors, then they aren't really competitors, are they? They are more likely to be anti-trust rogues, practicing restraint of trade.
And that's only damaging to the public interest, but it's also against the law.
