Independent programmers continue to find it difficult if not impossible to gain carriage on cable systems. Year-after-year, independent programmers watch cable operators favor the programs they own by giving them carriage in the basic and expanded basic tiers.
Free Press, in August of 2005, made the claim above in an FCC filing on cable competition. The filing goes on to describe a "stranglehold on programming" that "perpetuates the dominance of the four broadcast networks, Time Warner and Comcast in the programming market."
To read their filing you would picture hordes of angry independent programmers with torches and a mob of pitchfork-wielding consumers fed up with their choices on cable and demanding access to more channels, more voices, and less cable!
Now, Free Press has never had what I would call a great deal of consistency in its arguments, but this same unruly mob of consumers is now being deployed again by FreePress to fight FOR cable content. They have again broken out their pitchforks to demand their cable programming. BigCableTM, BigTelcoTM, and BigSatelliteTM are painted as a grave injustice being visited upon the Earth because they're trying to give their customers a new way to watch the video they already pay for.
These consumers, according to FreePress, are demanding access to cable/telco/satellite (CTS) programming over the Internet, but without a CTS subscription. They want access to cable programming, but they don't want it from their current video provider.
Free Press paints a dire picture of a world where TV Everywhere thwarts competition from online video by denying online services access to their content. They argue that CTS providers are trying to keep their content all locked up, and not giving the likes of Hulu access.
Here's The Rub
So what happened to all those independent programmers? Where are they now?
Free Press argued there was no content because of a "stranglehold on distribution." Now they argue distribution doesn't matter because of a stranglehold on content (by the same people, no less). It simply strains credibility.
In the last four years, the tools for creating, editing, and distributing video have gotten less expensive, not more. An HD video camera can be had for $150 or less. Good lighting for just a few hundred more. A computer with very sophisticated editing tools may run you a few thousand, but there are less expensive offerings that can make just about anyone a producer/director/star.
The only way Free Press' opposition to TV Everywhere makes sense is if it hinges on online video services being unable to fill the pipe without cable content.
Free Press would have us believe that despite the availability of low/no cost tools, and the throngs of would-be-independent-programmers from 2005, there is little being developed that can compete with the content created by CTS programmers and only their content has value.
Those Worthless Independent Programmers
If I were one of the independent content creators Free Press had previously championed, I would feel insulted. Free Press says how great they are and claims to be upset that nobody gets to see them. But when their cause is TV Everywhere, Free Press argues their programming isn't as good as what's on TV, and all the real good programming is being hoarded by those MSOs.
Free Press is the popular jock that tells you how beautiful you are, but then won't take you to the big party because you're not good enough to be seen with.
Online video sites have clearly demonstrated there is a wealth of independent content with nowhere to go, and distribution vehicles that give that content an audience.
In their report, Free Press describes a thriving online video marketplace. Their previous filings have clearly stated their belief that a wealth of content creators exist - but were previously denied access to an audience. Given the power of the Internet to grant anyone with a voice an audience, and the exceptionally low cost to create content, you would think Free Press would be ecstatic.
The proletariat has risen up. The people have both the means of production and the means of distribution. Yet Free Press still claims that conditions exist that are keeping the man down.
The reality is there is nothing preventing the independent programmers of 2005 from producing and distributing their content online. Free Press knows that.
If all of these independent programmers were being stifled when there was no web video, then online video sites should have no trouble at all filling their pipe with content to compete.
A Competitive Market
Despite Free Press claims that this is an elaborate plot to force people to keep paying for content, there is actually nothing at all stopping people from leaving cable. Do a quick Google search for "cord cutting" and you will find countless sites that tell you how to drop cable, get broadcast programming for free, and even access some of cable's programming online.
But if you want to watch all the programming MSOs make available, you choose to do so with the knowledge that there is a subscription fee.
People aren't forced to pay for TV.
Free Press, however, would prevent paying customers from viewing content on different screens - at no additional charge. This alleged "consumer group" would stand in the way of consumer demand for "anytime, anywhere" video because they disagree with the business model of pay television becoming paid content online.
It would seem a free service, offering the high-appeal content of the independent programmers would more than easily compete with CTS operators. Cable, if it is too expensive, and fails to meet consumer demand, would easily be bested by such an offering.
So let cable, the telcos, and satellite providers distribute their content as they see fit. Let the other programmers use the cheap tools, no/low cost distribution, and free business model to deliver their goods. That's how a competitive marketplace works.
(Michael Turk is a political and communications consultant living in McLean, VA. He sits on the Board of Directors for Digital Society and writes on telecom and technology policy. He previously worked for the National Cable and Telecommunications Association )