Since the day job launched a blog on telecom issues, I have confined my rants about such topics to that forum. This is a “gray area” kind of post. It’s not really policy related, but it touches on the Internet and video. I’m writing it here because it is not, in any way, the view of my employer.

At issue is a column by the Washington Post’s Rob Pegoraro about the recently announced TV Everywhere plan cable companies are pursuing. In his column Rob writes:

Yes, you read that right: To watch this new batch of TV shows online, you’d have to sign up for a traditional pay-TV plan.

The TV Everywhere idea has been a dream of some media people for the last few years; see, for instance, Mark Cuban’s defense of the idea. But I don’t get it. At all.

Well, my immediate thought is, “You’re right. You don’t get it.” But after that, words fail me.

First, Rob, this isn’t “a new batch of TV shows”. This is the content you’re already paying for, but you’re now allowed to view it online. In order to view Pay-TV online, you need to pay for Pay-TV. That’s sort of the whole point.

Pegoraro suggests that this is like requiring people to pay for a subscription to the Washington Post in order to take a college prep test course. Ummm… No. That’s not at all the same thing. TV everywhere is, however, the equivalent of saying, “If you want to eat your McDonald’s Happy Meal in the park, you still have to pay for the McDonald’s happy meal.”

Next, Pegoraro asserts that incredibly complicated things like “authentication” are way to difficult to comprehend or apply:

Set aside such operational issues as authentication (how do you verify that one person’s a Comcast/DirecTV/Fios/etc. customer and another is not?)…

Ummm… How do you know if someone is a Gmail user or not? Well, Rob, they’re called “accounts”. When you subscribe, they create one. They come with something called an “account number” or a “user name” and a “password”. When you want to access your service online, you type (that big flat thing in front of your monitor is called a keyboard) those pieces of information into a form, click “submit” and voila! You are authenticated.

Pegoraro, again:

If somebody wants to watch video online, let ‘em: Charge them a fee, make money off their attention through advertising–better yet, give people a choice between watching ads or paying for an ad-free experience. But don’t force them to sign up for an unrelated, non-Internet service.

Sure, because the “ad-supported” model is working so well for broadcasters and newspapers. Even YouTube (ad supported video) is projected to lose between $175 million and $470 million this year. Even TV advertising is a failing venture because people are skipping the commercials. Hollywood has begun writing the commercials directly into the script to stave off that practice. NBC recently announced that Jay Leno’s show in the fall will be “DVR-proof” to force advertising on the public.

Do such actions seem like the tactics of a business model that works?

So let’s take a business model that works (a hybrid ad/subscriber model) and force it to pursue a failing business model because you want content for free – content that may cost millions per episode to produce.

As for the comment that you are forcing someone “to sign up for an unrelated, non-Internet service”, that’s still ridiculous no matter how many times you repeat it. This isn’t a non-Internet service. It’s the same service you already subscribe to, you just have more ways to consume it now. However, if you want to consume it, you have to subscribe.

Finally, Pegoraro suggests that media companies should simply give up and make all their media available for free:

Repeat after me: Trying to introduce an artificial scarcity of easily-duplicated content on the Internet does not work. If you set up boundaries that make no sense to your customers, you will simply cede the field to bootleg redistribution of your work. Fighting this principle is like trying to push water uphill–with a broom.

Well, actually, Rob. Most cable content isn’t available online for free – even through bootleg. Some of the most popular shows on cable are HGTV’s design programs. I challenege you to go find a readily available bootleg source of them. Go ahead, I’ll wait…

…

…

Back yet? What about ESPN sporting events? They’re all available for free elsewhere, right? No? What about NFL games? Surely the satellite guys give those away for free and you don’t need to subscribe to get the Sunday ticket, right? No? Hmmm… Well what about HBO’s programming. You can get Entourage episodes for free all over the net, right? Really? Only the old ones that have been released for sale well after the air date?

How can that be? How can people control such things? How can they possibly defeat the bootleg distribution of their work? Because they don’t make them available online for free? Perhaps.

The fact is, despite Rob’s characterization of Pay-TV as “easily-duplicated content”, it’s simply not true. Look at YouTube. The most popular video sharing site will disable the soundtrack to your video if the audio patterns in the file match copyrighted content. Sure. You could cruise BitTorrents looking for content. And many do. Those sites are constantly defending against their copyright violations and go out of business regardless of the legitimacy they claim (AllOfMP3.com, anyone?).

You can also find websites that show grainy, handicam captured versions of first-run films – often before they appear in theaters. But the quality sucks. Under Pegoraro’s theory, movie theaters should simply give up the fight and make all movies (regardless of the cost to produce and market them) open to the public at no cost on day one. Better yet, just close all the theaters and let people download the movies for free? Heck, the studio could easily make up those $30 million salaries and production budgets by displaying an ad for mortgage caluclators right along side the film, right?

Between work, travel, the holidays, the caucuses and primaries, and another project I’ve been trying to launch, I just haven’t had a lot of time to write, but I wanted to share a new endeavor I’ve undertaken. NCTA (the day job) has launched a new telecom policy blog at CableTechTalk.com.

CableTechTalk will give the industry a voice in the ongoing discussion and debate over telecom policy discussions. Debate over the direction of our nation’s telecom laws increasingly takes place online. This blog seeks to be an active player in that conversation, but it won’t be one-sided. Far from a typical press release and talking points blog, CableTechTalk will invite people with whom we disagree to engage in cross posted debates on the issues – sharing both sides of the argument and letting readers draw their own conclusion.

The blog also gives us the opportunity to share developments in the gadgets that attach to and leverage our voice, video and data platform. This week we’re in Las Vegas looking at the new tech toys on display at CES. We’re looking at the new TVs and set-top boxes, personal entertainment devices, gaming and broadband applications, and all the other things that make life fun.

If you get a chance, I hope you’ll take a look.

It’s been a bad week to be sick. With so much celebrity embarrassment on parade, not having the energy to trash them is really troubling.

Let’s set the wayback machine for the VMAs last week. This show had it all – award winners trashing the network that hosts the awards, has-been rockers duking it out over whored out former TV stars, single moms trying to whore themselves out (but nobody was buying), and militant rappers getting peeved that the awards weren’t rigged for them to win. Your entertainment dollar was simply not going to go farther than the 2007 VMAs

Britney was supposed to warm up the audience, but left everyone feeling cold. Blame it on the hair, the lip-synching, the magic act that wasn’t, the drinking, the allergic reaction to eye drops (what?), or any of another 100 oft-repeated excuses for the train wreck we witnessed, the sad reality is we want to see a nubile 20 year-old in skin tight leather dancing like a tramp or tongue kissing Madonna (actually, skip that last part). The fact is, Brit is now a single mom who, with every public appearance, reminds us of the line from Sweet Home Alabama.

Look at you! You have a baby! In a bar!

Here’s some advice Brit. Put on some clothes, write/sing a grown-up song, and stop trying to convince us that you’re the hot little vixen of Baby One More Time. That ship has sailed. You were used up by a douchebag, and the only guy that still wants you is this loser.

Next up… Kid Rock and Tommy Lee. Even with Britney and Kanye melting down at the VMAs, this is probably the most pathetic story of the night. These two guys get into a brawl over a woman who, by her own admission, paid off a poker debt with sex. Yup. That girl is a class act that is worth fighting for. Go get her, guys.

Speaking of Kanye, I don’t think I could sum this one up any better than Joel McHale (host of The Soup). After recapping Kanye’s choice words about his perceived snub at the hands of MTV, McHale said, “Geez. 50 Cent didn’t whine that much when he got shot.” True dat!

In our last glimpse backward at the VMAs, perhaps the one shining moment in the telecast came when Justin Timberlake (surrounded by the vapid cast of The Hills) excoriated MTV for filling its programming with non-stop reality TV and begged them to actually play music occasionally. It seems Timberlake may be one of the few people who owes his soul to MTV, and at the same time feels bad because he’s old enough to remember that MTV used to stand for Music Television.

Finally, back in the present, let’s dip into the overflowing cup of comedy gold that is O.J. Simpson. The same week that his book (If I Did It) comes out, and the world may read his claim that he’s not a criminal (at least not a murderous one), he gets arrested for storming into a sports memorabilia show with armed accomplices and trying to steal pieces of his life. It’s not clear whether he actually owns any of what he tried to steal. And it’s not clear if he was armed, but a tape of the incident clearly demonstrates his anger and rage as he barks out instructions that no one is to be allowed to leave.

Wow, O.J., armed robbery and taking hostages. That’s a hell of a good way to prove you’re not a killer. Maybe next time you could sacrifice a small puppy on national TV and tell people your killing is limited only to the animal kingdom. By the way, aren’t you supposed to be out there trying to catch the real killer?

The Cable Show in Vegas last week had some interesting surprises, as these conferences often do. You never know which panel or exhibitor will have a new perspective, new gadget, or new service that gets you thinking. One of the surprises for me this year was an art exhibit. It’s part of an annual competition that comes out of the gaming world. Into the Pixel invites game artists to submit their original concept art for judging.

Some if the winners are truly breathtaking. The fact that most are produced without paints or canvas, but purely through software, is remarkable. The picture to the left, from Oddworld: Stranger’s Wrath, was created using Adobe Photoshop. I’ve worked with Photoshop a lot, and consider myself fairly proficient, but would have no idea how to even begin something like this.

If you have some time, and want to be impressed by some electronic art, take a trip through the winners from years past. The 2007 winners be unveiled July 11.

I’m back from the annual Cable Show in Vegas where Comcast CEO Brian Roberts rolled out the next generation of broadband technologies. Demonstrating the new DOCSIS 3.0 standard for broadband over hybrid coax-fiber networks, Roberts moved a 4GB file in just over 3 minutes.

The DOCSIS 3.0 standard gets its juice from “channel bonding” technology. The modem bonds the equivalent of 4 channels of television (which would each be the equivalent of 40mbps), allowing speeds in the range of 160 mbps downstream. The upstream rate would increase as well. While the demo didn’t address upstream speeds, I was able to confirm with DOCSIS modem vendors that the upstream speed would likely increase to the 10-20 mbps range.

That may still seem small compared to the downstream, but is a dramatic increase over the 1mpbs we currently receive.

The vendors also told me that the downstream speed isn’t capped at 160, but actually scales up dramatically. The DOCSIS 3.0 standard allows for up to 32 bound channels – meaning the maximum downstream speed for the standard is 1280 mbps, or just over 1gbps.

At 160 mbps, the new standard puts cable modems far ahead of the current fiber optic offerings (which top out in the 30mbps range). The new standard is expected to reach consumers by this time next year. The interesting effect of all this, I believe, will be the creation of a bandwidth arms race between cable and the telcos. For those who have been concerned with the relative low speeds of US broadband compared to other countries, this should ease that pain.

An arms race between access providers will also limit the possibility of “net neutrality” violations. If customers are continually seeing improvements in throughput and have one significant reason to switch providers, it’s unlikely the ISP would give them another reason by limiting content.