![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.stoth.com\/wp-content\/plugins\/wp-o-matic\/cache\/74b72_paranoid2.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Editor’s note<\/strong>: This guest post is by Andrew Keen,<\/a> the author of Cult of the Amateur<\/a> and an advisor to Arts and Labs<\/em><\/a>, a collaboration between entertainment companies, software providers, telecommunications providers, artists and creators.<\/em><\/p>\n Some people don’t like TV Everywhere<\/a>, Comcast’s and Time Warner’s plan\u00a0to bring cable TV to the Web. \u00a0They are just paranoid.<\/p>\n Allow me to explain. In his 1964 Harper\u2019s Magazine essay \u201cThe Paranoid Style in American Politics\u201d,<\/a> Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter argued that American politics has often been a stage for excessively conspiratorial and suspicious minds from both the left and the right. What disturbed Hofstadter most of all was the sanity of the paranoid. \u201cIt is the use of paranoid modes of expression by more or less normal people that make the phenomenon significant,\u201d he explained. By infecting normal people, Hoftstadter worried, the paranoid style had made conspiratorial fantasy a troublingly recurrent feature of American political culture.<\/p>\n Hofstadter is correct. From Andrew Jackson to Joseph McCarthy to contemporary Americans on both the left and the right, the paranoid style\u2014with its obsessive targeting of the Roman Papacy or Russian communists or Wall Street bankers or Muslim terrorists\u2014has replaced rational discussion with what Hoftstadter called \u201cheated exaggeration, suspiciousness and conspiratorial fantasy.\u201d<\/p>\n As the Internet has become more and more of a central political issue in American life, so the paranoid style has, unfortunately, begun to infect our public discussion about technology and media. Much of this paranoia focuses on the supposed selfishly monopolistic intentions of mainstream media which, for many otherwise sane people, represents a deadly threat against the so-called \u201cpeople\u2019s Internet\u201d. Thus, from Rupert Murdoch\u2019s obstinate determination to protect the economic value of his content on the Internet to Bono\u2019s latest defense of intellectual property to the perpetual hysteria around the Network Neutrality debate, any criticism of piracy or defense of paid content is viewed in the darkest and most apocalyptical terms by paranoid advocates of an \u201copen\u201d and \u201cfree\u201d Internet.<\/p>\n Richard Hoftstadter\u2019s \u201cangry minds\u201d who, in the 19th century, obsessed over the threat of masons, Jesuits and munitions makers, have, in the digital 21st century, discovered record labels, movie studios and, above all, telecoms and cable companies as the root of all our problems. Take, for example, the paranoia<\/a> that has greeted Comcast and Time Warner\u2019s announcement of their TV Everywhere\u00a0pilot. On the face of it, the non-exclusive TV Everywhere service is a perfectly rational and reasonable effort by the cable companies to combine the values of their offline and online businesses. The test scheme \u2013 which is about to be rolled out to 5,000 Comcast customers \u2013 enables subscribers to access content from Time Warner’s TBS and TNT channels which they\u2019ve paid for on their cable boxes for free on the Internet.<\/p>\n So what\u2019s not to like about TV Everywhere? If you choose to pay for cable service, then you\u2019ll be able to access this content for free on the Internet. If not, then you won\u2019t. And if current cable subscribers object for any reason to the TV Everywhere scheme, then they can simply end their commercial relationship with Comcast and go elsewhere to acquire their media.<\/p>\n But TV Everywhere has been greeted with exaggerated suspiciousness and conspiratorial fantasy by some Internet groups. This paranoia is particularly palpable at lobbying groups like Free Press<\/a> and Public Knowledge<\/a>\u2014organizations which often appear to be intrinsically opposed to the online business initiatives of large, established media companies.<\/p>\n For example, Josh Silver, Executive Director of Free Press, has argued<\/a> that TV Everywhere is really a \u201cdesperate bid by old media giants to crush the emerging market for online TV.\u201d And here\u2019s the paranoid language with which Marvin Ammori, senior adviser at Free Press, characterized<\/a> TV Everywhere:<\/p>\n The launch of the TV Everywhere model indicates that Comcast wants competition nowhere. These are transparent efforts to preserve the cable cartel that gouges consumers. Comcast wants to be the gatekeeper to the video programming world. This service is a threat to innovative online video and an attempt by the industry to impose the cable-TV model onto the Internet.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Well of course Comcast \u2014a part of this supposedly evil \u201ccable cartel that gouges consumers\u201d \u2014wants to be the gatekeeper to the video programming world. That\u2019s their business model, their very raison d\u2019etre. But the idea that TV Everywhere could be a threat to \u201cinnovative\u201d video start-ups like Vuze, Roku and Hulu is an example of the kind of paranoia about large media companies that has infected groups like Free Press and Public Knowledge. Content businesses such as TNT, TBS and CBS are free to run their content on both TV Everywhere and ad-supported free websites like Hulu. It\u2019s their choice. And that choice\u2014as all commercial decisions\u2014will presumably be determined by solid business criteria. If Hulu or TV Everywhere makes sense in commercial terms, then content producers will allow their content to run on these networks. If not, then they won\u2019t.<\/p>\n “If Comcast is not attempting to stifle competition, then why is it only available to Comcast cable subscribers and not nationwide for all Internet users?\u201d Ammori goes on to ask about TV Everywhere.<\/p>\n But why would Comcast make its content available for non-subscribers who haven\u2019t paid to access this content? Does Ammori imagine that this multi-million dollar business initiative is really a charity intent on the public good? TV Everywhere shouldn\u2019t be confused with TV For Everyone. If you don\u2019t pay, you don\u2019t play. Like it or not, that basic economic truth applies to both new and old media.<\/p>\n Not all truths, however, should be applied in exactly the same way in both old and new media. In contrast with traditional media, on the Internet the more empowered consumer has become comfortable with picking and choosing the content for which they pay. Thus the success of iTunes over the Rhapsody model. So the really interesting business question which TV Everywhere raises is whether the old media model of bundling all-you-can-eat content in a single monthly price can work in the digital age of this empowered consumer. Perhaps, in parallel with TV Everywhere, cable companies would be wise to also offer the option of paying for online video content on an a l\u00e1 carte basis. \u00a0But that is a different discussion.<\/p>\n Beyond all the paranoia, TV Everywhere is actually good for consumers who choose to legally access high quality video content on the Internet. The paranoid camp would, of course, disagree. “Under the TV Everywhere plan, no other program distributors would be able to emerge, and no consumers will be able to ‘cut the cord’ because they find what they want online,\u201d Gigi Sohm, Public Knowledge president argued last year<\/a>.<\/p>\n But Sohm\u2019s pessimism about technological innovation is misguided. TV Everywhere is good news for program distributors because it opens up a potentially huge online channel for new content that wasn’t previously legally\u00a0available on the Web. The more consumers who watch commercially viable video on the Internet, the more opportunities will exist for innovative online entrepreneurs. TV Everywhere represents one of the most promising business initiatives for bridging old and new media. By putting some of their most valuable content on the Internet, Comcast and Time Warner are doing all non-paranoid consumers and entrepreneurs a huge favor.<\/p>\n Photo credit: Flickr\/Photomish Dan<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n Crunch Network<\/em><\/strong>: MobileCrunch<\/a> <\/em>Mobile Gadgets and Applications, Delivered Daily.<\/p>\n\n
\n\nCrunchBase Information<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nAndrew Keen<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\nInformation provided by CrunchBase<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n