There is no technological reason for video services to be primarily offered by facilities operators, and consumers would clearly benefit if video services were as competitive as, say, online news sources.

Those content producers (that are not also cable companies) are being sold a bill of goods on how the TV Everywhere model will someone protect them. You'd wish that content producers would realize that a truly competitive market for video subscriptions would be good for them. I think people in that industry have been blinded by years of outdated must carry and so forth.

I have no comment on whether TV Everywhere is illegal, not having read the filing. Antitrust is a tricky area. But it seems odd that a (rational) attempt by yesterday's technology to extend its dominance into tomorrow is described by you as being “innovation.”

There is no technological reason for video services to be primarily offered by facilities operators, and consumers would clearly benefit if video services were as competitive as, say, online news sources.

Those content producers (that are not also cable companies) are being sold a bill of goods on how the TV Everywhere model will someone protect them. You'd wish that content producers would realize that a truly competitive market for video subscriptions would be good for them. I think people in that industry have been blinded by years of outdated must carry and so forth.

I have no comment on whether TV Everywhere is illegal, not having read the filing. Antitrust is a tricky area. But it seems odd that a (rational) attempt by yesterday's technology to extend its dominance into tomorrow is described by you as being “innovation.”

It's quite neato that America's Socialists and progressives now couch their discredited Marxist-Leninist plotting and scheming under the rubric of “public option.” Whereas in another time and place we simply called government-run newspapers by their proper names: “Commie propaganda” and “Red journalism.”

The fact that market participants are experimenting with models in addition to fee or advertiser-supported models is not a sign of anti-competitive conduct. It is a sign of a dynamic and rapidly-changing market in which no one knows the ultimate outcome. Free Press may prefer one video distribution model over another. But that is for the marketplace – and content owners exercising their rights to distribute their content in the manner they choose – to sort out. A model that would give consumers the option to get more value – by access to online content – as part of the TV subscription they already pay for is something that consumers should have the right to embrace or reject.

Absolutely correct. Free Press is basically asking Washington to pick winners and losers in terms of the business models for this fast-moving sector. Big mistake.

The TV industry is in a state of rapid change. No one knows where this is going – subscription models vs advertising models, set-top boxes vs Web-connected TV screens, or even the rise of cloud-based on-demand access. Instead of jumping in and crying antitrust to the feds about the TV Everywhere efforts, we should be giving the traditional players a chance to stay in the game and experiment with a model that just might work.

They know, just as well as you and I, that there are plenty of options out there for video entertainment. If they want to keep the customer base they have, they’re going to have to not only give the customers an experience they’ll enjoy, but they’ll also have to do it for a price that makes all parties – including the viewers – happy. Otherwise, why would we ever agree to pay?

It sounds to me like TV Everywhere is an example of a free market evolving and adapting with changing times. Washington would be wise to leave it alone and watch to see not only where it goes, but also what it spawns.

Amen, Sam! I couldn't agree more.

As with all things antitrust, the end result will be a patchwork of haphazard antitrust theories, “consent orders,” and individual regulator statements that won't add up to anything remotely coherent.