Faxassins 2 is Here!: What if two trade journalists got bored and decided to produce their own TV show? You'd end up with "Faxassins," an example of TV at its worst. Good thing cable networks don't take programming advice from Seth and Mike.
View Gallery » CableFAX 100-MPWIC
(from left) Deanna Andaverde, Jennifer Ball, Betsy Alekman and Debbie Goetz of Univision at CableFAX's Top 100 celebration in NY Dec 10. To see more photos from that event and from CableFAX's Most Influential Women in Cable festivities please click View Gallery
ARTFUL COURT: Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer (left) welcomes Tennis Channel chief Ken Solomon to the court, the Supreme Court, that is. Solomon, also chairman of arts network Ovation, was sworn in earlier this month by Breyer as a member of the President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities.
The latest retrans tiff between Cablevision and Disney’s ABC affiliate in the NYC area was even more dysfunctional than producer Elinor Burkett’s Kanye moment during the Academy Awards (Thank heavens NYC area Cablevision subs were able to see that!). But when you think about it, the Cablevision-Disney dispute was kind of boring: Two behemoths fighting over a few cents, with consumers caught in the middle and policymakers jeering from the sidelines. Been there, done that. What’s different today is that price elasticity for cable is reaching its apex, and an industrywide breaking point now seems visible on the horizon. That’s scary. Very scary. Let’s just call this blood-curdling place Retransylvania because, well… I made that up and think it’s pretty darned clever. Cope with it.
Here’s the basic situation driving the resurgence of these retrans battles: The broadcasters are getting killed by cable networks and the Internet, both of which have siphoned off billions in ad revenue. The financial meltdown gave us a horrific recession, which has turned a bad ad market into a desperate situation for broadcasters. They need new revenue streams. So why not turn to retrans? This is the free market that cable operators so often reference when resisting government regulation. Some broadcasters’ retrans behavior may be obnoxious, standoff-ish and entirely dismissive of legitimate concerns about higher TV bills, but hey… can you really blame them for using every ounce of negotiating leverage provided to them by current law?
The larger moral question, of course, is whether the law must change. But that’s tricky. Let’s remember that millions of people in this country can’t afford even basic pay TV services, much less a computer. They depend on a financially healthy broadcast industry. Nonetheless, the vast majority of the U.S. population doesn’t use over-the-air broadcasting at all. So why should pay TV subscribers have to subsidize content using spectrum that taxpayers donated to for-profit entities on the very condition that it be freely available? Of course, the government could simply cap retrans fees at some reasonable level, assuming such a move could withstand inevitable court challenges. But that’s a slippery slope. Why not price regulation for all programming license fees? Or better yet, let’s just regulate cable rates again! See where this all goes? Remember the 1990s? None of this ends well for anyone.
New rate regulation is pretty unlikely at this point, but the FCC and Congress are watching. And you have to wonder whether pay TV bills have become high enough, the economy has become bad enough and the public has lost enough patience with these battles to force some kind of serious action. As Sanford Bernstein’s Craig Moffett so eloquently suggested in a recent note to clients, retrans fights also give comfort to a-la-carte proponents who would like nothing more than to alter the entire business model that nourishes cable operators and their programmer partners. The retrans brinkmanship increasingly used by both sides to ratchet up pressure on the other just strengthens these forces. And that’s a scary prospect for the continued health of an industry responsible for so many jobs and creative content that is, by the way, still one of our nation’s best international exports. This frightening drive through Retransylvania will end one of two ways: Either the industry comes out the other side wiser or it runs out of gas before learning its lesson. The ensuing hike through the wilderness could bring out all sorts of scary ghosts. Paging Kevin Martin.
When it comes to television animation, satirists and storytellers have set the bar incredibly high in recent years. What used to be a medium for kids has become an adult playground, with many of the best animated shows residing within the Fox family. On the broadcast side, there’s “The Simpsons,” now 20 years old and still satirically relevant, as well as the newer and more daring “The Family Guy,” which has turned creator Seth MacFarlane into a Hollywood darling (as well as a target of several camps constantly offended by his humor). But with the exception of Comedy Central’s hilarious and often mind-blowingly smart “South Park,” cable hasn’t delved as much into the animated comedy realm. So it’s fitting that Fox’s own FX network—which bravely focuses on original fiction shows despite the cost and associated risks—has created what can only be described as a clever show that may or may not find an audience willing to tolerate its darker side.
“Archer” (Thurs, 10pm), which premiered in Jan, is at times hilarious. At other times, it’s so sardonic that it borders on self-indulgent. This show doesn’t produce laughs every five seconds, but it mixes ridiculous situations and storylines with characters whose internal and external struggles are strangely relatable. That’s not easy when the setting is a super-secret spy agency run by the domineering Malory Archer (Jessica Walter), whose son Sterling (H. Jon Benjamin) bumbles through every mission but somehow ends up heroically saving the day—usually by coincidence. In the first episode, for example, Sterling gets caught using his expense account to pay for his vices, including alcohol, gambling and hookers, and then must use his spy skills to break into the agency’s computer room to change his records. While there, he’s confronted by a mole everyone has been after, manages to subdue him and then frames the guy for tinkering with his expense report. Most episodes go in this direction: Every mission is really just an excuse for Sterling to feed his own ego and make recklessly horrible decisions while trying to convince ex-girlfriend and fellow spy Lana Kane (Aisha Tyler) that her current boyfriend—spy agency comptroller Cyrill Figgis (Chris Parnell)—isn’t right for her. She clearly still has feelings for Archer but also knows he’s a complete jackass. That doesn’t bother promiscuous secretary Cheryl (Judy Greer), who has a thing for him and keeps changing her name because he can’t remember it anyway.
Meanwhile, these characters continually plot against one another as they selfishly pursue their own goals—coming together only when their collective plights demand cooperation to save their own skins. In another episode, Malory Archer throws a dinner party to convince a high-level government official to hire the agency for spy work and plans a fake assassination attempt to allow her agents to save the day. The assassins turn out to be double-agents hired by Malory’s longtime love interest, who also happens to be the head of the KGB (Don’t ask… The show is apparently set during the Soviet era, but it’s unclear at times. So it’s best to just assume this is a bizarre-o alternative universe). When the official and a hooker Sterling hires to seduce him (again, don’t ask) both end up dead, the whole Archer gang works together to cover it up by making it look like a murder-suicide and burning the bodies. Then they all sit down and eat dinner together, laughing about the crazy evening. It’s that kind of show. Much of the humor involves someone getting shot, killed or otherwise injured. If that sort of thing offends you, best to steer clear of this one. Of course, it’s important to remember that these are, uh… cartoons.
In a way, Archer is a show about office politics. But instead of a Dunder-Mifflin-esque office environment, this is a spy agency in which death and destruction are just a part of the job. This isn’t really a satire of modern society along the lines of “South Park” or “The Simpsons.” It’s more a study of endlessly flawed characters who somehow get through life and situations by any means necessary. Whether it’s tensions between mother and son, boyfriend and girlfriend, boyfriend and ex-girlfriend… or just a dissection of common flaws like pride, arrogance, paranoia and self doubt… Archer takes the human condition and exaggerates it for comic effect—all while reminding us that, well… despite our own flaws, we’re not as bad as these people. At least that’s what we tell ourselves.
Yes, we’re all sick of 3DTV. But like death, taxes and the sport of curling, it just refuses to die. Just this week, iSuppli predicted that global 3DTV shipments will soar to 78 million units in 2015 from just 4.2 million this year. That’s a lot of growth. The firm forecass that revenue will rise from $7.4 billion to $64.3 billion in that same time.
Any way you slice that three dimensional pie, the cable industry is stuck with 3D and all of the challenges and headaches it will bring—along of course with phenomenal opportunities to grow content revenue substantially. That opportunity should outweigh the risks over time—but to what degree is anyone’s guess at this point. It’s just too early. That doesn’t mean the industry shouldn’t start planning its 3D future. For as silly as it might seem to predict where this is all going, it’s going somewhere big. And cable operators, programmers, vendors and even software makers need to understand the big picture now in order to work out the details in the coming years. ESPN, Discovery, DirecTV, Motorola and others already know that and are pushing hard toward that 3D future. More will soon follow.
At CableFAX, we love confusion and anxiety because it gives us yet another reason to exist. But that notwithstanding, 3DTV currently sits where HDTV sat only a decade ago. Remember all the skepticism about consumer acceptance? All the hand-wringing over the costs and risks? All the talk of advertisers not paying extra for HD—and how horrible that would be for everyone? No one talks like that anymore because HD just “is.” It’s part of the landscape. And it soon will cease to be its own buzzword. After all, no one talks about color TV anymore. It’s just TV.
The question is whether 3DTV will ever become a staple of the masses. HD isn’t there yet, but it’s getting closer every day and is fast becoming affordable for most people. $300 HD sets at CostCo? Wow. But will 3DTV achieve this kind of ubiquity? That’s actually a tough question. It’s coming, to be sure. But how “niche” will 3D be—and for how long? And how ubiquitous will 3D content become down the road?
Here are a few things to consider:
Those Darned Glasses – Analysts predict that TVs will eventually be able to display 3D content without any need for viewers to wear those funky glasses. But that’s 5-7 years away. For now, we’re all stuck with them. And man, is it confusing out there. Several manufacturers make 3DTVs—all using different technologies that require, you guessed it, different kinds of glasses. Uh, boy. Some are just like the ones you use in theaters to make James Cameron ridiculously rich. Others, however, put the guts of all that 3D tech into the glasses themselves. They will run $50-$200 per pair and will require batteries. Wonderful news for all those families with lots of eyeballs to outfit. And those of us who can’t find any of our 7 existing remote controls are just bubbling with anticipation for the day we also get to lose expensive eyewear under the couch cushions. For the next few years, 3D will be expensive for families. And it won’t be mainstream. And part of the reason is those glasses.
Where’s the Content? – Another reason 3D will take some time to work its way into the mainstream: A relative dearth of content. In these early years, only a handful of networks will offer compelling 3D content. Comcast and other big distributors will of course make a lot of it available via VOD—but don’t expect thousands of 3D selections any time soon. And no, wholesale 2D-to-3D conversion doesn’t cut it. A lot of content just isn’t suited for 3D. All those action movies and adventure reality shows with shaky camera work so in vogue in recent years? Forget it. Trying to convert that stuff to 3D would make viewers nauseous. James Cameron carefully positioned cameras to make Avatar’s 3D work correctly. In fact, for the big CGI-motion capture sequences, dozens of cameras shot from multiple angles at all times, enabling him to direct camera angles and shots later while editing. That’s not how most stuff is shot. For the majority of content, going 3D either won’t work or will require a complete change in how shows are produced. That change will be gradual. And no one is going to shake up their entire established workflow just to appease a tiny audience of elites with 3D sets.
Stuff We Haven’t Thought About Yet – Remember that federal mandate called closed captioning? How will that work in 3D? And all those competing 3D standards out there… Are we looking at a potential battle between manufacturers similar to the disastrous Blu Ray-vs.-HD-DVD war of the HD worlds? Have cable networks thought about the training and equipment costs around 3DTV—not just for camera operators, producers and perhaps even hosts/actors, but also for the video editors who for now will have to wear those goofy glasses for 10 hours a day while editing 3D footage? Are the unions cool with all of this? Are cable operators prepared for the potential capacity crunch that may ensue as 3D and HD live simultaneously? Those all-digital upgrades will help, but with competitors constantly upgrading their own networks, operators will need every ounce of bandwidth to compete.
Again, 3DTV will most likely be huge. Big sports events, cinematic nature footage, big event movies and other appropriate content will certainly make wearing those glasses within the home more bearable and perhaps worth the sacrifice (and ridicule from other family members). But the overriding question is whether 3D technology will improve at a fast enough clip to sustain content creators’ significant investments in this space.
For the next few years, 3DTV will be a rough ride. But then again, so was HDTV. And we all know how big that got. Eventually.
SHAMELESS PLUG ALERT: Much of the above was discussed at length during CableFAX’s recent Webinar “3DTV: How Can It Benefit Cable.” You can access the webinar on-demand here.
As we just start to dig into 2010 (and dig out of snowstorms), it’s somewhat appropriate that—by all educated guesses and tech pundit prognostications—this could very well be the year that mobile data goes into hyperdrive. Sure, we’re all enjoying our 3G- and WiFi-enabled iPhones, Blackberries and other like devices. And the apps are nice. But this year marks the beginning of the 4G world, which depending on who you ask can mean a number of things. To the cable industry, this is largely about WiMax technology and Clear and the hope that Sprint can make it work despite tough competition. For the telcos, it’s largely a question of deploying LTE technology, which promises to create mobile networks that theoretically could match current wired broadband speeds. Not to go overboard here, but this is pretty significant. The 3G world has given us a taste of what relatively fast data networks can mean for media consumption, especially video. The 4G world could be a feast that takes off the training wheels and really blows up the media content world. Maybe even in a good way.
Think about the convergence of factors conspiring to make all of this happen this year. First of all, Verizon and AT&T are furiously building out LTE networks with plans to have significant coverage by year-end or next year at the latest. Sprint is equally jazzed about WiMax, even though most analysts think LTE will eventually become the technology of choice. When it comes to media consumption, it doesn’t really matter. Both offer a new level of speed that consumers will use to consume media content. What other reason are such speeds necessary? To check email? To browse Web sites? No. All of the frantic network upgrades out there are for one purpose: To feed consumers’ insatiable demand for data-heavy activities like watching video and, increasingly, user-generated media creation that ends up flowing upstream over those same networks through apps like Twitter, Facebook, Flickr and many others. Consumer expectations have largely gotten ahead of wireless networks. Now, carriers are trying to catch up. And that includes cable, whose TV Everywhere strategy is largely predicated on a mobile component to the “I need it anywhere and anytime” mentality of the 21st century media consumer.
Another big factor: Device makers have basically caught up to the iPhone. Most have matched it in raw functionality. Some have exceeded it by certain technical measures. Yes, Apple was literally years ahead of everyone when it launched the first iPhone in 2007; it’s not anymore. Now, it’s feeding off of Apple fan loyalty and, of course, a certain elegance and operating system stability (as well as an iTunes content experience) that others have yet to match. Whether the iPhone remains the must-have device or whether companies like Samsung and Palm gain enough ground to take the lead is anyone’s guess. On the operating system side, Microsoft this week began a massive push for its Windows Phone 7 series that promises to do everything Apple does—only with more functionality (running simultaneous apps, full manipulation of Office docs, etc). Of course, Microsoft always talks a big game. It’s unclear whether it can overcome those stability problems that have always plagued mobile versions of Windows—especially as consumers pile on apps and multitasking. But none of that really matters. This is an arms race that will intensify in 2010. That means lower prices on devices and data plans. This “chicken in every pot” reality means that mobile media content’s reach will start to trickle down this year. The mobile video revolution is starting to get pretty darned affordable.
And finally, there’s the big media content wildcard: Apple’s iPad launch by this summer. No one expects the iPad to immediately catch fire like the iPhone. But Apple and many analysts expect at least a couple million of them to fly off of store shelves this year. Those 2 million people will be taking them to coffee shops and showing them off at business functions. The first iPad version uses WiFi. The second will carry 3G capability. And yes, an LTE version is likely by early next year if not sooner. The iPad and its “cool factor” could be a major part of selling TV Everywhere to the masses. It takes mobile video viewing beyond the small screen of a mobile device. Yes, laptops can do the same thing, but they’re just not as cool. Apple is trying to create a new category that will excite consumers about the possibilities of media content portability. It’s a feel thing. It may seem like a meaningless distinction. But it’s not. Just ask iPhone users.
This is the year, folks. Media content wants to roam. All of it. And everywhere. Are you ready for the 2010s? They’re going to turn your world upside down.
With media companies testing out paid content models, the results of a Nielsen survey released today seems to bolster the case for TV Everywhere and other online video pay models. Nielsen surveyed 27,000 consumers in 52 countries to find out if they would start paying for content they now receive for free. And while 85% of consumers want free content to remain free (big surprise, right?), the responses also suggested that they’re most willing to pay for professionally produced movie and TV shows vs. other content types.
Here are a few interesting specifics from the survey:
78% of respondents believe if they already subscribe to a newspaper, magazine, radio or television service, they should be able to use its online content for free.
71% of global consumers say online content of any kind will have to be considerably better than what is currently free before they will pay for it.
79% would no longer use a web site that charges them, presuming they can find the same information at no cost.
As a group, consumers are ambivalent about whether the quality of online content would suffer if companies could not charge for it—34% think so while 30% do not; and the remaining 36% have no firm opinion.
But they are far more united (62%) in their conviction that once they purchase content, it should be theirs to copy or share with whomever they want.
Snowmageddon. Snopocalypse. Snoverkill. The mid-Atlantic blizzard, which has already dumped more than three feet of snow in some places and maniacally plans to dump another foot on us today, continues to force manual labor upon the white-collar masses. We must dig out our cars. We must get to Starbucks. Frankly, this is getting Snodiculous.
But as we brace for another wave, it’s important to note that CableLabs’ Denver location is—for once—far less snowy than the terrain roamed by its East Coast cousins. And with some tech-minded East Coasters now basking in the relatively sunny, clear skies of Colorado at CableLabs' Winter Conference (Okay… it’s seven degrees out there, but still…), the rest of us are left back here climbing over 10-foot high mounds of exhaust-blackened snow grudgingly. We're not bitter. We salute you. For you are forging the future of cable, and without you, we would be nothing. Or something like that.
But in all seriousness, some cool stuff is taking place at CableLabs this week. If you read CableFAX Daily’s Tues issue, you know that content search firm Jinni turned some heads with its mood-based search engine. It sounds exotic, and it kind of is. Basically, its search engine allows people to hunt for content based on its emotional resonance rather than an often out-of-context keyword. It’s actually reminiscent of “collaborative filtering,” which created quite a buzz when it first emerged almost a decade ago as a way for companies like Amazon to smartly recommend books you might like. Scores of e-commerce sites use it now—to the point that it’s no longer a novelty. But collaborative filtering is somewhat passive, pushing recommended content to you. Jinni’s idea puts the power in the user’s (or viewer’s) hands. And that’s significant. Sure, this will work on the Internet and help make TV Everywhere more powerful, but it will also work in the TV environment and perhaps help cable finally shed its sketchy VOD navigation experience. Of course, if it works as advertised, Jinni’s tech will certainly find its way to cable competitors as well. So let the arms race for smart packaging and customization begin. Customers are clamoring for a way to navigate those thousands of choices. The company that does it best will reap great rewards.
Also in Denver is lots of talk of EBIF, which continues to be one of those insular cable technologies that the rest of the world doesn’t understand but could change TV forever. Advertisers especially are excited because EBIF-powered widgets could make true interactive advertising a fast reality by streamlining the content creation process. In fact, CableLabs and Canoe Ventures just this week issued the latest EBIF spec to give even more options to developers. Also exciting is the launch of EBIF.tv, a Website to make it even easier for developers to get on the EBIF train, but it’s also a place where trade hacks like me (as well as members of the often tech-phobic mainstream press) can increase their EBIF knowledge. Even a layperson, who has heard of EBIF but isn’t quite sure how it will impact the public, can use the site to learn more. Few will take the time, but again—it’s a great resource on a topic that will become increasingly important and pervasive as EBIF apps sneak into consumers’ TVs over the next few years.
CableLabs is one of those old-school cable institutions that probably doesn’t get enough ink (or pixels) in a world saturated with technology articles that often gloss over the tough, mind-bending work that takes place in back rooms among engineers, product developers and device makers. It’s messy stuff. And no one enjoys watching sausage get made. But it’s times like these—when snowfall on the East Coast leaves people hostage to their computers and TVs (assuming they haven’t lost power)—that we can all truly appreciate CableLabs’ work over the years to give us broadband, better set-tops and a cooler TV experience. Here’s hoping cable’s tried and true research arm will keep burning the midnight oil so we can all reap the benefits of a more seamless technology universe.
Hallmark Channel’s big announcement that it will partner with Martha Stewart to bring the icon’s homespun content to its network highlights a trend that has accelerated in recent months and years. The idea is that America loves celebrity, and that cable networks can create more brand awareness by latching on to top personalities that align with their brand messaging and audience. Of course, while these deals always look good on paper, they don’t always go smoothly: After all, the Hallmark-Stewart deal comes almost exactly two years after Discovery’s announcement that it would rebrand the sagging Discovery Health into The Oprah Winfrey Network. That effort still has yet to produce a channel, partly because of much-reported executive shuffles at OWN over the last year. OWN, which was originally set to launch by late 2009, is now slated go live in Jan 2011. Big personalities can also create transition issues in the broadcast world, which became obvious in recent weeks as the Jay Leno-Conan O’Brien debacle painfully and sometimes comically unfolded.
But love ‘em or hate ‘em, those celebrities are what drive eyeballs to television screens. And whether it’s courting them to rebrand a network, create programs or simply attach their famous faces and voices to shows, working with celebrities seems to have become a mainstay. At one point during this month’s Television Critics Association tour in L.A., Discovery Channel even found itself defending its choice of Winfrey as narrator for its upcoming “Life” series (produced with partner BBC). One critic pressed the network on why it replaced original voice work by the iconic Sir David Attenborough with Winfrey. The explanation was that Weaver brought something special and unique to the table. That’s fair enough. But it seems logical that Winfrey’s higher celebrity status and broader demographic appeal were prevailing factors. And should anyone fault Discovery for that? Probably not.
Cable networks are in the business of aggregating eyeballs. Period. In a tough advertising environment, celebrity hosts, producers, voices and the like can help “sell” a program—to both viewers and advertisers. That’s the game, and it’s not going to change any time soon. In fact, this is true even when advertising isn’t a factor. When non-ad supported HBO taps Rosie O’Donnell for a documentary on the changing American family (“A Family is a Family is a Family”) or Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks for “Band of Brothers” follow-on “The Pacific,” it knows that it will get more press attention (In fact, Rosie was just on “Good Morning America” this morning to talk about her HBO special). More press leads to more awareness, which leads to more viewers, which leads to more press, which leads to more nominations during awards season, which leads to more press, which leads to more viewers—and on and on and on.
Are there pitfalls to this need for celebrity firepower in everything cable networks do? Sure. Celebrities can be a royal pain. They demand top dollar and often want complete creative freedom, a combination that doesn’t necessarily lead to brilliance. And you have to wonder whether audiences and critics are more willing to give something a chance when it doesn’t have a big star attached. AMC’s “Mad Men” slowly grew into a hit without a single big name to trot out to the late night shows or the red carpet. In this case, cable didn’t try to mold a show around a star or group of stars; it cast the show with talented but relatively unknown actors and then let them shine. They’re all stars now. But they owe that to AMC, not the other way around. In the old days, that was cable’s role. These days, cable competes nearly head-to-head with big broadcast networks for talent and viewers. That isn’t a bad thing. But with great power comes great responsibility. And often… many headaches.
(Michael Grebb is executive editor of CableFAX)
For sci fi fans who marveled at the intricate and unpredictable storylines that made SyFy’s “Battlestar Galactica” one of the best dramatic series in TV history (IMHO), the season debut of prequel “Caprica” tonight (Fri, Jan 22, 9pm) bears a heavy burden. In the coming weeks, how will creator Ronald Moore and his team match the excitement and critical acclaim of Battlestar—especially when they must literally start from scratch? After all, Caprica takes place nearly 60 years before Battlestar and therefore includes no cross-over characters except for an adolescent Bill Adama who will grow up to become captain of Battlestar Galactica. Instead, Caprica focuses on the genesis of the Cylon “race,” which began as the brainchild of billionaire entrepreneur Daniel Graystone (Eric Stolz). In the 2-hour pilot that airs tonight, Graystone creates the robotic cylon prototype to get a juicy military contract but later—after his daughter Zoe (Alessandra Torresani) is killed in a terrorist attack—his quest takes on a more altruistic motive: Resurrecting his daughter, who made a digital “copy” of her memories and personality before she died (yeah, just suspend your disbelief). As Graystone tries to transplant his daughter into a cylon body, something goes horribly wrong, making him believe he’s lost the data forever. But by the end of the pilot, it becomes clear that the data is alive and well—and that there will be an eventual reunion (and perhaps not an altogether happy one).
If you’re confused already, that’s understandable. Moore and his writers like complicated plots that test our willingness to accept somewhat outlandish ideas and story tools. For example, Caprica continues Battlestar’s use of seeing things that aren’t actually there for dramatic effect. In the first episode airing Jan 29, Zoe can be seen by the audience even when other characters see only her robot exterior. Will characters also start to “imagine” people who aren’t there, as was done so often in Battlestar? Meanwhile, Battlestar’s heavy religious overtones (and the eventual cylon belief in one God vs. many) becomes even more prevalent in Caprica. And Moore revels in complex characters who are neither good nor evil—they’re always somewhere in between. Daniel Graystone seems like the typical grieving father, but in the pilot we sense an undercurrent of obsession and arrogance that we know will lead to society’s doom. In the first two episodes following the pilot, his flaws become even more pronounced. Meanwhile, Bill’s father Joseph Adama (Esai Morales), a mob lawyer who seems to turn over a new leaf by the end of the pilot, starts to slip back toward the dark side in upcoming episodes as a strained alliance with Graystone starts to fray. By the end of the 3rd episode, the true dark nature of Adama’s character comes through in a chilling scene that I won’t spoil here. But sufficed to say, the audience will be left wondering how to feel about him.
If the early episodes of Caprica have any shortcomings, it’s the sometimes exasperating level of dysfunction among its characters. It’s true that flawed characters were a hallmark of Battlestar; but psychological turmoil can sometimes spiral out of control in Caprica. As referenced above, Joseph Adama’s weirdly schizophrenic battle with his good and dark sides seems at times rushed. And the premature and foolish “confession” that a Graystone’s grieving wife Amanda (Paula Malcomson) makes from the podium of a big public event in the Jan 29 ep seems less about her character and more about creating a “shocking” plot twist to button up the episode. But Moore deserves much credit for constantly surprising us. In the next couple of weeks, one character will be revealed as gay—and we immediately think, “Well, why did we assume otherwise?”
To be sure, Caprica shows much promise—even if it may never reach the apex of Battlestar Galactica’s critical and audience acclaim. Part of the challenge is that this is science fiction that doesn’t really feel like science fiction. Yes, there are robots, cool Matrix-like virtual worlds and highly advanced gadgetry. But people still drive cars, live in houses, work in buildings, eat in restaurants and go about their lives as if this was just a parallel version of present-day Earth rather than distant, futuristic planet that died out thousands of years ago. No one will accuse the Caprica team of trying to re-imagine a human society (Much of Caprica’s look was, of course, set in Battlestar during flashback scenes—so writers are in a bit of a box anyway).
Caprica is us. We are supposed to see ourselves in the architecture and the deeply human flaws that put Capricans on a collision course with doom. And while Battlestar used the same tricks, Caprica sets a higher bar by (at least so far) keeping us grounded in a world devoid of spaceships and space battles. Battlestar constantly reminded us we were in a sci fi world; Caprica lets us forget over and over again. But perhaps that’s the genius of Moore’s vision. Judging from the first few episodes, Caprica will take one of Battlestar’s premises—“Do Humans Deserve to Exist”—and force us to watch as Capricans lay the groundwork for their own demise. Look around our own planet. Isn’t that what we all do every day?
When you consider the excruciatingly erudite nature of legal court filings, oral arguments can seem a bit superfluous. After all, why force both attorneys to stand in front of a panel of judges arguing the same points that they already exhaustively covered in their briefs? What’s the point? Well, last week’s early salvo in the larger net neutrality battle shows that oral arguments can sometimes take center stage and provide many clues on how these skirmishes will play out over many months and years. On the hot seats were FCC Acting General Counsel Austin Schlick and Wiley Rein attorney Helgi Walker, who went mano-a-mano (or mano-a-womano) in the U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., where a panel of grumpy judges peppered them with questions in an effort to pick apart their legal arguments.
Similar to oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court, this is high theater and perhaps the most (if not the only) exciting part of a complicated and technology-focused legal fight. In this case, Comcast (represented by Walker) is challenging the FCC’s Kevin Martin-era decision in 2008 to slap the MSO for its bandwidth management practices, which some believe crossed the line in “controlling” Internet activity. Basically, peer-to-peer equals bad. Other stuff sanctioned by “the man” equals good. It’s not really that simple. But the debate has degenerated into a supposedly David-vs.-Goliath struggle between “the people” (represented by public interest groups) and “Big Media” represented by evil corporations intent on firebombing the Internet utopia just like those meany humans in “Avatar” destroyed the alien rainforest. Nevermind that the underdog Na’vi in this story are actually other multi-billion-dollar corporations like Google and Amazon, which simply want to ride those broadband pipes without any interference from their pesky owners. Consumers are really just the “unobtainium” that everybody wants to mine, mine, mine.
Friday’s oral arguments were just one battle in a much larger war, but this one seemed to send the FCC into retreat mode. Without a doubt, the three-judge panel saved its grumpiest questioning for Schlick, who stood up to them valiantly as he defended Martin’s tendency to just do stuff without thinking about the legal consequences. In this case, the FCC fell back on its broad jurisdiction to justify punishing Comcast for doing something that wasn’t really illegal but just didn’t feel right. Or something. Indeed, no law prevented Comcast from ratcheting back Internet traffic to relieve congestion. In fact, that’s kind of the point of network management. But Martin’s FCC didn’t see it that way, suggesting that its broad authority to protect the Internet trumped the small detail that it wasn’t really interpreting any specific statute. To be sure, the judges were extremely skeptical, even at one point asking Schlick how badly he wanted to lose. (His answer: As narrowly as possible). And while Walker also faced some tough questions about whether the FCC’s actions were really as egregious as she claimed, she didn’t face the same uphill climb as Schlick. It helped that she exhibited an almost Rain-Man-like recall of case law to back up her points. But she clearly had her way with the judges. There were even light moments, few of which showed up during Schlick’s turn.
In a way, the FCC has a difficult task: Justifying another Martin-era attempt to sock it to cable because it wouldn’t play ball with him on a-la-carte. Schlick actually held up well when you consider the court’s hostility to the FCC’s position. But the reality is that courts often deliberate in ways that can reverse the fortunes of all involved. The court may decide that the FCC did actually have enough authority under various sections of the Communications Act to act in this particular, narrowly defined case. Or it could issue an extremely nuanced ruling that hands Comcast a win of sorts but still rules that the FCC can exert limited authority over some kinds of bandwidth management in some cases. Either kind of ruling could affect consumers and numerous players in several big industries, including cable, as well as new FCC chmn Julius Genachowski’s attempts to create net neutrality rules. The court will likely rule sometime in the Spring or early Summer, so the world doesn't have long to wait. And if this case ever ends up in a sequel at the Supreme Court, watch out: A High Court decision could define the Internet landscape for a generation.
As everyone knows by now, retrans and carriage negotiations are seldom without rancor. But the level of vitriol between Cablevision and Scripps, a fight that led to the elimination of Food Network and HGTV from the MSO’s lineup, seems especially nasty. Talks continue (sort of), but both sides sound fatigued and relatively fed up with one another. The ultimate decider on that one could be NYC-area consumers, many of whom will vote with their feet. But Pali’s Rich Greenfield calculated that Cablevision has a high tolerance for pain here, as it could lose up to 39,000 subs before rejecting Scripps’ demands would actually cost the MSO any money. Scripps says it’s worth much more than the MSO is paying considering the net's ratings and what Cablevision pays other similarly successful nets (and makes sure to note that every other major distributor has signed on the dotted line). Cablevision, however, says it’s just too much of an increase and too fast—and so far reports only “modest” rumblings from its customers. Of course, Cablevision and Scripps aren't unique in all of this. Just about all MSOs and content owners have skirmished from time to time over carriage—often under the glare of the media happy to pass along the blow-by-blow to the public and policymakers. What's the usual result? Dissatisfied customers caught in the middle.
Over the years, I’ve both covered and observed these carriage negotiations. And what’s amazing is that they really haven’t evolved at all. They just hit the same notes year after year, renewal after renewal, angry statement after angry statement. Both sides accuse the other of intolerable cruelty and disregard for the public. Both sides blame the other for any carriage loss and consumer unrest that results from failed negotiations. And eventually, after much pain and suffering, both sides learn to live in peace and harmony. Or at least in a state of mutually assured destruction. But really—and not to use the biggest cliché of the last 20 years, but it’s just so relevant here—“Can’t we all get along?”
Apparently, we can’t. And some would argue that’s perfectly fine. After all, this is business. And these are negotiations. They’re not supposed to be nice, and the very nature of negotiating is that both sides try to push the other to the brink in order to gain the biggest advantage and squeeze out the best possible deal. Fine. But it’s interesting that the tactics and results of these carriage negotiations haven’t changed despite the fact that consumers can now get content through multiple avenues, including online and through telco competitors with similar triple-play products. In some ways, programmers have more leverage than in the past because they can tell their fans to simply switch to a competitor. Operators, however, have shown that they still consider themselves the 500-pound MVPD gorillas who refuse to let themselves get trampled by rate increases that eventually get passed along to customers, who then blame the MSOs rather than the nets (Time Warner Cable’s “Roll Over or Get Tough” campaign is a great example of this tug-of-war playing out very publicly). Where does this go? Anyone’s guess.
The truth is that the MSOs and programmers need to realize that their inability to get along during these times of strife plays out in the public square. And it doesn’t go unnoticed. When you have politicians like John Kerry and Ed Markey—not to mention public interest groups—saying that the retrans process may need regulation to protect consumers, the entire cable industry should be afraid. Very afraid. After all, Markey was instrumental in convincing Congress to pass the 1992 Cable Act back in the Dark Ages of pestilence and famine, which still give cable executives horrible nightmares. And you can bet that if Congress starts messing with retrans, they will eventually point to fights like the Cablevision-Scripps impasse as evidence that the government also needs to get involved in ALL carriage negotiations. In Washington, the anti-regulation forces haven’t been this weak in years. This is fertile ground for Markey and others to push through new regs, and the cable industry might want to ask itself whether its hard-nosed negotiating tactics and vitriol are helping to make it happen.
