Far-right political programmer Newsmax, along with a number of left-of-center media-watchdog nonprofits, have gotten behind Fubo to help the virtual pay TV company fight the power that is the upcoming Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. sports streaming joint venture.
On Thursday, Fubo sent a letter to key ranking House and Senate committee members, asking Congress to meet and intervene on the officially still unnamed JV informally known by flippant, lazy hacks like us as “Spulu.”
Co-signing the letter are DirecTV and Dish Network, which already pledged their allegiance to Spulu's cause several weeks ago by filling supportive affidavits in Fubo's federal antitrust suit against Spulu.
Also cosigning the letter were the Sports Fans Coalition, the American Economic Liberties Project, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Open Markets Institute … and Newsmax.
Here's the missive:
Dear Chairs & Ranking Members:
We are writing to urge your Committees to hold hearings on the future of competition in pay-TV. Recent developments in the pay-TV market — including the programming giants’ new joint venture (“JV”), a streaming TV service that would control 80% of national live sports broadcasts -- raise serious competition concerns that call for Congress’s immediate oversight.
The JV between Disney, Fox, and Warner is expected to launch this fall, in time for the next NFL and college football seasons. In addition to controlling 80% of all national live sports broadcasts, the JV will control approximately 55% of all live sports (regional and national). We cannot think of any scenario in the history of the United States where consumer interests have been served when such an important industry — here, access to live sports — is effectively controlled by three programming giants which decided to combine forces instead of competing against each other.
Worse yet, these same programming giants enforce anticompetitive and inflationary contract restrictions on distributors that will insulate the JV’s streaming service from head-to-head competition because these contract restrictions prohibit competing distributors from offering consumers their own “skinny” live-sports bundle. However one measures it, the JV will eventually dominate the distribution market for live sports and will drive out competition, leaving consumers captive to the JV for live sports — unless Congress and regulators intervene.
When one vertically integrated company has the power and incentive to drive out its competitors — as this JV will — policymakers have previously stepped in to protect competition and consumers. For example, in the 1992 Cable Act, Congress enacted new program access rules that prevented vertically integrated cable operators from discriminating against new entrants in the pay-TV business, namely the then-nascent satellite TV providers trying to compete with cable.
We are at the same inflection point now. The JV partners demand that their competitors offer “big fat bundles” of programming (as described by Disney’s CEO) that include many unwanted but expensive channels, while their own JV service offers a much skinnier package consisting only of “must-have” sports channels. Americans love their live sports and entertainment, and they expect Congress to ensure competition and choice in accessing these shows. We thus urge you and your colleagues to hold hearings as soon as possible on the future of pay TV.
