The Wrap last night reported that Comcast, the nation’s largest cable company, was deep in talks to purchase a [potentially controlling interest in NBC-Universal, a report Comcast was disputing as of late last night.

Comcast, the nation’s leading provider of cable, entertainment and communications products and services, is in talks to buy the entertainment giant NBC-Universal from General Electric, according to knowledgeable individuals.

Deal points were hammered out at a meeting among bankers for both sides in New York on Tuesday, executives familiar with the meeting said.

Two individuals informed about the meeting said that a deal had already been completed at a purchase price of $35 billion.

A spokeswoman for NBC-Universal had no comment. Comcast responded with this statement: “While we do not normally comment on M&A rumors, the report that Comcast has a deal to purchase NBC Universal is inaccurate.”

Bloomberg News also reported interest by Comcast in a deal with two of NBC-Universal’s owner-partners: GE and Vivendi of France.  But they noted that three unnamed people with knowledge of the deal claimed Comcast would acquire only a 50% stake in the company, not 100% control, contingent on Vivendi selling its 20% stake to Comcast.

If such a deal were concluded, the NBC television network, two cable news channels, The Weather Channel, and Universal Studios would effectively be under the Comcast umbrella.  Comcast, already the nation’s largest cable company, would have a major ownership interest in a large television content-producing family of companies.  Cable companies have recently feared being owners of “dumb pipes” in an increasingly concentrated entertainment marketplace, and a deal with NBC-Universal would allow Comcast to have ownership of a significant amount of the content they distribute over their cable television and broadband networks.

TV Everywhere, a pet project of Comcast and Time Warner, leverages video content from cable networks distributed to “authenticated” cable or pay television subscribers over broadband networks.  Content owners have had the liberty to govern the terms and conditions of the distribution of their content within the scope of the project.  Outright ownership or control of the content by cable companies provides a much more predictable outcome.

Who foots the bill for an estimated $35 billion dollar investment in a completed deal for NBC-Universal?  Comcast customers, of course.

Wind Mobile

The Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) is back in this news this week after running a dog and pony hearing at the behest of Bell, Telus, and Rogers (three of Canada’s largest incumbent telecommunications companies) pondering whether would-be wireless competitor Globalive was Canadian enough to do business in the country.

The Telecom Act specifies that all wireless phone companies must be controlled by Canadian citizens.  Toronto-based Globalive Wireless Management Corporation insists it has met the requirements of Canadian law, despite having a major percentage of its financing coming from Egyptian-based Orascom, a wireless mobile provider itself.  Globalive points to approval of its holding company business structure by Industry Canada.

Under the arrangement, Globalive would launch competitive wireless service under the brand Wind Mobile starting later this year.  Then the CRTC got involved.

Canada’s three current wireless phone companies — Bell, Telus, and Rogers, complained to the Commission that Globalive is violating the spirit of the Telecom Act and have essentially joined forces to keep Globalive out of Canada.

The CRTC was quick to respond to the incumbents’ concerns and scheduled hearings which started last Wednesday.  As expected, Globalive got hard questioning from the CRTC and the providers.  Canadian citizens looking for competitive choice weren’t on the agenda.

The Commission previously forced Globalive to publicly release more than 1,000 pages of company documents relating to its business structure, pages that were kept confidential by Industry Canada, but made available to Globalive’s existing competitors for their review.  The result was a gold mine of insight on their potential competitor’s business plan, and they used the information gleaned to argue against the company’s right to provide service.  itWorldCanada covered the response:

“I don’t know how the commission could possibly approve that deal now with that kind of capital structure,” Michael Hennessy, Telus’ senior vice-president of regulatory and government affairs said in an interview. “It would be unprecedented.”

Rogers could have gone along with the Industry Canada ruling, said Ken Engelhart, the company’s vice-president of regulatory affairs, “but when we read the documents we were just amazed. There has never been an approval like this before. The rules have always been [a telecom company] could have a major foreign shareholder, a major foreign debt holder, a major foreign strategic partner. But you could never have the same person being all three. Orascom has 65 per cent of the equity, 100 per cent of the debt and they provide the brand and all the strategic and technical skills.”

“If this is OK there’s no point having any more hearings. They should all get rubber-stamped because if this is Canadian owned and controlled, what isn’t?”

Bell concern trolled their way through written comments, ringing their hands over an ownership structure modified to address their earlier concerns is now even worse.

Anthony Lacavera, chief executive officer for Globalive Wireless Management said Globalive has every right to operate a wireless provider in Canada as he is a Canadian citizen and has control.
TMCNet’s Canadian Angle blog explains:

The biggest problem seems to come down to math.  Globalive states that Lacavera is in control, and he is a Canadian citizen.  The incumbents are complaining about the amount of ownership and possible influence that the Egyptian financial backer, Orascom Telecom, has on the Globalive company.  The way that Lacavera has explained it, the Globalive team is following all the rules while still allowing for some out of this country funding.  Here is the breakdown:

• Anthony Lacavera owns 35 % of Globalive, and Orascom owns 65%.
• Orascom funded over $500 Million so Globalive could pay for the wireless spectrum that they bought, and the bridge financing required for the infratructure
• Both of these parties have agreed to replace the loans with third-party investments – as soon as it is commercially viable.

Telus and Bell suggest that Globalive and Orascom are pulling a fast one – trying to get around the legalities by setting up separate companies but still providing Orascom with a majority stake in the company, and  also with the added benefit of controlling the operations.

It shouldn’t be a big shock that Globalive was financed through another country, and as long as Globalive and Orascom commit to what they say they are going to do, there shouldn’t be any problems.

Well – still one hefty problem – the CRTC is under the influence of the incumbents.  The decisions coming from this regulatory body will provide fuel for many posts to come.

Am I the only one that sees the irony in the CRTC grilling Globalive about being influenced by outside sources?  Isn’t this the pot calling the kettle black?

The reason for all of the debate is simple enough.  Canada’s three wireless phone companies could lose one quarter of their customers to competitors like Globalive and DAVE Wireless, according to Toronto-based Convergence Consulting Group, Ltd., which released a study on the matter last week.  Without Globalive being one of those competitors, incumbent providers will likely retain more customers and more revenue.

Lynch

Verizon today joined the chorus of large providers looking for an enhanced payday off the backs of their subscribers when Chief Technology Officer Richard Lynch told a 2009 Fiber to the Home Conference and Expo press conference that the days of unlimited broadband may be coming to a close.

“We’re going to have to consider pricing structures that allow us to sell packages of bytes, and at the end of the day the concept of a flat-rate infinitely expandable service is unachievable,” Lynch said, adding that the broadband industry will see a paradigm shift as the Internet grows and Verizon passes on the cost to “someone.”

This is the first public comment from a Verizon executive that directly supports Internet Overcharging, although Lynch said Verizon was not announcing any pricing changes at this point in time.

Lynch’s statements came in concert with Verizon’s more immediate concerns about Net Neutrality, which the company has spent considerable amounts of money on Washington lobbyists to oppose.

Lynch doesn’t want Net Neutrality to interfere with the potential for the company to offer “premium bandwidth plans.”

Assuming Lynch is speaking about plans sold to consumers, there are no provisions in Net Neutrality legislation that address speed-based Internet service tiers.

Verizon’s statement about metered pricing and Net Neutrality may be a “divide and conquer” strategy to suggest to consumers an “either/or” proposition.  Either accept usage caps and metered service plans or Net Neutrality.  Stop the Cap! has written about this strategy in the past, and it has tripped up some public policy consumer groups in the past who were willing to support one or the other instead of objecting to both.

But Verizon’s near limitless capacity fiber optics FiOS network, and the fact the company’s “cost structure is certainly different, as a tier-one [carrier], [means] their transport costs are a fraction of the smaller operators,” according to Vince Vittore, an analyst with The Yankee Group.  That makes justifying such pricing questionable.

Verizon equates usage pricing models on its wireless mobile network with its wired fiber optic network.  Telephony Online quotes Lynch: “We have already gone this way in wireless because that is where the resource is most constrained.”

Of course, wireless mobile broadband is constrained by limits on the amount of spectrum space available to transport the data, something a fiber optic network need not contend with.

One of the more far out there arguments against Net Neutrality has consistently come from conservative astroturf groups, who receive plenty of corporate funding to advocate a pro-business agenda using arguments that appeal to a conservative audience.

Newsmax, one of the more widely-read conservative websites, has gone all out on the theory that Net Neutrality is an attempt by President Barack Obama to take control of the Internet, potentially even leading to censorship.  In an unconvincing video segment, Newsmax.TV reporter Ashley Martella interviews Ryan Radia, an Information Policy Analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a pro-business think tank.

Newsmax TV: Net Neutrality is a "regulatory power grab" (4 minutes)

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>(Note: Because Google video ads auto-play without your consent, which we do not agree with at Stop the Cap!, clicking the image will launch a new browser window to take you to Newsmax’s site to play the video there.)

A number of conservative blogs and news sources have latched onto one echo chamber claim: “CBS News recently reported that a cyber security bill would give Obama the emergency powers he’d need to control the Internet.”  When a link to the actual report is not provided, that should ring warning bells in your head.  Unfortunately, too many people simply accept statements as fact and never bother to check them out.  If Katie Courac is warning the country about an Obama power grab online, I want to know about it.

Stop the Cap! is one of the few, the proud, the fact checkers.

As with most of the memes attacking Net Neutrality on political grounds, there is considerable exaggeration at work here.  We could find two references on CBS News’ website to the aforementioned claim, and both turned out not to be news reports, but one blog entry and a reprinted news article from a conservative news site¹:

• Senate Proposal Gives President Authority Over Internet, by Declan McCullagh, a senior correspondent for CBS News’ Web site.  (August 28, 2009)
• An Unconstitutional Internet Power Grab, by Bruce Henderson, reprinted with permission from The New Ledger, a conservative news site founded by Ben Domenech of RedState blog fame. (September 1, 2009)

An Associated Press wire story this past weekend covering proposed legislation also appears on CBS News (and thousands of other websites).

At issue is S.773, The Cybersecurity Act of 2009, a Senate bill introduced by Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) to establish an effective defense against cyber attacks on the United States.  Some early drafts of the proposed bill had some language, long since discarded, that could have raised privacy concerns, but it’s disingenuous at best to suggest this bill’s language, known to Newsmax and others propagating these near-hysterical conspiracy theories, would give any power to the Obama Administration to silence dissent and “control the Internet.”

In fact, this legislation does not even originate with the White House.  Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee, de-fanged the hysteria back in late August in a statement:

The President of the United States has always had the Constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the President’s authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks. To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a “government shut down or takeover of the internet” and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the President directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government’s response.

Radia, for his part, illustrates the effort to co-opt conservatives who distrust the Obama Administration into coming along for the ride for an industry friendly snowjob opposing Net Neutrality, with helpful prodding from Martella:

Martella: Could this lead to censorship?

Radia: There is the possibility of that.  What we have seen lately is the Obama Administration and agency officials attempt to increase their power over government networks.  Just a few weeks ago, CBS News reported that a cyber security bill would give Obama emergency powers to control the Internet.  Under a Net Neutrality regime, we could see the FCC tell companies what data they can and cannot prioritize.

Martella’s wild “censorship” reference was jarring because it comes out of the blue with no supporting preposition.  In fact, it’s pro-Net Neutrality advocates that fear providers could engage in censorship, because there have been instances where providers have done just that.  Net Neutrality impacts private Internet providers by demanding they do not block, impede, or interfere with third party website content.

Radia plays mix ‘n match with two different issues to create a magical blend of nonsense — the cyber security bill which conservatives fear is an Obama power grab and Net Neutrality’s consumer protections against abusive broadband network management.

The Obama Administration’s advocacy of Net Neutrality is not about increasing power over government networks.  CBS News did not report that a cyber security bill would give Obama emergency powers to control the Internet — it printed a blogger’s opinion and a reprint from a conservative news site that hypothesized such a bill, if it existed, would do that.  Radia defines Net Neutrality as the FCC telling companies what data they can and cannot prioritize.  Actually it just preserves the open network that has made the Internet so unique.  But on behalf of his provider friends, that issue is force-merged into the Obama “Internet takeover” theory, with the hope it will energize conservatives to also oppose Net Neutrality.

Radia’s arguments are hardly convincing.  He repeats the unpersuasive and undocumented fears that “Net Neutrality … is a rule that would stifle innovation, would reduce network investment, and it would decrease consumer choice in the broadband market.”  It sounds like he also bought a ticket to OppositeLand, where reality is defined as the exact opposite of the truth.  As is the case in Canada, it is the lack of Net Neutrality protection which stifles innovation from new high bandwidth applications that cannot succeed in a marketplace rich with Internet Overcharging schemes and speed throttles.  Online video for Canada is just one of several applications that have been stifled by provider controls.  There is no evidence Net Neutrality would reduce investment in networks.  Customers clamoring to use those networks and the diversity of online content is much more likely to stimulate network upgrades to maintain quality of service.  How consumer choice in the broadband market (which most consumers believe is hardly robust) would be impacted negatively is never explained.

Radia accidentally justifies why FCC policy alone is not enough to guarantee Net Neutrality protection when he points out Congress has not specifically authorized the FCC to get involved in the network management of service providers.  A bill in the House of Representatives would do just that, however.

Radia’s assumptions that consumers are pleased with the competitive marketplace, particularly for wireless, are dubious at best, particularly when he makes this stunning statement:

“If you want a walled garden, a device where a company controls and helps guide the user experience, you can get an iPhone.”

Of course, many iPhone users have complained openly and loudly about the fact they are stuck with AT&T — AT&T retains an exclusive arrangement with Apple in the United States to sell the phone for use on AT&T’s network.  They also aren’t too happy being limited by both companies in selecting applications to run on the phone, something managed by Apple and AT&T unless the customer “jailbreaks” the phone to bypass the restrictions.  The result is a stifled iPhone user experience on an overloaded AT&T wireless network, higher pricing on service plans for the iPhone, and consumer choice limited to deciding whether to live with these restrictions or go without.

Radia suggests Net Neutrality is being pushed just by a handful of “so-called consumer groups that believe that since their preferences are not being matched in the market, that they should use the hand of government to force these rules upon the private sector.”  His problem with that is that he believes (along with the providers who spend millions lobbying) that consumers are well served by today’s marketplace filled with proprietary business models.

Of course, real consumer groups can’t exist without consumers that actually support them, and as we’ve documented since this site launched, consumers are not well served by the limited competitive marketplace, and the abuses that come from that, and they’ve complained loudly and regularly to those providers about those practices.  They aren’t listening.  So consumers are turning to the public officials who regulate and oversee such markets to attempt to force them to listen.

Newsmax’s efforts to give mainstream media credibility to a sensationalized claim was only outdone by Radia himself on his own bio page:

Ryan is a frequent contributor to the Technology Liberation Front, the technology policy blog dedicated to preserving freedom and liberty in the information age. His ideas have been referenced by technology writers including Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic’s Daily Dish, Karl Bode of Broadband Reports, and Mike Masnick of Techdirt.

Karl Bode found it ironic Radia would reference a piece he wrote, because Bode’s article trashed Radia and his friends for claiming a cable price war was resulting in consumer savings.  The Techdirt piece Radia links to didn’t exactly give him a seal of approval either:

Last month, we mocked some mainstream press reports claiming both a broadband price war and the fact that broadband prices were rising. There doesn’t really seem to be much of either, as broadband prices have remained pretty constant, even accounting for promotional pricing. However, with Comcast getting ready to significantly boost speeds (yes, with its broadband caps, Ryan Radia is wondering if the actual “price war” is hidden by the fact that it’s in price per megabit.

In other words, if prices remain constant, but your speed doubles, isn’t that something of a price decrease? Radia chalks this all up to competition in the market, but it should at least be admitted that the speeds (even these higher speeds) still pale in comparison to other countries where there is much greater competition than in the US, where most people still are limited to only two real choices. Either way, as someone who’s still stuck on a home connection that runs around 500k (below the new 768k cutoff for “real” broadband) despite being in the center of Silicon Valley, I’m still not convinced that these greater speeds are so readily available yet.

We invite Radia to link to our spanking as well.

¹Using search terms “obama emergency internet” and “emergency internet” on the CBS News website.

AT&T: 'Google is violating the Net Neutrality tenets we spend millions to make sure don't become law.'

AT&T sent a letter late last week to the Federal Communications Commission calling out Google Voice, the free adjunct Voice Over IP service being tested by Google, for blocking calls to certain high cost telephone numbers.  Robert W. Quinn, Jr., Senior Vice President of AT&T’s Federal Regulatory office complained that AT&T has been forced to complete those calls while Google Voice does not, suggesting that might be the equivalent of a Net Neutrality violation, if not an outright violation of call completion requirements established by the Commission.

These days, almost anything can be defined as a Net Neutrality violation.  If I was a vegetarian and I blocked meat products from my home, I’d probably get a letter from AT&T’s counsel too.

At issue here is the exploitation of a loophole that was established by telecom regulators to provide extra financial support to rural community telephone companies.  When a person places a long distance call, part of the charge is paid to the company that connects the call from the long distance network to the recipient’s telephone line.  The fees long distance companies pay vary depending on the size of the community and the length of the call.  Small rural areas enjoy a higher call completion fee than urban areas do.

Some enterprising individuals discovered the fees being paid to rural phone companies were higher than the actual costs to provide the service.  Traditionally, that extra money was used by rural phone companies, often independent or customer-owned cooperatives, to keep their service costs down and to maintain their equipment.  Long distance carriers didn’t care because the number of calls to these rural communities was comparatively small.

But what would happen if a company set up a telephone number to receive lots of calls that would otherwise never be made to such rural communities?  The result could be a financial windfall.  That possibility persuaded a few rural phone companies to let third parties offer international calling, conference calling and adult phone chat services for no charge beyond whatever the customer has to pay to make the long distance call.  In return, the phone company kicks back a significant portion of the extra income they earn from “call completion fees” to the service providers.

AT&T, among others, got wind of this arrangement and flipped out, complaining they were paying an ever increasing bill from rural phone companies hosting these services.  Anyone with an unlimited long distance plan could call these numbers for free and stay connected for hours at a time.

Unsurprisingly, AT&T blocked calls to these services for a period in 2007, refused to pay for some prior charges, and sued several phone companies.

AT&T/Cingular spokesperson Mark Siegel told Ars that the reason the company has decided to start blocking these services is because high volumes of calls to similar services are costly, and the cost of those calls aren’t passed on to the customer. “We have to pay terminating access for every minute the person is on the line,” Siegel explained. “Typically these companies run them through local exchange companies that charge high access rates, so we end up paying high access charges.”

The FCC intervened and said phone companies cannot arbitrarily block customer access to phone numbers, and the blocks were removed.  Today, the free international long distance calling services are basically gone, but free conference calling lines and adult sex chat services remain, and Google Voice has now discovered the perils of connecting calls, for free, to these services.  So now they have blocked access as well.  Google Voice beta testers report calling blocked numbers results in perpetual busy signals.

AT&T pounced in a letter to the FCC:

Numerous press reports indicate that Google is systematically blocking telephone calls from consumers that use Google Voice to call telephone numbers in certain rural communities.  By blocking these calls, Google is able to reduce its access expenses. Other providers, including those with which Google Voice competes, are banned from call blocking because in June 2007, the Wireline Competition Bureau emphatically declared that all carriers are prohibited from pursuing “self help actions such as call blocking.” The Bureau expressed concern that call blocking “may degrade the reliability of the nation’s telecommunications network.” Google Voice thus has claimed for itself a significant advantage over providers offering competing services.

But even if Google Voice is instead an “Internet application,” Google would still be subject to the Commission’s Internet Policy Statement, whose fourth principle states that “consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.” This fourth principle cannot fairly be read to embrace competition in which one provider unilaterally appropriates to itself regulatory advantages over its competitors. By openly flaunting the call blocking prohibition that applies to its competitors, Google is acting in a manner inconsistent with the fourth principle.

Ironically, Google is also flouting the so-called “fifth principle of non-discrimination” for which Google has so fervently advocated (Net Neutrality). According to Google, non-discrimination ensures that a provider “cannot block fair access” to another provider. But that is exactly what Google is doing when it blocks calls that Google Voice customers make to telephone numbers associated with certain local exchange carriers. The Financial Times aptly recognized this fundamental flaw in Google’s position: “network neutrality is similar to common carriage because it enforces non-discrimination . . . Google is arguing for others to be bound by network neutrality and, on the other hand arguing against itself being bound by common carriage,” which leaves Google with an “intellectual contradiction” in its argument.

Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel for Google, fired back a response on the Google Policy Blog countering AT&T’s arguments:

Google Voice’s goal is to provide consumers with free or low-cost access to as many advanced communications features as possible. In order to do this, Google Voice does restrict certain outbound calls from our Web platform to these high-priced destinations. But despite AT&T’s efforts to blur the distinctions between Google Voice and traditional phone service, there are many significant differences:

• Unlike traditional carriers, Google Voice is a free, Web-based software application, and so not subject to common carrier laws.
  
• Google Voice is not intended to be a replacement for traditional phone service — in fact, you need an existing land or wireless line in order to use it. Importantly, users are still able to make outbound calls on any other phone device.
• Google Voice is currently invitation-only, serving a limited number of users.

AT&T is trying to make this about Google’s support for an open Internet, but the comparison just doesn’t fly. The FCC’s open Internet principles apply only to the behavior of broadband carriers — not the creators of Web-based software applications. Even though the FCC does not have jurisdiction over how software applications function, AT&T apparently wants to use the regulatory process to undermine Web-based competition and innovation.

The HissyFit is on, and it’s almost entirely beside the point.  Once again, Net Neutrality is being used as a convenient flogging tool, this time by a company that spends millions to oppose it, yet sanctimoniously demands others should comply with its founding principles.  While the systematic blocking of telephone numbers may echo the kinds of concerns Net Neutrality protection is designed to address, it’s not as on point as AT&T would have you believe.

Google Voice isn’t even close to being a replacement for telephone service.  It’s not even openly available to the public.  AT&T would have had a stronger argument complaining about MagicJack, the dongle that lets you make unlimited long distance calls for $20 a year.  They go beyond just blocking some of the conference calling services — they actually redirect calls to a recording encouraging customers to instead use one of their own partners instead.

Dan Borislow, inventor of MagicJack says “it is not illegal for us to block calls to [conference calling numbers.]  We have invited other conference calling companies to interconnect to us for free, so we can complete our customers’ calls to them.”

Google’s public policy response isn’t as satisfying as it could have been either, and uses some weak arguments in rebuttal.  Much more important and on point is finding a way to address call completion fee loopholes through a change in telecommunications policy.  The telecommunications landscape has fundamentally changed in ways that existing rules could not have anticipated.  Addressing that issue would provide immediate relief to both AT&T and Google Voice without dragging consumer interests into a telecom policy cat fight.

Unfortunately, that’s a point far too fine for many media types, bloggers, and the sock puppets to understand (or desire to), and the campaign of Waving Shiny Keys of Distraction will carry on, and may have been AT&T’s intention in making such an argument in the first place.