Studies find few surprises for cable and phone companies that pay for them.

Internet plans with term contracts, usage limits, and other pricing tricks are good for consumers and save them money over comparable unlimited usage plans.

That is the conclusion of a new study from the Technology Policy Institute, an industry front group funded by AT&T, Comcast, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, Qwest, Time Warner Cable, T-Mobile, and Verizon.

Scott Wallsten and James Riso’s “study,”Residential and Business Broadband Prices, Part 1: An Empirical Analysis of Metering and Other Price Determinants,” claims to have taken a comprehensive look at 25,000 plans offered across North America, Europe and the Pacific to make their case that a residential service plan with a 10GB monthly usage cap would save consumers 27 percent over the price of a comparable unlimited plan, as long as data use stays below the cap.  They also suggest additional savings can be had if consumers lock themselves into term contracts with service providers (most of which carry hefty fees to exit early.)

These results suggest that the unlimited data plans typically offered by most U.S. wireline broadband providers may not be optimal for many consumers. The details of capped plans matter, and how an individual user is affected depends on the base price, allowed data usage, and consequences for exceeding the cap. Nevertheless, because capped plans are—all else equal—cheaper than unlimited plans, many consumers, particularly the low-volume users, are likely to pay less for broadband with data caps than they would for plans offering unlimited data transfer.

Wallsten and Riso make much of AT&T’s recent decision to end unlimited usage for wireless broadband, suggesting that consumers are saving money with new, low-use plans over the company’s old unlimited pricing.  The authors claim close to 70 percent of iPhone users consume less than 200 MB per month, which is the cap for AT&T’s cheaper data plan.

But the authors concede that usage is growing — rapidly in the case of online video, which sets the stage for consumers saving money today, but facing serious overlimit charges on their bills tomorrow:

Some analysts, however, remain concerned that these plans make video streaming impractical given the bandwidth it consumes, could eventually cost consumers more as they use their wireless devices more intensively, and generally make it less likely for wireless to become a viable substitute for wireline broadband. To be sure, while Figure 3 shows that the vast majority of users consume small amounts of data today, it also shows per user mobile data consumption growing quickly, so the number of people who exceed the caps could increase significantly in a relatively short period of time.

Major U.S. wireline providers have not yet introduced metered pricing successfully, though, as shown above, it is common in other countries. An experimental metered pricing plan by Time Warner Cable garnered strong reaction, prompting one group to demand that Congress ―investigate ongoing metered pricing practices to determine the impact on consumers. Some in Congress did, in fact, hold hearings on the plans. In response to this backlash, Time Warner Cable canceled its experiment.

Despite the political reaction, all consumers are not inherently worse off or better off with metered pricing. Low-volume users are likely to be better off under metered plans and high volume users worse off. The net effect on any given consumer depends on his data use, the base price, how much data the base price allows, the price of data when exceeding the cap, and how much he would have paid for an unlimited plan.

Wallsten and Riso also admit several parts of their study are “incomplete,” and “lack data.” We would also include the facts they ignored whether consumers prefer unlimited plans, how customers would feel about a bill with overlimit fees attached, or whether the usage cap levels the authors note in their study are adequate.  They also completely ignore the critical issue of bandwidth cost trends and their relationship to consumer pricing.

But of course they would, considering the same providers who want these pricing schemes are paying the costs for the study.

Welcome to the world of Hired Gun Research.

Wallsten, in particular, has been singing the same cap-happy tune for several years now, churning out the same industry-financed conclusions about broadband.  Back in 2007, he delivered a piece trumpeted by the Progress & Freedom Foundation and the Heartland Institute — two groups notorious for parroting corporate-friendly talking points.  Back then it was about Internet overloads and supporting Internet toll booths for “congestion pricing” after Comcast got caught secretly throttling broadband customer speeds.

Dave Burstein of DSL Prime notes most consumers don’t like caps, lock-in contracts, or speed throttles.

“Policymakers should normally assume that imposing caps generally results in negative consumer welfare. The small efficiency gains don’t come close to making up for a second rate Internet,” Burstein writes. “Everyone is better off with a robust, unthrottled Internet. It allows for an important form of video competition and market access for innovative new net offerings. It’s a better experience for the user and hence more people will be connected, a good thing.”

In this latest study, the two authors completely ignore some very important facts:

• Who sets the pricing for unlimited and usage-capped broadband?  Providers.  Do consumers save money from usage limited plans because of decreased provider costs passed along to consumers or pricing schemes that artificially inflate unlimited broadband pricing to drive customers to “money-saving” limited plans that teach usage restraint or expose consumers to dramatic overlimit fees?

• What are the trends for wholesale bandwidth costs and how does that trend comport with industry pricing schemes that have increased broadband pricing in the United States?  An honest study would reflect these costs are dropping… dramatically, and would introduce the very real question of whether unlimited broadband is a problem in search of a revenue-generating solution that would come from further monetizing broadband with so-called “consumption pricing.”

• What is the consumer perception of usage-limited broadband?  An important part of this equation is whether consumers want unlimited broadband service to be discontinued.  Every study to date not paid for by the providers themselves shows consumers are willing to pay today’s prices for the peace of mind they receive in not being exposed to limits or overlimit fees.  Wallsten and Riso touched on the consumer backlash, to a considerable part coordinated by Stop the Cap!, over Time Warner’s pricing scheme which would have tripled broadband pricing for an equivalent level of service.  But the authors charge on with their pro-cap conclusions regardless.

• Wallsten and Riso’s study only casually mentions the dramatically different paradigms of wireless and wireline broadband.  The former is delivered using technology that is recognized to have limitations that can only be seriously addressed with additional spectrum allocation that could take years to address.  The latter is already being mitigated by cable broadband technology upgrades, fiber optics, and improved backbone connections that often deliver much better access at a fraction of the price providers paid just a few years earlier.  Drawing comparisons between AT&T’s wireless broadband pricing and wireline broadband is dubious at best, especially since two companies largely control pricing and service for the majority of wireless customers in the United States.

• To prove its contention limited broadband service is “common in other countries,” the authors cite a Frequently Asked Questions article by Comcast trying to justify that company’s own usage cap to its customers.  So because Comcast’s PR department says it, it must be true.  In fact, in countries where usage capped broadband has been a traditional problem, consumer demand and public policy efforts have moved providers towards offering unlimited service plans to meet popular demand.  In fact, in countries like Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, governments have cited usage caps as a serious disadvantage to growth of the digital economy.  Consumers certainly agree.

Burstein adds:

Caps or other throttling measures are almost never imposed because of actual congestion problems (on large, wired networks.)  The caps would be at far higher levels if they were, like Comcast’s 250 gigabytes. The usual explanation is bogus. The typical consumer advocate believes the caps are about preventing competition to the carriers’ own video package. That’s certainly common, but so is price discrimination to yield increased potential revenues. As Scott notes, price discrimination in a strongly competitive market can work out well for all concerned. With strong competition, the benefits flow through to consumers. Since competition in broadband is typically weak, I believe it far more often has little consumer benefit but is good for company profits.

The authors conclude that despite limitations on data available, “The policy implications, however, are clear.  Policymakers should not immediately conclude that data caps and other pricing schemes that differ from traditional unlimited plans are necessarily bad.”  Instead, the authors suggest pricing trends should be evaluated over time to identify the effects on prices, investment and usage.

Although that’s a point Burstein agrees with, we feel there is substantial evidence this debate is based not on experimental pricing to find new customers, but rather a defensive position to respond to an inevitable public backlash against Internet Overcharging schemes.  Providers are desperately looking for excuses to further monetize broadband, cut costs, and deliver an effective impediment to online video competitors using broadband networks to deliver alternative, less expensive services to consumers.

Policymakers should listen to their constituents, who are more than comfortable with today’s unlimited broadband experience.  Nobody objects to experimental low usage plans with discount pricing, but not at the expense of ending or repricing existing unlimited service into the stratosphere.  Today’s broadband industry earns billions in annual profits, even as their costs decline.  Providers have done considerable profit-taking in the last few years from their broadband divisions, slashing upgrades and other investments to keep pace with traffic demands.

Vinh Pham had enough trying to deal with Comcast’s impenetrable thicket of customer service confusion trying to get his broadband service from the cable company up and running again after it suddenly stopped working this past March.

I called Comcast and they gave me a really hard time. I was trying to figure out why my Internet was down, and they told me that I did not have Internet. They said my account only has TV, and that’s all I am being charged for.

This annoyed me because I ordered Internet + TV on a promotion price, not just TV, and I had called them to fix this mix up before.

The guy on the phone kept insisting that I was wrong and that I needed to upgrade to the “Triple Play” for $120. That annoyed me even more. I do not want your freaking Triple Play. Who the hell still uses landlines, let alone buy landlines through their cable company. Stop trying to sell me [something] I don’t want.

According to Pham, the Comcast representative accused him of stealing Internet service, which was the last straw for the California customer.  He asked to cancel all of his services.  Pham repeated his story to a customer retention agent and offered to share a copy of the Comcast technician’s installation work order, which showed he ordered and received Xfinity broadband service.

Evidently, Comcast did not correctly provision Pham’s account with the promotion he signed up for, and miles of red tape ensued trying to get his account updated accurately.  Each time the changes did not “take,” Pham’s Internet service would eventually stop working.

Customers using Pham's technique need to have a work order ID and account number to activate service

Pham then discovered Comcast customers could activate Xfinity broadband service themselves because the cable company provided open access to a web page intended for technicians installing service.  Pham simply entered his account number, the work order number from his receipt, and the MAC address on his cable modem, and his broadband service was back without navigating argumentative customer service agents.

Pham shared his find on his personal blog, walking existing Comcast customers step-by-step through the process he followed.

Now, months after the article was published, Comcast contacted the company that hosts Pham’s blog and demanded the entire blog be censored, accusing Pham of telling people how to steal Internet service.

Admittedly, Pham’s use of the phrase “free Comcast Internet” probably did not help, but a review of his technique makes it impossible for non-paying customers to simply activate service for nothing — a customer account number and work order number are required, and presumably Comcast won’t simply accept made-up numbers.

More importantly, Comcast’s efforts to censor one of their customers calls the cable company out for its “shoot customers first, ask questions later” policies.

It’s further evidence the cable giant cannot be trusted when it claims it will observe voluntary Net Neutrality protections against censoring Internet content.

The blowback from Comcast’s actions have provided the company a lesson in “the Streisand effect,” where companies trying to remove information from the Internet only draw bigger attention to the information they are desperate to remove.  Comcast’s censorship efforts have been made futile by hundreds of Internet users who learned of the company’s efforts.  They have republished the information from Pham’s blog, which currently remains intact.  Had the company simply (and quietly) password-protected their technician portal, nobody would have given it a second thought.  Now Comcast is in a bigger PR mess than they started with.

When cable giants like Comcast trample all over free speech (and their paying customers), it teaches a valuable lesson why giving them a chance to grow even larger through a merger with NBC-Universal is a dangerous mistake.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Comcast demands the removal of Pham's blog

Not really

Back in 2002 Vincent and Liza Concepcion walked into a southern California AT&T Mobility store to purchase new cellphones for themselves.  AT&T advertised a buy one, get one “free” offer for cellphones.  What AT&T didn’t say was that the family would end up paying more than $30 in hidden sales taxes for both phones.

More than eight years later, that purchase — and the resulting class action lawsuit it launched — threatens to sweep away important consumer protections by letting corporations ban class action cases and curtail Attorneys General from enforcing state consumer protection laws.

Oral arguments in the case AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion were heard before the U.S. Supreme Court last Tuesday in one of the most important consumer protection cases in decades. At issue is this clause, inserted into the Concepcion’s service contract with AT&T that would disallow the family from participating in a class action lawsuit:

“You and AT&T agree that each may bring claims against the other only in your or its individual capacity, and not as a plaintiff or class member in any purported class or representative proceeding.”

That clause clashes with several state laws, California’s included, which basically say consumers cannot be compelled to sign away their basic consumer protection rights.  California law also says some contracts can be considered unenforceable ‘if they are built on deception, are too-one sided, or violate broader public policy.’

Hello, AT&T.

Vincent and Liza, through their attorney, argue that bringing an individual lawsuit against AT&T over $30 in sales taxes would be crazy — no lawyer would take the case and no plaintiff would front a retainer well beyond the amount in dispute.

As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in another class action case, “The realistic alternative to a class action is not 17 million individual suits, but zero individual suits, as only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30.”

The “class action” concept provides at outlet for aggrieved consumers who can attract legal representation if a company can be sued on behalf of every impacted customer.  For AT&T, that could mean facing not just the Concepcion family, but millions of Californians — each charged sales taxes for phones the company advertised as “free.”

How AT&T’s Case Has Broadened Into a Major Dispute Over Arbitration vs. Class Action Lawsuits

It's easy to navigate AT&T's terms and conditions to achieve a good outcome from arbitration, right?

But what began as a legal argument over a “free” phone has broadened into a much larger legal case before the Supreme Court: can consumers be compelled to participate in company dispute settlement schemes and give up their legal right to petition the court system for relief?  Further, what happens when those contract clauses conflict with state consumer protection laws?

Following in the footsteps of the credit card industry, AT&T inserted a clause mandating customers stay away from class action lawsuits.  By telling consumers they are forbidden to participate in such cases, AT&T pushes customers into the murky world of “arbitration” — a system where AT&T picks a private company, with whom it has a financial-business relationship, to “impartially” rule on customer complaints in secret proceedings.  Consumers have to pay their own way to attend arbitration hearings, often held in cities a thousand miles away or more.  They also must agree the decisions are binding and final.

AT&T argues, both directly and through its dollar-a-holler advocates, that class action cases are annoying, expensive, and do not typically deliver substantial benefits to class members.  The wireless carrier argues arbitration of individual cases is much faster and potentially more lucrative to would-be class action members.  Stephen J. Ware, a professor of law at the University of Kansas School of Law argues consumers have often done far better avoiding litigation and entering into arbitration programs.

But consumer advocates claim AT&T’s arbitration rules are stacked against consumers.  Arthur H. Byrant, executive director of Public Justice argues:

First, AT&T’s “agreement” bars its customers from court (except small claims court) and requires them to utilize the company’s mandatory arbitration program. Its rules say that, if a customer completes the process and recovers more than the last written settlement offer AT&T made before the arbitrator was chosen, a $7,500 premium will be paid. Second, the “agreement” bans AT&T’s customers from bringing or participating in class actions against it. Third, the “agreement” provides that, if AT&T’s class action ban is found to violate the law (as 20 states have held contractual class action bans do when they effectively immunize a company from liability), the arbitration clause “blows up” and the class action must proceed in court. Then, when the class action ban is struck down under state law (as AT&T knew it would be), the company springs its wacky trap: It argues that the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 (FAA) pre-empts — and invalidates — that state law because (believe it or not) the state law is biased against arbitration.

AT&T’s call for pre-emption suffers from a bad connection. State law is not biased against arbitration. It allows AT&T to resolve disputes in either arbitration or court. Only AT&T’s “agreement” is biased against arbitration. Its “blowup clause” precludes class actions from proceeding in arbitration, but not in court.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Using the scroll bar to the right of the player, move down and click on Attorney Paul Bland’s name and watch him argue forcefully that AT&T’s motives are plain and simple — to allow them to get away with anything they want and not face accountability from the legal system. — “Arbitration is not the Candy Bridge into Rainbow Land.”

Tapping Into Consumer Discontent With Class Action Cases for the Benefit of AT&T

What the lawyers get

Ask anyone about the merits of most class action settlements and one will often get a response that the lawyers win while consumers lose.  Just this week many owners of HP printers will get word a deal has been reached over a class action case involving printer ink.  The multiple law firms involved will split not more than $2.9 million under the terms of the proposed settlement.  Consumers will get “e-credit” worth $5, $2, or $6 redeemable at HP’s online store, which sells ink cartridges at inflated prices.  In effect, HP has little to grumble about delivering “awards” to consumers that ultimately benefit its own enterprise, the only place those awards can be redeemed.

With settlements like that all too common, it is easy for AT&T’s advocates to tap into consumer discontent with class action lawyers, proclaiming AT&T’s case is actually consumer-friendly because it would cut those money-grabbers out of disputes with the company.

But consumer advocates stress class action cases do more than deliver settlements — they deter bad behavior on the part of would-be wrongdoers, bring corporations to account fiscally when they are forced to settle, and open the door to legal discovery which can uncover patterns of extensive wrongdoing that would otherwise remain secret in arbitration.

But most important of all, class actions impact every customer, not just the handful who navigate arbitration to achieve a confidential settlement.  That can be critically important to stop unfair business practices.

What you get

Of course, reform is also desperately needed in the class action system.  Too often, judges approve class action cases that deliver maximum benefits to the law firms that bring them, leaving consumers with peanuts.  Strict limits on legal fees recouped in such cases, perhaps tied to a percentage of total recovery would be a start, as are bans on settlements that don’t provide cash refunds to consumers who choose not to conduct further business with companies that abuse them.  Coupons, low value trinkets, and donations to third party groups (non-profit or otherwise) are insufficient.  Attorneys that selfishly claim most of the proceeds for themselves have only themselves to blame when corporations use that fact against them under so-called “tort reform” proposals.

Some advocates of AT&T’s position also argue that government oversight can provide a more effective system of checks and balances against corporate overreach.  While a noble sentiment, anyone who has watched the revolving door of lobbyists going to work for such agencies, later returning to lucrative jobs with the companies they formerly regulated, knows that is a classic case of the fox overseeing the hen house.  In an era of government “oversight” that missed everything from BP’s safety lapses, salmonella-infected eggs, produce, and meat, tainted pet food ingredients from China, and indecisiveness about telecommunications reform like Net Neutrality — such proposals are not to be treated seriously.

The Supreme Court Decision

While it will be months before the Court rules, most observers suspect consumers will ultimately win the case.  Liberals on the court are skeptical AT&T’s efforts to preempt state consumer protection laws are actually for the benefit of consumers, and some of the most conservative members of the court like Justice Clarence Thomas, big believers in “states’ rights” are likely to find for the Concepcion family.

“Based on what was said during the argument, I predict a 8-1 or 7-2 vote for the consumers and California, with Samuel Alito dissenting and John Roberts a toss up. Thomas, who never speaks at oral argument, will vote for the consumers and state on federalism grounds, as he always does in [arbitration] cases,” writes Lawrence Cunningham, Argument in Class Waiver Case Favors Consumers, States, Concurring Opinions.

“[I]t doesn’t look as though there are too many votes at the high court to do away with the right of consumers to band together to sue the great American manufacturers of fine print,” said Dahlia Lithwick, Can You Hear Them Now? The Supreme Court reads the fine print on your cell phone contract, Slate.

If these two observers are wrong, it will be open season on consumers who will be forced into arbitration agreements that deliver all of the benefits to companies like AT&T.  Under such a scenario, there would be little to dissuade companies from developing new fine print to trick and overcharge consumers.  Few will be willing to buy a ticket to fly halfway across the country to sit for arbitration proceedings over a $20 dispute, especially when the arbitration firm’s income depends on fees paid by the very companies that are accused of wrongdoing.

Sinclair Broadcasting is threatening to pull 33 television stations in 21 cities from Time Warner Cable customers on January 1st if the cable company doesn’t agree to demands to pay around 20-25 cents per month per subscriber for each of the stations, primarily Fox and MyNetworkTV affiliates.

It’s just the latest in a series of retransmission rights battles underway between broadcasters and cable companies over cable carriage agreements.

Sinclair is a major group owner of television stations, and the impact on viewers in places like western New York, Dayton, Ohio, Greensboro, N.C., San Antonio, Tex., and Pittsburgh, Pa., won’t be missed because these markets have multiple Sinclair-owned or programmed stations involved in the dispute.

As always, the dispute is about money.  This week, viewers of affected stations, including our readers Lance and Andrew, started being annoyed with repeated warnings scrolled at the bottom of screens about the potential loss of their “favorite stations.”  In the case of WUHF, viewers might have thought a serious weather warning was being issued as text crawled against a distinctive red background.

So far, the dispute has not infected Sinclair’s local newscasts, which have often been used as a sounding board for the company’s past retransmission consent fights.  But then, many Sinclair stations have abandoned producing local news themselves over the past few years as a cost-savings measure.  However, many of the stations involved have put the dispute high on their home pages, as a too-cute-by-half link: “Learn About Time Warner Cable’s Plans to Drop Carriage Of This Station.”  Sinclair leaves no doubt about who they blame for the debacle.

Stations Impacted

• AL  Birmingham — WTTO (CW)
• AL  Birmingham — WABM (MyNetworkTV)
• FL  Pensacola — WEAR (ABC)
• FL  Tallahassee — WTWC (NBC)
• FL  Tampa — WTTA (MyNetworkTV)
• KY  Lexington — WDKY (Fox)
• ME  Portland — WGME (CBS)
• MO  Girardeau — KBSI (Fox)
• NC  Greensboro — WXLV (ABC)
• NC  Greensboro — WMYV (MyNetworkTV)
• NC  Raleigh — WLFL (CW)
• NC  Raleigh — WRDC (MyNetworkTV)
• NY  Buffalo — WUTV (Fox)
• NY  Buffalo — WNYO (MyNetworkTV)
• NY  Rochester — WUHF (Fox)
• NY  Syracuse — WSYT (Fox)
• NY  Syracuse — WNYS (MyNetworkTV)
• OH  Cincinnati — WSTR (MyNetworkTV)
• OH  Columbus — WSYX (ABC)
• OH  Columbus — WTTE (Fox)
• OH  Dayton — WKEF (ABC)
• OH  Dayton — WRGT (Fox)
• SC  Charleston — WTAT (Fox)
• SC  Charleston — WMMP (MyNetworkTV)
• PA  Pittsburgh — WPGH (Fox)
• PA  Pittsburgh — WPMY (MyNetworkTV)
• TX  San Antonio  —  KABB (Fox)
• TX  San Antonio — KMYS (MyNetworkTV)
• VA  Norfolk — WTVZ (MyNetworkTV)
• WI  Milwaukee — WVTV (CW)
• WI  Milwaukee — WCGV (MyNetworkTV)
• WV  Charleston — WCHS (ABC)
• WV  Charleston — WVAH (Fox)

Sinclair’s website warns viewers negotiations with Time Warner Cable are not promising:

Sinclair (or in some cases the licensees of the television stations not owned by Sinclair) and Time Warner are in the process of negotiating a renewal of the current agreement between Sinclair and Time Warner Cable which is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2010. Without a renewal, Time Warner Cable will no longer have the right to carry the broadcast of the television stations covered by this expiring agreement. Unfortunately, based on the status of the negotiations Sinclair does not believe we are going to be able to reach agreement on an extension of the deal. As a result, Time Warner would no longer be carrying the stations covered by the agreement with Sinclair beginning on January 1, 2011. Although some might try and characterize this as a dispute, in the end it represents nothing more than the failure of two companies to reach a business agreement, something that happens in the business world thousands of times a day.

Taking a cue from News Corp., Sinclair claims Time Warner Cable is stalling, hoping the Obama Administration will intervene and prohibit signal blackouts while negotiations are still underway.  Despite the claim the cable company is the one with the plan to drop stations, Sinclair informs viewers it is giving them early warning to help them make arrangements with alternative providers like Verizon FiOS, AT&T U-verse, or satellite companies to “avoid interruptions” in programming.

Time Warner Cable recognized the seriousness of the Sinclair dispute and has given it top billing on their Roll Over or Get Tough website.  So far, the cable company has rolled over in every dispute, eventually caving to programmer demands.  But the cable company would claim it has at least reduced the rates being demanded, or won concessions that allow subscribers to catch shows on-demand as part of its TV Everywhere project.

Because the cable industry has so far been dealt the weaker hand in these disputes, they are spending an increasing amount on lobbying the issue in Washington, right down to creating a front group that claims to represent viewers.  The s0-called “American Television Alliance,” has a mission statement that, on the surface, doesn’t wade too deep into actual solutions:

The ATVA’s mission is a simple one – to give consumers a voice and ask lawmakers to protect consumers by reforming outdated rules that do not reflect today’s marketplace.  We are united in our determination to achieve our goal: ensure the best viewing experience at an affordable price, without fear of television signals being cut off or public threats of blackouts intended to scare and confuse viewers.

The overwhelming majority of the interests represented by the ATVA are giant cable and phone companies (and two groups willing to play along when sharing common interests: Public Knowledge and the New America Foundation.)

The group filed comments petitioning the Federal Communications Commission to modify retransmission consent policy to give cable and phone companies additional tools to battle with intransigent broadcasters.  The most important, and one we agree with, is an end to the ban on importing distant network signals from nearby cities to replace those from local stations who simply dump “take it or leave it” offers on operators who then raise rates to cover ever-inflating programming costs.

As it stands now, cable systems cannot grab network stations from other cities to at least restore network programming, because FCC rules prohibit it, even if the nearby station doesn’t mind.  While that might not help Time Warner viewers in cities like Rochester, where the nearby Fox affiliates in both Buffalo and Syracuse are also owned by Sinclair, the cable operator’s extended reach made possible serving all three major upstate cities might still deliver relief by grabbing further distant Fox stations like WYDC in Corning, WFXV in Utica, or WFXP in Erie, Pa and distributing them across all three affected cities.

Unfortunately, the Fox TV network has also made it clear stations could risk their affiliation deals with the network if they were to grant retransmission consent to providers that effectively undercut other Fox affiliates.

The ATVA also wants providers to retain the right to continue carrying disputed signals so long as good faith negotiations are ongoing, and has also suggested binding arbitration as another alternative reform.  Broadcasters have rejected both.

Some of the ATVA’s proposals are worthy of merit to benefit consumer interests, but consumer groups might do better creating their own group to fight this issue, if only to keep broadcasters from dismissing the group as heavily stacked with cable and phone companies with a biased, vested interest in the outcome.

Just reviewing the FCC petition left a bad taste when they quoted everyone’s favorite “dollar-a-holler” group — the League of United Latin American Citizens, which continues to amaze with its omnipresent Zelig-performance in just about every telecommunications policy debate involving LULAC’s benefactors.

More than a few politicians are likely to accept broadcaster arguments, which would ultimately weaken the effectiveness of any reform effort.

Chase Carey (courtesy: Forbes)

Chase Carey, President, Chief Operating Officer of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., has blamed the federal government and politicians for giving aid and comfort to Cablevision, the cable system serving most of suburban New York City, forcing Fox to cut off the World Series for millions of subscribers in the recent contract dispute between the two providers.

Carey told Bloomberg News that the standoff with Cablevision would have been resolved much more quickly if lawmakers hadn’t threatened to weigh in, leading the cable provider to hold out in hopes of getting better terms.

“This process would have been resolved more easily, more quickly,” Carey said. “I would actually contend we wouldn’t have gone off the air at all.”

Carey said Fox needs the feeds that it collects from cable companies because even with advertising revenue, the broadcast network loses a “few hundred million dollars” every year. Carey said he came to Washington to explain to lawmakers why Fox needed two streams of revenue and explain why public declarations of support for Cablevision from more than 50 lawmakers only helped to prolong the standoff.

“We’re not running a nonprofit,” Carey said.

Was John Kerry responsible...

If Fox is unprofitable, you wouldn’t know it from Carey’s compensation package.  The COO will earn $8.1 million this year, plus a $15 million bonus and additional compensation totaling more than 26 million dollars.

Carey is upset with Democrats for inserting themselves in private corporate matters, despite the fact the resulting dispute left millions of cable subscribers without the networks they were paying for (and forced to fight for refunds from Cablevision.)

“You’re going to bastardize every negotiation because you’re going to have this specter of arbitration,” he said.

At least 50 members of Congress, many from the northeastern United States where cable blackouts have been the most prevalent, support binding arbitration for such disputes, and criticized Fox for demanding increasing amounts of money for formerly free television signals.  Cablevision contends it was forced to pay an “unfair amount” to get the signals back on cable.

Carey especially targeted Democratic senator John Kerry from Massachusetts, who was among the most vocal opponents of cable systems and programmers putting viewers in the middle of disputes.

...or Rupert Murdoch?

Kerry intends to introduce legislation during the lame duck session of Congress to force both parties to keep programming on while negotiations are underway, especially because consumers have already paid, often in advance, for such programming.  Analysts say Republicans in the Senate will likely filibuster any such measure.  Most Republicans are inclined to share Carey’s view and let the companies duel it out amongst themselves, according to Andrew D. Lipman, a Washington-based partner with the law firm Bingham McCutchen.

Carey himself has been on both sides of the issue.  His former job was chief executive of DirecTV, the largest U.S. satellite-television provider.  Carey at the time thought the television networks and local stations were responsible for their own failing business models and were late to the table demanding payments for cable carriage.  When the Great Recession caused advertising revenue to plummet, both networks and local stations decided the concept of free, ad-supported television was no longer a viable business model.  Now stations want dual revenue streams — ad revenue and payments from the majority of Americans who watch those stations on cable, satellite, or telco-TV.

More importantly, Carey wants the government to butt out, even when consumer dollars are at stake.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Man Who Blacked Out World Series Blames Politicians 11-9-10.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News reflects on the dispute between News Corp.’s Chase Carey and Cablevision.  (3 minutes)