Adam Lynn

Most people agree: They pay their cable company too much money. Not only is this view widely held, it’s also backed up by hard numbers.

Edward Wasserman

The Comcast-NBC deal that would bring one of the nation’s largest television networks under the control of the nation’s largest cable operator has not enjoyed the smoothest sailing since the deal was first rumored more than a month ago.

Consumer advocates oppose the deal because it would give Comcast too much control over the video content it would now own, and some industry leaders suggest the era of integration is over, warning bigger is not always better.

“The only beneficiaries of this deal are the industry titans who already enjoy too much market power,” said Josh Silver, executive director of Free Press.  Free Press is mounting a national campaign for consumers to become involved and help block the deal.

“If this deal goes through, Comcast would have control of marquee content and three major distribution platforms: Internet, broadcast and cable,” Silver said. “We’ve never seen this kind of consolidated control across so many platforms.”

Edward Wasserman, Knight professor of journalism ethics at Washington and Lee University, penned a scathing review of the proposed deal.  “Stop Comcast’s Power Grab” quotes a bitter Ted Turner, who saw his media empire fall from his control several years ago under the super-structured AOL-Time Warner deal:

“Big media today wants to own the faucet, pipeline, water and the reservoir. The rain clouds come next,” Turner wrote in a Washington Monthly article five years ago indicting big corporate media control.

The concept of vertical integration in media involves companies owning as much of the content and distribution as possible.  In a best case scenario, one company would control every element, from the production to the sales and distribution of that content.  The more you control in-house, the less you have to pay or answer to someone else.  Wasserman picks up the story:

And vertical integration is why Comcast, the country’s biggest owner of cable systems, the company that decides which networks reach one of every four U.S. homes, is drooling over NBC Universal. The deal, if it happens, would be a staggering one.

NBCU, in short, is a mammoth content machine. And, Comcast, though chiefly an immensely rich operator of cable pipes, isn’t just the $34 billion-a-year utility whose bill you bellyache about every month. It, too, covets content. It tried to buy Disney in 2004, and it owns all or part of 20 cable networks, including E! Entertainment Television, Style, G-4, the Golf Channel and a bunch of national and regional sports channels.

And now it wants NBCU. One analyst estimated that combining the content arms of the two companies would bring roughly one-quarter of the country’s TV programming under a single owner. Another said the merged entity would control one of every five hours of programming.

[…]

The usual objections to such deals have to do with the outsized economic clout the resulting colossus would wield. Scale emasculates market discipline. When you control access to 24 million homes, you aren’t ruled by prevailing prices, you set them. Recession? Comcast is squeezing $6 more per household now than it was a year ago, and its profits were up 22.5 percent last quarter.

Very nice, but when you own the programs, too, you can make sure your networks get delivered even when that means elbowing other producers aside. You can strong-arm your competitors — satellite companies, for instance — by threatening to withhold popular networks or forcing them to carry the dogs as well. You can cut deals with other distributors who want the shows they control flowing through your pipes. You get your way.

Naturally, you’ll resist innovation unless you control it. Comcast would get a 30-percent stake in Hulu, the upstart distributor of first-run Hollywood programming via the Internet — a huge potential threat to cable operators. Subscription cable is Comcast’s bread and butter, and a business that makes $944 million on quarterly revenue of $8.8 billion is some business. Comcast will make sure that online’s future doesn’t endanger its own.

[…]

The whole point of vertical integration is to secure unfair advantage, to unlevel the playing field. And besides, since when is avoiding the worst the best we can hope for? It has been longstanding public policy to encourage localism, diversity and competition in the media business. It’s time to dust off that policy and give it some teeth by blocking this ridiculous and dangerous deal.

CNBC’s John Faber got some industry insider perspective from Dr. John Malone, a power player in the cable television industry during his reign at Tele-Communications, Inc., which used to own cable systems now largely a part of the Comcast empire.

Dr. John Malone

As far as Malone is concerned, this deal could herald a radical transformation away from traditional broadcasting models and “free TV.”

Malone believes America could be on the verge of dumping traditional broadcast network-local affiliate distribution of programming and switching to a “cable-centric” model where television programming is no longer distributed for free over broadcast television, or perhaps a hybrid approach where half of today’s television networks become cable/broadband-only.

He believes the government could be persuaded to support such a model if it meant returning broadcast spectrum back to the government for resale to the highest bidder, presumably for wireless broadband applications.

Malone’s vision leaves big vertically-integrated players like the broadcast networks and cable operators as big winners, owning and controlling programming, distribution, and all of the advertising slots, and cutting local television stations out of the deal.

Losers?  Independent local television stations and viewers that eschew pay television services like cable and satellite and rely on free over-the-air broadcasting.  “Free” may be an unsupportable business model, at least in Malone’s world view.  As many television stations are independently owned and operated, their concern for future viability is also sure to be an issue in the deal, Malone tells Faber.

Malone’s remarks are nothing unusual for the controversial cable mogul.  Al Gore once referred to Malone as the “Darth Vadar” of cable, leading a cable Cosa-Nostra with an agenda of a monopolist bent on dominating the television marketplace.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Faber Report John Malone 11-23-09.flv[/flv]

Dr. John Malone talks about the Comcast-NBC Universal deal in this CNBC Exclusive with John Faber, aired earlier today. (4 minutes)

For any deal to consummate, Comcast and NBC Universal need the consent of Vivendi, the French conglomerate which now finds itself in the catbird seat.  The Paris-based media concern is asking for several hundred million dollars more than NBC-owner General Electric is prepared to part with, sources tell today’s Wall Street Journal:

GE has offered Vivendi something in the neighborhood of $5 billion for its stake, according to people familiar with the matter. That is lower than the value implied by the deal GE has tentatively negotiated with Comcast. The GE-Comcast deal would value NBC Universal at about $30 billion. Allowing for debt that NBC Universal now carries, that value would imply Vivendi’s equity stake is worth somewhat less than $6 billion.

GE is offering Vivendi less than the value implied by its Comcast deal because it believes Vivendi wouldn’t be able to fetch as much through a public sale that it also has the right to pursue, according to people familiar with the talks.

Vivendi, meanwhile, has asked for a price somewhere from the “mid-five” billion dollars to closer to $6 billion, according to people familiar with the matter. Two people familiar with the matter said GE and Vivendi were within about $500 million in price.

Vivendi has also asked for deal guarantees, according to people familiar with the matter. Those guarantees could include GE paying for at least part of its stake before any Comcast agreement closes. Vivendi doesn’t want to assume the risk that GE’s deal with Comcast could be blocked by regulators in Washington, or could otherwise fall apart, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Most deal-watchers predict Vivendi will eventually part with its stake after it gets what it wants.

One of the Journal‘s sources said it was unlikely those working out the deal would let “a few hundred million” stand in the way.

Senator Amy Klobuchar

Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) is expected to introduce legislation this week to protect consumers from excessive early termination fees for ending their cell phone contracts early.

The Cell Phone Consumer Empowerment Act comes a few weeks after Verizon Wireless doubled their cancellation fees November 15 from $175 to $350 for “advanced” mobile phones.

Klobuchar sent a letter to Verizon Wireless President and CEO Lowell C. McAdam, criticizing the company’s decision to increase its Early Termination Fees (ETFs) for new smart phone customers.  Klobuchar also sent a letter to Federal Communications Chairman (FCC) Julius Genachowski, urging a review of the Verizon Wireless decision to raise these fees.

“These fees are anti-consumer and anti-competitive and they bear little to no relationship to the cost of the handset device,” said Klobuchar, a member of the Senate Commerce Committee.

Klobuchar’s bill is anticipated to specifically target Verizon Wireless over its decision to double fees for consumers.  Although the specific details of how the legislation will control fees is still being worked out, Klobuchar’s bill is expected to force providers to incrementally reduce fees for every month of service a customer completes and possibly set a ceiling on the fee charged depending on the retail price of the phone.

Klobuchar introduced a similar bill during the last session of Congress and many cell phone providers responded by pro-rating cancellation fees for departing customers, typically 1/24th of the fee waived for each month a customer stayed with the provider during a two-year contract.  But Verizon Wireless’ decision to double their fee, which could set a new trend in the industry, directly increases prices for consumers, according to Klobuchar.

“Under the company’s new plan, the penalty for leaving the contact halfway through a two-year contract would be $230 – still higher than the $175 ETF Verizon Wireless previously charged for these phones,” Klobuchar wrote to McAdam.

Verizon Wireless is the nation’s largest cell phone service provider.  Verizon customers purchasing an Advanced Device (smart phone) with a one or two year service agreement will be subject to an ETF of up to $350 if they disconnect service prior to the minimum term.  The $350 ETF will decrease $10 for each month of service completed.

The cell phone industry has defended cancellation fees as necessary because providers subsidize the cost of the cell phones sold to consumers.  Customers can purchase phones at the retail price and not be committed to any contract or termination fees.  Some advanced handsets can cost well over $500 if purchased without a contract.

Copies of correspondence to McAdam and Genachowski appear below.

… Continue Reading

Phillip "He Who Shall Not Be Named" Dampier

I’ve tangled with Todd Spangler, a columnist at cable industry trade magazine Multichannel News before.  This morning, I noticed Todd suddenly added me to the list of people he follows on Twitter.  Now I see why.

Todd is back with another one of his cheerleading sessions for Internet Overcharging schemes, promoting consumption-based billing schemes as inevitable, backed up by his industry friends who subscribe and help pay his salary and a guy from a company whose bread is buttered selling the equipment to “manage” the Money Party.

GigaOm’s Stacey Higginbotham and Broadband Reports’ Karl Bode don’t pay his salary, so it’s no surprise he disagrees them.  Oh, and I’m in the mix as well, but not by name.  Amusingly, I’m “the StoptheCap! guy, who’s making a career directing his bloggravation at The Man.”

Todd doesn’t consider himself “an edgy blogger type because, as everyone knows, I am The Man,” he writes.

Actually, Todd, you are Big Telecom’s Man, paid by an industry trade magazine to write industry-friendly cozy warm and fuzzies that don’t rock the boat too much and threaten those yearly subscription fees, as well as your paid position there.  I’ve yet to read a trade publication that succeeds by disagreeing with industry positions, and I still haven’t after today.

Unlike Todd, I am not paid one cent to write any of what appears here.  This site is entirely consumer-oriented and financed with no telecom industry involvement, no careers to make or break, and this fight is not about me.  I’m just a paying customer like most of our readers.

This site is about good players in the broadband industry who deserve to make good profits and enjoy success providing an important service to subscribers at a fair price, and about those bad players who increasingly seek to further monetize their broadband offerings by charging consumers more for the same service.  As one of the few telecom products nearly immune from the economic downturn, some providers are willing to leverage their barely-competitive marketplace position to cash in.

It’s about who has control over our broadband future – certain corporate entities and individuals who openly admit their desire to act as a controlling gatekeeper, or consumers who pay for the service.  It’s also about organizing consumers to push back when industry propaganda predominates in discussions about broadband issues, and we know where we can find plenty of that.  Finally it’s about evangelizing broadband, not in a religious sense, but promoting its availability even if it means finding alternatives to private providers who leave parts of urban and rural America unserved because it just doesn’t produce enough profit.

Let’s derail Todd’s latest choo-choo arguments.

“The idea of charging broadband customers based on what they use is still in play.” — That’s never been in play.  True consumption billing would mean consumers pay exactly for what they use.  If a consumer doesn’t turn on their computer that month, there would be no charge.  That’s not what is on offer.  Instead, providers want to overcharge consumers with speed –and– usage-based tiers that, in the case of Time Warner Cable, were priced enormously higher than current flat-rate plans.  Customers would be threatened with overlimit fees and penalties for exceeding a paltry tier proposed by the company last April.  The ‘Stop the Cap! guy’ didn’t generate thousands of calls and involvement by a congressman and United States senator writing blog entries.  Impacted consumers instinctively recognized a Money Party when they saw one, and drove the company back.  A certain someone at Multichannel News said Time Warner Cable was “taking one for the team.”  At least then you were open about whose side you were on.

“Verizon just wants to make more money by charging more for the same service. What an outrage! It’s not like the company spent billions and billions to build out their network and needs to recoup that investment.” — Recouping an investment is easily accomplished by providing customers with an attractive, competitively priced service that delivers better speed and more reliability than the competition.  Provide that in an era when fiber optic technology and bandwidth costs are declining, and not only does the phone company survive the coming copper-wire obsolescence, it also benefits from the positive press opinion leaders who clamor for your service will generate to attract even more business.  Stacey’s comments acknowledged the positive vibes consumers have towards Verizon’s fiber investment — positive vibes they are now willing to throw away.

Verizon FiOS already gets to recoup its investment from premium-priced speed tiers that are favored by those heavy broadband users.  Most will happily hand over the money and stay loyal, right up until you ask for too much.  Theoretically charging your best customers $140 a month for 50Mbps/20Mbps service and then limiting it to, say, 250GB of usage will be an example of asking for too much.  Verizon didn’t get into the fiber optics business believing their path to return on investment was through consumption billing for broadband.

“Today’s broadband networks — not even FiOS — are not constructed to deliver peak theoretical demand and adding more capacity to the home or farther upstream will require investment.” — Readers, today’s newest excuse for overcharging you for your broadband access is “peak theoretical demand.”  It used to be peer-to-peer, then online videos, and now this variation on the “exaflood” nonsense.  It sounds like Todd has been reading some vendor’s press release about network management.  Peak theoretical demand has never been the model by which residential broadband networks have been constructed.  The Bell System constructed a phone network that could withstand enormous call volumes during holidays or other occasional events.  Broadband networks were designed for “best effort” broadband.  If we’d been living under this the peak demand broadband model, cable modem service and middle mile DSL networks wouldn’t be constructed to force hundreds of households to share one fixed rate connection back to the provider.  It’s this design that causes those peak usage slowdowns on overloaded networks that work fine at other times.

No residential broadband provider is building or proposing constructing peak theoretical demand networks that are good enough to include a service and speed guarantee.  Instead, cable providers are moving to affordable DOCSIS 3 upgrades, which continue the “shared model” cable modems have always relied on, except the pipeline we all share can be exponentially larger and deliver faster speeds.  Will this model work for decades to come?  Perhaps not, but it’s generally the same principle Time Warner Cable is using to deliver HD channels quietly ‘on demand’ to video customers without completely upgrading their facilities.  You don’t hear them talk about consumption billing for viewing, yet similar network models are in place for both.

“Is it fairer to recover that necessary investment in additional capacity from the heaviest users, who are driving the most demand?” Apparently so, because providers already do that by charging premium pricing for faster service tiers attractive to the heaviest users.  But Todd, as usual, ignores the publicly-available financial reports which tell a very different tale – one where profits run in the billions of dollars for broadband service, where many providers Todd feels urgently need to upgrade their networks are, in reality, spending a lower percentage on their network infrastructure costs, all at the same time bandwidth costs are either dropping or fixed, making it largely irrelevant how much any particular user consumes. What matters is how much of a percentage of profits providers are willing to put back into their networks.

Do people like Todd really believe consumers aren’t capable of reading financial reports and watching executives speak with investors about the fact their networks are well-able to handle traffic growth (Glenn Britt, Time Warner Cable CEO), that consumption based billing represents potential increased revenue for companies that deny they even have a traffic management problem (Verizon), or that broadband is like a drug that company officials want to encourage consumers to keep using without unfriendly usage caps, limits, or consumption billing (Cablevision.)

“From 7 to 10 p.m., we’re all consumption kings,” Sandvine CEO David Caputo told Todd. “Bandwidth caps don’t do anything for you.” The implication of this finding is that “the Internet is really becoming like the electrical grid in the sense that it’s only peak that matters,” he added. — I would have been asking Todd to pick me up off the floor had Caputo said anything different.  His bread and butter, just like Todd’s, is based on pushing his business agenda.  Sandvine happens to be selling “network management” equipment that can throttle traffic, perhaps an endangered business should Net Neutrality become law in the United States.  His business depends on selling providers on the idea that sloppy usage caps don’t solve the problem — his equipment will.  Todd has no problem swallowing that argument because it helps him make his.  The rest of us who don’t work for a trade publication or a net throttler know otherwise.

What would actually be fair to consumers is to take some of those enormous profits and plow them back into the business to maintain, expand, and enhance services that deliver the gravy train of healthy revenue.  In fact, by providing even higher levels of service, they can rake in even larger profits.  You have to spend money to earn money, though.

Technology doesn’t sit still, which is why provider arguments about increased traffic leading to increased costs don’t quite ring true when financial reports to shareholders say exactly the opposite.  That’s because network engineers get access to new, faster, better networking technology, often at dramatically lower prices than what they paid for less-able technology just a few years earlier.  With new customers on the way, particularly for the cable industry picking up those dropping ADSL service from the phone company, there’s even more revenue to be had.

Or, do you think spreading the cost across all subscribers, thereby raising the flat-rate pricing for everyone, is the better option? Note that Comcast did this to an extent when it raised the monthly lease fee for cable modems by $2 (to $5), citing costs associated with its DOCSIS 3.0 buildout.

The industry already thinks so.  As we’ve documented, cable broadband providers like Time Warner Cable and Comcast (and Charter next year), are already raising prices across the board for broadband customers in many areas.  Does that mean the talk about Internet Overcharging schemes can be laid to rest?  Of course not.  They want their rate increases -and- consumption based billing for even fatter profits.

If, on the other hand, you want to pretend that all-you-can-eat plans are sustainable at today’s price tiers, you’d be kind of clueless.

Every ISP maintains an Acceptable Use Policy that provides appropriate sanctions for those users who are so far out of the consumption mainstream, they cannot even see the rest of us.  Slapping consumption based billing on consumers with steep overlimit fees and penalties punishes everyone, and the provider keeps the proceeds, and not necessarily for network upgrades.

If Todd believes consumers will sit still for profiteering by changing a model that has handsomely rewarded providers at today’s prices, with plenty of room to spare for appropriate upgrades, he’ll be the clueless one.  The cable industry’s ability to overreach never ceases to amaze me.  Every 15 years or so, legislative relief has to put them back in their place.  It’s what happens when just a handful of providers decide it is easier to hop on board the Internet Overcharging Express and cash those subscriber checks than actually engage in all-out competitive warfare with one another – keeping prices in check and onerous overcharges out of the picture.

Nobody needs to know my name to understand this.  But some of his provider friends already know the names of our readers, because PR disasters do not happen in a vacuum.  They are also acquainted with two other names: Rep. Eric Massa and Sen. Charles Schumer.  If they want to go hog wild with Internet Overcharging schemes, that list of names will get much, much longer.

Until the National Broadband Plan is in place and additional capacity is brought online, Australians make do with usage limited broadband service from Brisbane to Perth.  With prices all over the map, choosing the right plan to minimize your exposure to Internet Overcharging schemes is more important than ever.

VoIP-Sol.com, an independent blog covering the global broadband market, took a look at several popular options and discovered some revealing findings (All prices in Australian dollars – $1AUD = $0.91US — Stated speeds are relative and reflect the maximum possible, not necessarily the actual):

The Fastest Broadband Plan in Australia
BigPond’s 30,000Kbps +400MB cable plan is the fastest available (that speed available in select areas of Melbourne and Sydney only — up to 17Mbps service elsewhere), but at a hefty price: $49.95 a month with a cap of 400 megabytes. Data past the cap is charged $0.15 per megabyte. BigPond will discount the monthly charge by $10 if it is bundled with a Telstra home phone line. This plan requires a monthly contract, and there is no peak time.

The Australian Broadband Plan With the Biggest Cap
iPrimus’s Big Kahuna and Dodo’s Rhodium plan both come with 200gb of service each month over ADSL. Dodo’s setup fee of $69.99, but the monthly charge is $10 a month cheaper than iPriumus at $69.95 a month, and an additional $10 is discounted for Dodo’s home phone customers. The Big Kahuna could go on the fastest list at 24,000Kbps, while Rhodium is a still impressive 20,000Kbps. (Keep in mind ADSL speeds vary considerably depending on how far away you are from the telephone company’s exchange office.)

Australia’s Cheapest Broadband Internet Plan
The Starter Plan from Netspace may seem like a bargain with speeds of 20,000kbps for only $9.95 a month, but the setup fee is a staggering $149.

Dodo Bronze is $19.90 a month, or $9.90 a month when bundled with one of their home phones, beating Netspace by five cents. However, this gives you a tiny download cap of 150mb, with an equally low download speed of 256kbps. Excess data is charged at $0.18 per megabyte, which even the most frugal user will probably reach. The Bronze plan also requires a twenty-four month contract.

Surprisingly, the next cheapest option is Optus’ Mobile Wireless Broadband. When included with mobile or home phone service, Optus charges $19.99 a month for cellular-based Internet. Like Dodo Bronze, the download speed is limited to 256Kbps, while downloads are capped at 1 GB. Most people who buy this plan will be more interested in the service’s convenience than its performance.

There are many other regional services available in different parts of the country with their own pricing and policies.  But nearly all share a usage cap combined with “peak” and “off-peak” usage pricing, designed to prod you into confining use of your highest bandwidth applications during off-peak hours (typically between midnight and noon).  Many providers give you a bonus usage allowance to use during off peak hours, often much higher than the peak usage allowance.  In Australia, providers don’t necessarily punish you with overlimit fees and penalties for exceeding your limit, they just turn the speed of your connection down… often way down (64kbps, slightly faster than dial-up, is common) once your limit is reached for the month.  Speeds return when a new billing period begins.

Australians complain about paltry usage caps with such regularity, the government has set about constructing better broadband infrastructure to improve service.  Private providers have dragged their feet, preferring slower upgrade paths and tamping down demand with usage limitations, reducing the need to invest in their networks.  Domestic online video services and other high bandwidth innovation is greatly stifled in the country because of punishing usage limits which make consumers fear using them.

With the expansion of international connectivity and a more robust domestic network, Australians look forward to the day they can see usage caps as a thing of their past.