Just weeks after Time Warner Cable and CBS settled a dispute over retransmission fees, other broadcasters and networks are preparing to make new demands for increased compensation from their cable, satellite, and telco IPTV partners at prices likely to provoke more blackouts.

Despite repeated protestations from Time Warner that over-the-air stations and networks deserve lower fees than cable-only networks, once the two parties went behind closed doors, the cable company quickly agreed to pay considerably more for CBS programming. Sources say CBS made a deal that will run up to five years and includes more than $1.50 in fees per subscriber, up from between 50-85 cents per month, depending on the city served, under the old contract. CBS had asked for about $2 a month. Effectively, the company will earn more than that because Time Warner also agreed to renew both the CBS Sports Network and Smithsonian Channel, which cost extra.

“There is a new template here. Two dollars is the new holy grail,” Wunderlich Securities analyst Matthew Harrigan told Reuters.

Fox was the highest paid network before the CBS deal, collecting close to $1.25 per month per subscriber. ABC receives 50-65 cents and NBC less than that.

Harrigan predicts the other networks will race to raise their own prices, with Time Warner Cable (and others) likely forced to raise rates early next year to cover increased costs.

In the war for compensation, programmers hold most of the leverage.

[flv width=”392″ height=”244″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSJ Lessons Learned CBS 9-2-13.flv[/flv]

The Wall Street Journal reports the dispute between Time Warner Cable and CBS set new industry precedents on the value of broadcast stations and networks and how their programming is distributed on digital platforms. (2 minutes)

There have already been local station blackouts in 80 cities so far this year, with the likelihood last year’s record of 91 markets will be broken before Thanksgiving. In almost every instance where a popular network is involved, the pay television provider eventually capitulates because of subscriber complaints or cancellations.

Moonves

Time Warner Cable admits its dispute with CBS cost the company business, both from prospective new customers going elsewhere and customer disconnects. Time Warner also spent money advertising its side of the dispute and paid to distribute free antennas to affected subscribers.

CBS’ Les Moonves had predicted Time Warner would eventually meet most of the network’s compensation demands before football season arrived. He was right.

“CBS is the winner. Content owners always win these negotiations, it’s just a matter of how much they won,” said Craig Moffett of Moffett Research. “They have all the leverage. Consumers don’t get mad and trade in their channel when these fights drag on. They go looking for a different satellite or telephone company.”

Almost 200,000 Time Warner Cable television customers left during the second quarter, and company officials admit that trend continued during the third quarter as the dispute dragged on. Time Warner Cable is likely to end the year with fewer than 11.5 million video subscribers, a loss of several hundred thousand this year.

Sources say one major sticking point that kept CBS off Time Warner Cable systems for nearly a month wasn’t about money. Instead, it was about digital distribution rights.

Time Warner Cable wanted CBS on its TV Everywhere app TWCTV and was also concerned about CBS selling content to online video streaming competitors that could accelerate cord-cutting.

Time Warner Cable did win permission to offer Showtime on its digital streaming platform and on apps for portable devices. But Time Warner will not get to carry local CBS-owned stations on streaming platforms, a significant blow. The cable company will also have to pay more for streamed and on-demand content.

In the end, CBS got almost everything it wanted and Time Warner Cable was handed back its largely unfulfilled wish list and a bigger, retroactive bill subscribers will eventually have to pay.

“We wanted to hold down costs and retain our ability to deliver a great video experience to our customers,” Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt said in defense of the agreement. “While we certainly didn’t get everything we wanted, ultimately we ended up in a much better place than when we started.”

Moonves gloated to various trade publications and investors that CBS went unscathed after the month-long dispute.

“Our national ad dollars did not go down,” Moonves told attendees at the recent Bank of America/Merrill Lynch Media Communications & Entertainment Conference. “There were no such things as make-goods and there was no harm done financially to CBS Corporation.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380”]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Moonves CBS Got Fair Value for Our Content 9-7-13.flv[/flv]

CBS’ Les Moonves has won his dispute with Time Warner Cable, says Les Moonves in this interview with Bloomberg TV. (10 minutes)

Comcast owns both NBC and the cable companies that carry its local affiliates.

Cable rate increases are not likely to stop with the agreement with CBS. Analysts predict NBC, ABC, and FOX will be seeking similar rates when their contracts come up for renewal. Altogether, every cable, telco IPTV, and satellite subscriber could see rates increase up to $6 a month for the four major American networks.

“Any time one of these larger networks sets the new standard in terms of pricing for their programming, the rest follow,” Justin Nielson, an analyst for SNL Kagan, told Hollywood Reporter. “In most cases it’s been CBS and FOX trailblazing what the rates should be and then ABC and NBC following.”

Comcast-NBC’s Steve Burke is already there. Burke told investors affiliates should be paying 20 to 25 percent more for cable networks such as USA, Bravo, SyFy, CNBC and MSNBC .

“We’re not paid as much as we should be given our rating and positioning by cable and satellite companies,” Burke said. “I see no reason why we won’t sort of draft behind the other broadcast networks and get paid in a similar way.”

Burke predicts NBC will earn between $500 million to $1 billion annually from increased retransmission consent fees comparable to what CBS and FOX receive.

Next week, DISH Networks faces the expiration of their contract with ABC/Disney-owned channels, including the Cadillac-priced ESPN. The outcome of renewal negotiations may serve as an indicator for where rates are headed in the world of retransmission economics.

A growing number of elected officials in Washington are paying attention as they and their constituents live through one programmer blackout after another. At least four pieces of legislation have been introduced to deal with the problem in very different ways, according to Bloomberg News:

The Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act

This law, known as STELA, dates to 2004 and gives satellite companies a license to provide local TV stations, just as cable operators do. The current law is set to expire at the end of 2014, with most observers calling its reauthorization a near certainty. The debate is mainly over how “clean” the STELA reauthorization bill will be as it emerges from the legislative process, with the pay TV companies urging lawmakers to address the issue of retransmission disputes. Broadcasters are working for a “clean” bill, written narrowly to address the satellite companies’ immediate needs. “There’s nothing clean about the current retransmission system,” says Brian Frederick, a spokesman for the American Television Alliance, a coalition of pay-TV companies. Two House committees held hearings on the law this week. A final bill and vote are expected next year.

Video CHOICE (Consumers Have Options in Choosing Entertainment)

Representative Anna Eshoo, a Democrat who represents much of Silicon Valley, introduced this bill Sept. 9 aimed at ending blackouts. “Recurring TV blackouts, including the 91 U.S. markets impacted in 2012, have made it abundantly clear that the FCC needs explicit statutory authority to intervene when retransmission disputes break down,” Eshoo said in a press release. (The FCC gets involved now only if one party accuses the other of negotiating in bad faith.) The bill would unbundle broadcast stations from a cable package and prohibit a broadcaster from requiring a pay TV operator to take affiliated cable channels to obtain more popular channels. That issue is at the heart of why Cablevision sued Viacom in February, following a contentious negotiation.

Eshoo’s bill would also require the FCC to study programming costs for sports networks in the top 20 regional sports markets. The rising fees for sports programming—led by ESPN—is considered one of the major influences behind rising cable bills and the power that content creators such as Disney hold in negotiations. Cable companies have praised Eshoo’s bill, while broadcasters are not fans. Don’t expect to see it get far in a Republican-led House.

Television Consumer Freedom Act of 2013

This bill, introduced in May by Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), would end the long era of the cable television bundle, that phenomenon by which you pay for hundreds of channels and find yourself watching only about two dozen, or fewer. This summer, Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal signed on as a Democratic co-sponsor, but there’s been no similar sponsors on the House side. Blumenthal explained his support of the bill in an August interview with the Hollywood Reporter:

“What I hear from cable consumers overwhelmingly is, ‘give us freedom of choice. Don’t make us pay for something we don’t want and won’t watch. Why am I paying for—you name a channel you don’t like or five or ten or them—just so I can watch the one I do want.’ That’s overwhelmingly the sentiment of people who buy this product. So this bill just gives voice and force to that sentiment.”

Next Generation Television Marketplace Act

This bill from Representative Steve Scalise, a Louisiana Republican, and former South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, also a Republican, dates to December 2011 and would deregulate the entire television market, top to bottom. It would repeal compulsory copyright licenses, the legal mechanism by which content owners are required to let pay TV companies carry their programs, if they are paid a fee for the content. The bill, which would also dismantle the system of retransmission fees, is essentially an exercise in carrying free-market ideology to its logical conclusion. The problem? It would require a countless number of individual deal negotiations—any radio or television station that wanted to carry programming (i.e., all of them)—would need to strike deals with every programmer, yielding an inefficient system that would likely prove unworkable. Lawyers would love the bill, but don’t expect it ever to pass Congress.

In fact, none of these bills are expected to pass through both the gridlocked House and Senate this year.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Les Moonves Says It Would Be Dumb For Lawmakers To Change Retransmission Rules 9-4-13.flv[/flv]

CNBC also talked with CBS’ Les Moonves about CBS’ views towards compensation and distributing content online. (13 minutes)

Cox has pulled the plug on its summer trial of flareWatch, an over-the-top virtual cable TV service that works over an existing broadband connection. The sudden end of the trial, now scheduled for Sept. 27, comes several days after new participants found orders for the accompanying Fanhattan-made set-top box canceled without warning. Customers who paid $99.99 for the box, later reduced to $49.99, are supposed to be getting refunds according to Cox Customer Care.

“This limited trial was conducted as part of Cox’s ongoing customer research to determine how to best evolve our offerings to meet customers’ changing needs,” according to a Cox official. “We remain focused on helping customers discover and connect to the things they care about in ways that are easy-to-use and reliable and we will continue to test and explore new products. We will continue to evaluate the flareWatch trial results to determine how this might impact future product plans.”

Peter Litman got confirmation flareWatch has been put out.

Customers visiting Cox’s website dedicated to the IP-based video service found only a “Service Unavailable” message greeting them.

Cox’s flareWatch service offered about 100 channels (many over-the-air) for $34.99 a month, with a cloud-based DVR feature, and was available only to Cox customers in Orange County, Calif., with Preferred Internet service. Use of the service counted against your monthly Cox broadband usage allowance.

Later in the trial, Cox raised the price by $5 a month and bundled Rhapsody’s streaming music service and a small video-on-demand feature. It also cut the purchase price of the hardware in half.

Trial participants report the notification Cox was terminating the service seemed sudden and perhaps unplanned.

Cox says otherwise.

“As planned, the Orange County trial has successfully completed. We collected excellent customer feedback and usage data to inform our broader deployment of Fan TV,” said a Cox spokesperson. “As announced in May, Fanhattan plans to work directly with pay TV service providers to distribute Fan TV. Making sure it’s ready for primetime requires rigorous testing, trial customer feedback and constant iteration. This limited trial was a small, early step in that direction.”

Another ex-AT&T customer deals with bill shock: “Dishekie” reports he disconnected AT&T service in March after the phone company failed to get his small company’s Voice over IP phone system functioning properly. “I was reassured my contract was nullified because the VoIP phones never worked,” says the customer. Wrong. AT&T claims the bill is for fraudulent calls placed over the company’s hacked phone system. AT&T has not been willing to resolve the charges, which continue month after month, but hasn’t turned the customer over to collections either, leaving “Dishekie” opening one eye-popping bill after another. He took his case to Reddit, which seems to have finally gotten the attention of a vice president of finances at AT&T who may have a solution, or not.

Verizon FiOS is the fastest nationwide broadband service available.

That was PC Magazine’s assessment in its ranking of the fastest Internet Service Providers of 2013. It’s not the first time Verizon FiOS has taken top honors. In fact, the fiber to the home broadband service has consistently won excellent rankings not only for its speed, but also for its value for money and quality of service. The worst thing about FiOS is that many Verizon customers cannot buy the service because its expansion was curtailed in early 2010.

Verizon FiOS has seen its national speed rankings increase this year. In 2012, the provider’s nationwide download speeds averaged 29.4Mbps; this year FiOS average downstream speeds jumped to 34.5Mbps. Upstream speeds are also up from 26.8Mbps to 31.6Mbps. In part, this is because a growing number of customers have moved away from Verizon’s entry-level 15/5Mbps package with a $10 upgrade to Quantum FiOS 50/25Mbps service. FiOS TV customers can upgrade themselves with their remote control.

Frontier Communications made the top five in the Pacific Northwest, thanks to FiOS infrastructure the company inherited from Verizon.

Other high-ranking ISPs included Midcontinent Communications, a small cable provider serving the north-central states. Midco’s DOCSIS 3 upgrade allows the company to offer most customers up to 100Mbps service. The average download speed for Midco customers is 33.1Mbps; average upload speed is 6.4Mpbs.

Where cable operators face head-on competition from Verizon FiOS, the usual competitive response is speed increases. Cablevision is a good example. It came in fourth place nationally with average speeds of 25.9/5.9Mbps. Comcast has also been boosting speeds, especially in the northeast where it faces the most competition from fiber. It came in third place with average speeds of 27.2/6.8Mbps and offers Internet speeds up to 505Mbps in some areas.

There were companies that performed so poorly, they barely made the regional rankings. The most glaring example largely absent from PC Magazine’s awards: Time Warner Cable, which has lagged behind most cable operators in the speed department. It scored poorly for the second largest cable company in the country, beaten by Charter, Mediacom, and CableONE — which all usually perform abysmally in customer ratings. The only regional contest where Time Warner made a showing at all was in the southeast, where it lost to Verizon FiOS, Comcast, and Charter. Only TDS, an independent phone company, scored worse among the top five down south.

Even more embarrassing results turned up for AT&T U-verse, which performed so bad it did not even make the national rankings. AT&T has promised speed upgrades for customers this year, and has implemented them in several cities. Unfortunately for AT&T, its decision to deploy a fiber to the neighborhood system that still depends on copper to the home is turning out to be penny wise-pound foolish, as it continues to fall further behind its cable and fiber competitors. At the rate its competitors are boosting speeds, U-verse broadband could become as relevant as today’s telephone company ADSL service within the next five years.

Other players scoring low include WOW!, a surprising result since Consumer Reports awarded them top honors for service this year. Also stuck in the mud: Atlantic Broadband (acquired by Canada’s Cogeco Cable, which itself is no award winner), Suddenlink, Wave Broadband and Metrocast, which serves smaller communities in New Hampshire, Maine, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, Connecticut, South Carolina, Mississippi and Alabama.

The magazine also ranked the fastest U.S. cities, with top honors going to the politically important Washington, D.C., and its nearby suburb Silver Spring, Md, which took first and second place. Alexandria, Va., another D.C. suburb, turned up in eighth place. No cable or phone company wants to be caught delivering poor service to the politicians that can make life difficult for them.

Brooklyn, N.Y., took third place because of head-on competition between Cablevision and Verizon FiOS. Time Warner’s dominance in Manhattan and other boroughs dragged New York City’s speed rankings down below the top ten. Among most of the remaining top ten cities, the most common reason those cities made the list was Verizon FiOS. Florida’s Gulf Coast communities of Bradenton (4th place) and Tampa (6th place) have fiber service. So does Plano, Tex. (5th place) and Long Beach, Calif. (7th place). The other contenders: Hollywood, Fla. takes ninth place and Chandler, Ariz. rounds out the top 10.

As residents across flood-stricken Colorado begin the task of cleaning up damaged homes and in some cases rebuilding them on now-empty lots, many have navigate to these guys and made calls to various utilities, trash collectors, and service providers to hold off on further bills for services they cannot use. The electric, telephone, and trash hauling companies were all understanding and reassuring. DirecTV and AT&T were not. They want their money — one for the value of satellite equipment that may have since floated into New Mexico or Kansas, the other for fees incurred from excessive texting, talking, or data usage.

DirecTV was willing to settle with Jenny, a resident living outside of Boulder whose first floor was inundated with waves of water which swept her personal property out the rear door, if she was willing to charge $400 on her Visa credit card today for one lost satellite dish and two receivers. Otherwise, “collection activity will begin that could harm your credit.”

Jamestown resident Juliette Leon Bartsch is contending with 10 feet of mud, her husband’s car smashed against the house, and AT&T’s nagging fees for excessive texting.

That will be $400 please. Call your insurance company. We want to get paid.

Bartsch says AT&T has been pounding her phone with text messages telling her she will be paying AT&T’s regular prices of 20 cents per text, 30 cents for any text with attached photos, because she exceeded her allowance sending and receiving updates about the status of her home to worried friends and family. Her idea was to keep the phone lines clear for emergency personnel contending with serious telecom outages. AT&T’s idea was to rake in 20 cents for a short message that costs them virtually nothing to handle. Sending text messages is the preferred method of communicating in a disaster area over a wireless network and it turns out to be mighty profitable for AT&T as well.

Bartsch told the Denver Post AT&T store employees were “completely unhelpful” to her plight. AT&T also never misses an opportunity to upsell a traumatized customer to a more profitable service plan, even when that customer is a disaster victim.

After waiting around for 30 minutes, an AT&T employee rudely grabbed her phone in what Bartsch interpreted as a demand to “prove” her claims of disaster-related texting. After scrolling through the messages, all the employee was willing to offer was a paid upgrade to a more expensive texting plan to cover current and future text messages.

After contacted by the newspaper, AT&T changed its tune.

“As is our routine in an emergency, we began suspending collections calls to impacted customers last Friday, and we will not be billing those customers for flood-related overages to their wireless-minute or text-message plans,” a company spokeswoman said in a statement. “AT&T has reached out to our customers to clear the flood overage charges, and we apologize for the oversight and inconvenience.”

Bartsch has not heard back from AT&T to find out if her bill will be, in fact, credited for the charges.

DirecTV has a less opaque policy for disaster victims published on its website. Getting the company to follow it is another matter.

DIRECTV has policies in place to assist customers who are impacted by natural disasters. If you live in a declared disaster area, we’ll work with you to find a solution that best fits your needs. Options available include:

You are over your texting limit.

Jenny, a Stop the Cap! reader, heard a completely different story from DirecTV.

“They were adamant, they really wanted to get paid either by me or the insurance company,” Jenny writes. “They even wanted to know the name of my carrier and my insurance policy number, which I refused to give them.”

This isn’t the first time DirecTV has ignored its disaster policy in Colorado. During this summer’s wildfires, fire victims were treated to similar demands for compensation.

Jeremy Beach’s Black Forest home burned to the ground and melted his satellite dish and reduced his DirecTV receivers to charred boxes. Then came DirecTV’s demand for cash.

“I couldn’t believe it,” he told the newspaper. “I had lost everything and they acted like they could care less.”

Even more incredible, a DirecTV spokesperson told the newspaper it was ignoring its disaster assistance policy because “most people’s insurance would cover the cost of its equipment.”

That is the same response Beach received. He hung up on the representative making the demand for payment.