(This piece is written by Jay Ovittore and Phillip Dampier.)

The good news is that all the pushback on an all-out-moratorium on municipal broadband was successful and Senator David Hoyle (D-Gaston) withdrew the idea.  The bad news is he had an even worse idea to replace it.

Hoyle Wednesday unveiled a new draft bill that hopelessly ties up municipal broadband projects into knots of red tape that, if passed into law, will bury municipal broadband projects in North Carolina indefinitely.

Hoyle sprung his telecom-industry-friendly legislation on the public after getting plenty of input and encouragement from the state’s cable and phone companies who already knew what was in it because they helped craft it.

For a retiring state senator who doesn’t have to worry about the next election, what better parting gift can you give to your friends in the cable and phone industry than a bill that preserves the comfortable duopoly they’ve  enjoyed for years.

Hoyle and those supporting the legislation will argue their bill doesn’t ban municipal broadband — it simply places conditions on such projects before they can go forward.  But what are those conditions?

Section One of the draft bill requires local governments to get funding for “external communications services” (ie. municipal broadband) by way of a General Obligation Bond (a GO Bond).  In North Carolina, that requires a taxpayer-funded referendum to be held for public input at the next election.

On the surface, getting public approval for municipal broadband isn’t a bad idea — no local government official expecting to win re-election would ever proceed on such projects without voter support.  But this requirement also gives plenty of advance notice to incumbent providers that a new player could be invading their turf.

We know what that means.  A well-funded opposition campaign to demagogue the project.  Local cable companies can insert an unlimited number of free ads during every advertising break to slam the proposal.  Phone companies can release a blizzard of opposition mailers to convince consumers it’s as scary as Halloween — all tricks and no treats.

How can a local city or county government respond to the misinformation barrage?  They can’t.  Public officials can’t spend taxpayer dollars to promote such projects or refute industry propaganda.  They can’t even financially assist a citizen-run campaign.

That’s a fight with ground rules only Don King could love.

In the end, that leaves ordinary citizens of North Carolina facing down a multi-billion dollar statewide consortium of telecommunications interests hellbent on preserving and protecting the status qu0.

The earlier-discussed moratorium was a brick wall against municipal broadband.  Hoyle’s bill is the Great Wall of China with the logos of AT&T, Time Warner Cable, and CenturyLink plastered all over it.

But wait, there’s more.  To deal with municipal broadband projects that got an initial green light to dare to interfere with the phone and cable industries’ grand business plans, another provision provides a near endless supply additional referendums to get rid of the projects.  Hoyle’s bill actually demands more votes should existing systems need:

• refinancing to reduce the interest rate or restructure existing debt;
• to make repairs to the system’s “fixtures;” and/or
• to upgrade the system to meet subscribers’ needs.

Ponder the insanity:

• The legislation could be interpreted to demand a public referendum if your service goes out.  Can you wait until the next election to get back your cable service?
• If a municipal broadband fiber cable falls in your backyard, does it make a sound?  It won’t, but you will when you learn that cable might not be reattached to the pole until the whole town holds a referendum about it;
• Would you be upset if your local municipal provider could refinance its debt at a much lower interest rate, letting them cut their prices, but they can’t before the next election?
• While cable and phone companies refuse to upgrade their service to levels that would have made such municipal alternatives unnecessary, they also want to make certain the one provider that did meet your needs can’t upgrade… without a public vote.

These systems are not constructed with public tax dollars, but Senator Hoyle wants every citizen in a community, subscriber or not, to ponder the future of a local municipal broadband provider.  It’s like giving AT&T veto power over Time Warner Cable’s channel lineup.  Guess who has to pay for these constant referendums?  Taxpayers.  So while Senator Hoyle complains municipal broadband costs the state tax revenue, his legislation guarantees increased government spending on pointless referendums.  That’s logic only a politician working for the interests of big cable can appreciate.

For the cable and phone companies, and their good friends in the North Carolina legislature, this is their idea of a level playing field.  In reality it’s about as level as a downhill ski run.

Let’s extend that “fairness” out to incumbent cable and phone companies and consider whether you got a vote on:

• Whether or not the cable and phone companies got to put their wires on phone poles plunked down in front of your house;
• Whether or not you wanted either company to dig up your yard to bury their wiring;
• Whether you wanted that giant metal refrigerator-sized metal box installed on your street, in your yard, or on the phone pole you see from your window every day;
• Whether or not you want the cable company to repair Mrs. Jenkins’ problems with HBO up the street whenever it rains or replace the cable the squirrels chewed up;
• What channels and services you want to pay for, which ones you do not, and at what price you need to pay your local phone or cable company.
• What cable or phone company gets to provide service in your community.

Apparently the fairness concept only applies to potential new competitors, not the existing providers.

Let’s also consider the cable television industry didn’t just magically bloom into a multi-billion dollar business without government help.  In the early days of cable television, investors were assured that they were financing a monopoly provider, guaranteed through a franchise agreement process that gave newly built cable companies exclusivity to help repay construction costs.  Franchise wars broke out between 1978 and 1984 as competing companies promised the moon with state-of-the-art two-way cable systems with the capacity to offer 70 or more channels.  The players then included Time’s American Television and Communications Corporation, Warner’s Amex, and Telecommunications, Inc. (TCI).  ATC and Amex would later evolve into Time Warner Cable and TCI became AT&T Cable before being sold to Comcast.  Communities seeking cable television for their residents would later learn a lot of these promises made were promises broken – reneged on by large cable companies with few, if any consequences.

During the Reagan Administration, then-FCC Chairman Mark Fowler bestowed additional deregulation benefits on the cable industry.  The Museum of Broadcast Communications explains:

The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 addressed the two issues that still hindered cable television’s growth and profitability: rate regulation and the relative uncertainty surrounding franchise renewals. Largely the result of extensive negotiation and compromise between the cable industry’s national organization, the National Cable Television Association, and the League of Cities representing municipalities franchising cable systems, the act provided substantial comfort to the cable industry’s future.

Its major provisions created a standard procedure for renewing franchises that gave operators relatively certain renewal, and it deregulated rates so that operators could charge what they wanted for different service tiers as long as there was “effective competition” to the service. This was defined as the presence of three or more over-the-air signals, a very easy standard that over 90% of all cable markets could meet. The act also allowed cities to receive up to 5% of the operator’s revenues in an annual franchise fee and made some minor concessions in mandating “leased access” channels to be available to groups desiring to “speak” via cable television.

Additional reforms guaranteed pole attachment rights to the cable industry so they could wire and service their network unencumbered by utility company interference or high pole attachment fees.  Cable consolidation allowed formerly mom and pop cable systems to become part of a cable industry where just a handful of cable companies provide service to the majority of cable households.  Countless millions are spent each year by the industry to lobby state and federal governments to keep the party going without regulatory interference, suggesting competiti0n alone is the only regulation required.

Except when a new competitor enters the market, of course.  Fearing competition from municipal providers who will force cable and phone companies to charge reasonable rates and upgrade service, the best possible solution is to find a way to ban such projects.

Forcing regular referendums and the complexities and expenses associated with them guarantees no community in North Carolina would ever bother with the onerous requirements to launch municipal broadband projects.

That’s not just Jay and I saying that.  What Hoyle has proposed hardly breaks new ground.  It’s the same dog and pony show the industry has brought to other states to stop competition and keep prices high and service slow.

So let’s learn from the painful experiences of others:

First lobbying for legislation requiring referendums and then winning it, SBC (later AT&T) and Comcast used the opportunity to spend more than $300,000 of their subscribers’ money to launch a major misinformation campaign with misleading and inaccurate mailers that successfully fought off a proposition to deliver better and cheaper service through a municipal broadband project in Batavia, Geneva, and St. Charles, Illinois.  Fiber for Our Future documented the whole sordid affair from start to finish as a lesson to others confronting industry-backed referendum requirements.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/unproven.flv[/flv]

Want a preview of the distortion and misinformation-campaign cable and phone providers will bring to stop municipal broadband?  Watch this SBC (today AT&T) executive tell city officials in Illinois that fiber is “unproven,” that the phone company’s DSL speeds are comparable to Comcast Cable, and that consumers don’t need the 3Mbps speed the company was delivering back in 2004 when this video was taken.  “What are you going to do with 20 megabits.  I mean, it’s like having an Indy race car and you don’t have the race track to drive it on.”  (3 minutes)

Longmont, Colorado spent years suffering with bad broadband service from Comcast and Qwest and sought a better alternative with a municipally-run provider.  But then the cable and phone giants spent $200,000 to put a stop to that.  While local subscribers may have preferred that $200,000 be used to reduce their rates, for Comcast and Qwest it was an investment in maintaining future pricing only duopolies can achieve, all while delivering “good enough for you” broadband service to Longmont residents.  In 2006, the Baller Herbst Law Firm collected information on industry-backed barriers to municipal broadband, and the list went on for nine pages.  Many of them sound eerily familiar to what Hoyle proposes (after cable and phone companies whispered time tested, industry proven ideas into his ear).

The city of North St. Paul, Minnesota has advice for states like North Carolina after their own experience with a coordinated industry-backed smear campaign against municipal broadband enabled by legislation similar to what Hoyle proposes:

What should be of interest to all communities was the organized opposition.  It appears that the incumbent providers, industry associations and politically conservative think tanks teamed up to promote negative news stories, do polling and opposition phone calls, provide transportation for identified “no” voters and create web sites.

While we heard some advocates lamenting this high priced anti-municipal fiber effort, this response is something that community leaders must expect and be prepared for.  A strong community education and mobilization effort must be a part of any municipal telecommunications initiative.  A coalition of business owners and residents must be created and maintained that can counter the expected efforts of the incumbent providers.  The benefits of the community-owned network should be documented and promoted so that an overwhelming majority of voters will choose to vote yes.  We hope that, one way or the other, North St. Paul gets the “More, Better Broadband” that the MN Broadband Coalition supports.

Of course, when local communities are banned from spending a nickel on advocacy for their projects, it effectively hands a restraining order to broadband advocates who can’t even get on the playing field, level or otherwise.

Outraged yet?

It will only get worse if Hoyle’s bill ever becomes law.  Residents in communities like Salisbury endured a sampling of the kind of negative campaign this industry will launch wherever municipal broadband competition threatens to appear.  In 2009, residents were hassled with push-polling phone calls from industry-backed astroturf groups claiming to represent ordinary citizens, but were actually little more than sock puppets for big telecom.  Your mailbox will be filled with blizzards of misleading mailers that current cable and phone customers pay for.  If they need more money, they can always raise your rates to cover the difference.  In the end, with the help of elected officials who don’t care about North Carolina consumers, existing municipal projects can bleed themselves dry (later to be used by the industry as “failed examples” to claim such projects are too risky to try) and proposed ones will never see a spade plunged into the soil to bury the first strand of fiber optic cable.

But it’s not all bad news.  It doesn’t have to happen this way.  You can tell your state representative you are watching them like a hawk on this issue.  Any “yes” vote for legislation like that proposed by Senator Hoyle is a no vote for them at the next election.  Let them know you are well aware of the game plan here — it has been tried in other states with similar legislation that is little more than protectionism for big telecom. Tell your elected officials you already have the power to choose whether or not you want these projects simply by voting for or against the elected officials that propose them.  While the concept of a referendum sounds fair on the surface, it’s not when you consider the past experiences of other communities who faced well-funded opposition campaigns, helpless to correct the record or fairly argue their position on the matter.  Providers know that, which is why they advocate this type of legislation in the first place.  It effectively stops competition, stops better service, and stops North Carolina residents from enjoying lower priced cable, phone, and broadband service.

There are a few stand-up representatives of the people of North Carolina who do deserve our gratitude and thanks today.

Rep. Paul Luebke, (D-Durham County) (who co-chairs the Revenue Law Study Committee) [email protected] 919-733-7663 College Teacher

Rep. Jennifer Weiss, (D-Wake County) [email protected] 919-715-3010 Lawyer-Mom

They both will likely face fierce opposition from the incumbent providers and their fellow legislators. Please take the time to thank them for standing with consumers today and for trying to protect the future of North Carolina and its economy.

Stop the Cap! will have video of today’s remarks by both legislators soon.  We hope to follow with a complete video record of today’s events surrounding the anti-competition legislation proposed by Senator Hoyle.  It will serve as a testament to just how much work we have to do to remove legislators who have stopped representing the public interest, and renew our support for those who stand with consumers.

Meanwhile, check out these two delightful pieces paid for by the cable and phone industry, sent to homes where municipal broadband projects faced a referendum in 2003 and 2004.  More than a dozen different mailers were sent to every home in the communities of Batavia, Geneva, and St. Charles, Illinois from phone and cable companies.  Now imagine the repercussions when not one of those communities could respond with their own mailers correcting the record and giving their side of the argument.  There is a reason why special interests spend enormous sums of money to protect their turf, and the battle is over before it even begins when those interests demand the other side not have the opportunity to respond in kind.

What smears do providers in North Carolina have in store for you?

… Continue Reading

Another day, another re-purposed video portal.  Last September, AT&T launched AT&T Entertainment, little more than a site filled with embedded TV shows from Hulu you could already watch… on Hulu.  Today, AT&T launched the same concept under the rebranded “AT&T U-verse Online.”

“The benefits of multi-screen convergence are coming to life for AT&T U-verse customers,” said Dan York, president of content, AT&T. “With AT&T U-verse, you can enjoy your favorite content on U-verse TV, U-verse Online, and soon, your mobile device with U-verse Mobile. We have an unmatched ability to deliver on the multi-screen vision, and working with leading programmers, we’re providing entertainment to consumers in new and integrated ways not yet offered by our competitors.”

“U-verse Online features tens of thousands of hours of entertainment, and since its initial launch in September 2009, has continued to add content from additional networks and studios,” says a statement from the company.

But in reality, U-verse Online remains almost entirely a Hulu affair, with the majority of its video content coming from the popular video site.  Only the name of the site is changed to give customers the perception of value from something anyone could build themselves.

Watch how easy it is for Stop the Cap! to launch its own amazing video portal, Stop the Capped Video Online!:

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

The Abbott & Costello Show, one of the featured titles on AT&T’s U-verse Online (and also on Stop the Capped Video Online!)

Stop the Cap! reader Michael, who sent along the tip, wonders if this is AT&T’s version of TV Everywhere.  If it is, AT&T’s shows are already available everywhere without the phone company’s help.  Just like AT&T Entertainment, AT&T U-verse Online is little more than a tool to give customers perceived value for money, even if the only cost to AT&T came from hiring some web designers to clip and paste embedded video codes from Hulu’s website.

More than 300,000 residents from Louisville to Lexington in Kentucky and north into Indiana were left with no cable service for more than nine hours today after an equipment failure at an Insight Communications office on Okolona Road wiped out analog cable.

Louisville cable viewers channel flipping up and down the dial found nothing but frozen pictures, a captured moment in time from 2:53am this morning.  What they found next when calling Insight was nothing but hours of busy signals.  Some customers in southern Indiana found some channels worked fine while others did not.  In all, the outage impacted at least some channels across most of Insight’s service area in Kentuckiana.

Insight initially blamed the problem on a router failure that developed during routine overnight maintenance.  A backup router also failed at the same time.  Company officials originally anticipated service would be restored by six this morning, but that did not come to pass.

Because the equipment failure had never been seen before by Insight technicians, it took nearly nine hours to finally resolve the problem.  Local television stations were deluged with calls from viewers wondering what happened to their favorite shows, and Insight’s dropped ball was topic number one on most local talk radio programs today.

Insight subscribers were especially upset that they couldn’t reach the cable company for answers.  Customer service lines were left jammed through much of the day.

Insight spokesman Jason Keller apologized for the outage.

“Everything that we have has a redundancy built into it. This is no different, but unfortunately on this particular morning with this particular piece of equipment, both the main equipment and the backup did not function properly,” Keller said, calling the outage “highly unusual.”

Keller called today’s outage the largest that he has seen during the company’s 10 years of service in Louisville.

By 10:00am, Louisville customers had their HD channels back, with the remaining analog channels restored by 1:30 this afternoon.

Despite the severity of the outage and its widespread impact, Insight Communications is refusing to issue blanket refunds to affected customers.  Instead, individual customers have to call or contact the company and request a refund, which they characterize as an amount under $1.00.

Customers can cost Insight more than that just by availing themselves of that option, and registering their displeasure over today’s long-lasting outage.

Impacted customers can request a refund online or by phone at (502) 357-4400.

Most television newscasts in the Louisville area treated today’s outage as their top news story, with several issuing periodic updates throughout the morning into the afternoon about the service problems.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WAVE Louisville Equipment problems cause loss of service for Insight customers 5-4-10.flv[/flv]

WAVE-TV in Louisville told viewers “it’s not our fault” that Insight subscribers couldn’t watch the station for at least nine hours today.  (2 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WLKY Louisville Insight Experiences Cable Outages 5-4-10.flv[/flv]

WLKY-TV in Louisville said it received tons of calls from concerned viewers, one of whom was upset that the company “doesn’t want to give customers answers.”  (2 minutes)

[flv width=”432″ height=”260″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WHAS Louisville Technical Problems at Insight 5-4-10.mp4[/flv]

WHAS-TV, also in Louisville spent time outside of WHAS Radio’s studios this afternoon covering angry reactions from Insight customers on local talk radio.  (2 minutes)

[flv width=”432″ height=”260″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WHAS Louisville After Nine Hours Insight Restores Service 5-4-10.mp4[/flv]

WHAS followed up its earlier report with a wrap-up during its early evening newscast explaining what caused the nine hour outage.  (3 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WDRB Louisville Insight Outage Ends 5-4-10.flv[/flv]

WDRB-TV in Louisville explained to its viewers how they could get their money back for a day’s worth of frozen pictures.  (2 minutes)

The Washington Post this morning reports FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is preparing to sell out a free and open Internet by adopting a provider appeasement policy that would abandon consumers and broadband users to the whims of big telecom companies.

In an extraordinarily disappointing move by the Obama Administration, which promised to adopt Net Neutrality and better broadband service for consumers, political expediency and typical Democratic party cowardice are likely to derail any hope for adopting consumer protections for the Internet.

Three sources at the [FCC] said Genachowski has not made a final decision but has indicated in recent discussions that he is leaning toward keeping in place the current regulatory framework for broadband services but making some changes that would still bolster the FCC’s chances of overseeing some broadband policies.

The sources said Genachowski thinks “reclassifying” broadband to allow for more regulation would be overly burdensome on carriers and would deter investment. But they said he also thinks the current regulatory framework would lead to constant legal challenges to the FCC’s authority every time it attempted to pursue a broadband policy.

Genachowski is living in a dream world — the non-reality-based community — if he believes for a second the nice telecom industry will happily go along with his plans for better broadband while leaving the current anti-competitive duopolistic framework of deregulation in place.

Telling a multi-billion dollar broadband industry to keep their paws off content and preserve an open and free network would be burdensome… for Stalin.  It should not be for AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon.  If it is, that is why we are supposed to have checks and balances to protect Americans from a corporate oligarchy.  But money talks, and despite all of the repeated promises from President Barack Obama to preserve an open Internet, once the political pressure gets applied and the Money Party of corporate contributions gets going, you can always count on these people to cave in the end. “What Net Neutrality promise?”

Stop the Cap! supporters, with the help of a few “get it done” elected officials and other consumers who stood up and said “no more” to Time Warner Cable and the North Carolina legislature, managed to beat back Internet Overcharging experiments and corporate-friendly legislation to ban municipal broadband networks.  We accomplished both in a matter of weeks last year.  What was our secret?  Integrity.  We’re not behest to corporate lobbyists and industry-funded think tanks who hold the keys to post-administration job opportunities with super-sized salaries.  The Obama Administration and its appointed FCC chairman seem utterly impotent to do what a regulatory agency is supposed to do — regulate.  We might as well have Neville Chamberlain as FCC Chairman, because consumers are starting to feel a bit like 1938 Czechoslovakia, about to be sold out for peace inside the Beltway.

Readers, we will not be Julius Genachowski’s Tylenol.  To the contrary.  Chairman Genachowski appears exceptionally naive to believe he can enact any of his broadband policies over lawsuit-happy big telecoms that will promptly have them tossed out in court rulings.  If you and I already know this, why doesn’t he?  We need bold action, not policy capitulation.  Perhaps it’s time to replace the chairman with someone who isn’t afraid to do the job.

It always shocks me when we elect an administration to lead on the issues it pursues during an election, and then cowers in fear and abandons the American people the moment some lobbyists turn up the heat and start handing out checks.  Even when the overwhelming majority of Americans want a free and open Internet, somehow a handful of bureaucrats in Washington are too afraid to actually get the job done.

“The telephone and cable companies will object to any path the chairman takes,” said Art Brodsky, a spokesman for Public Knowledge, told the Post. “He might as well take the one that best protects consumers and is most legally sound.”

It’s too bad that is considered the radical solution in a lobbyist-infested Washington.  It looks like we’re going to need to start counting the money and making it clear in no uncertain terms that abandoning consumers means we’ll abandon them at the next election.

Marvin Ammori, a CyberLaw Advocate:

If the Post story is predictive, there is almost no list of “horribles” that are not fair game. I’m listing ten. Most of these “horribles” have actually happened as business practices where the carriers got their way. And media companies are believed to refuse ads or stories that criticize them or oppose their position.

Comcast (or AT&T or Verizon or Time Warner Cable) could do any of the following and the FCC could do Big Fat Nothing:

(1) Block your tweets, if you criticize Comcast’s service or its merger, especially if you use the #ComcastSucks hashtag.

(2) Block your vote to the consumerist.com, when you vote Comcast the worst company in the nation. No need for such traffic to get through.

(3) Force every candidate for election to register their campaign-donations webpage and abide by the same weird rules that apply to donations by text message.

(4) Comcast could even require a “processing fee,” becoming the Ticketmaster of campaign contributions.

(5) Comcast could reserve the right to approve of every campaign online and every mass email to a political party’s or advocacy group’s list (as they do with text message short codes).

(6) If you create a small online business and hit it big, threaten to block your business unless you share 1/3 or more of all your revenues with them (apps on the iPhone app stores often are forced to give up a 1/3 or more; so are cable channels on cable TV).

(7) Block all peer to peer technologies, even those used for software developers to share software, distribute patches (world of warcraft), distribute open source software (Linux). In fact, Comcast has shown it would love to do this.

(8) Block Daily Kos, Talking Points Memo, Moveon.org (and its emails), because of an “exclusive” deal with other blogs. Or alternatively, block FoxNews.com because of a deal with NBC and MSNBC.

(9) Monitor everything you do online and sell it to advertisers, something else that some phone and cable have done, with the help of a shady spyware company.

(10) Lie to you about what they’re blocking and what they’re monitoring. Hell, the FCC wouldn’t have any authority to make them honest. The FCC couldn’t punish them.

<

p style=”text-align: center; padding-left: 30px;”>

One in eight Americans are poised to drop or curtail their cable, satellite, or telco-TV packages in the coming year because the bill has gotten too expensive, according to a new study.

With an average cable bill now $71 a month and rising an average five percent a year, middle class consumers are being priced out of pay television according to the Yankee Group.  The Boston research firm conducted the study of cable, satellite and telephone-company IPTV services and surveyed 6,000 consumers from across the country.

“At the most basic level, the decision to cut off pay TV services is an economic one,” says Vince Vittore, principal analyst and co-author of the report. “As programmers continue to demand ever higher fees, which inevitably get passed on to consumers, we believe more consumers will be forced to consider coax-cutting.”

Coming on the heels of a steady erosion away from traditional telephone landline service which has threatened the fortunes of major phone companies, the implications of millions of consumers coax-cutting are not lost on cable operators or phone companies getting into the IPTV business.

Back to the Future: Older Americans Going Back to Rabbit Ears When Confronted With Today’s Cable Prices

Those dropping service often take diverging paths for their future entertainment in a cable-free household.  Among older consumers, especially those on fixed incomes, it is back to the future with over the air television and a pair of rabbit ears or rooftop antenna designed to receive digital television broadcasts.

Among these consumers, the most common reason for canceling service is cost.  Many signed up for cable in the 1970s and 1980s for better picture quality, and with the right rooftop antenna, last year’s conversion to digital television solved that problem for over the air viewers.  Post-cable, many are pleasantly surprised to discover new channels piggybacking on traditional stations, several offering classic TV shows from decades past that are familiar and welcome in older Americans’ homes.  Even better — no confusing equipment to deal with.

Jesus Chea, 59, of Queens, told the NY Post he ditched his Time Warner subscription “because I’m on a fixed income and I believe it’s not worth the money.”

To get around the $136 monthly bill, the retiree, who lives with his wife and two grown sons, had antennas installed on both of his TVs — at a cost of $298 — taking advantage of last summer’s national conversion from analog to digital broadcasts.

“Antenna is great,” he says, “because they don’t charge you for rent on digital boxes and they don’t charge you for the remote control. When you add up all those extra fees and so many extra [cable] charges, even if it’s three or four extra dollars, they all add up.”

For many others, the arrival of Redbox video rental kiosks in area grocers has replaced the HBO subscription, and has proven to be a worthwhile supplement to the coax-cutter who drops cable service altogether.

The savings from cord cutting can be dramatic.  Some have saved upwards of $60 a month — $720 a year just by dropping the cable-TV part of their package.  Those kinds of savings have become important when wages are frozen or in decline, jobs are hard to find, and everything else is still going up in cost.

The cable industry has never imagined a country where consumers have quit cable (or satellite) and gone “cold turkey,” especially when upwards of 90 percent of Americans pay for some type of entertainment — pay television, movie rentals, or broadband video.

But as the Yankee Group discovered, Americans are simply tapped out.

Your Father’s Cable TV: Why Would Anyone Under 30 Subscribe?

For younger Americans, the addiction to cable or pay television was something that afflicted their parents.  They never had a problem dropping service from a cable company with whom they never did business.  The teens and twenty-somethings have spent most of their video dollar on broadband and DVD’s for much of their viewing, not cable.

Younger cable subscribers are most at risk for coax cutting, rationalizing they can watch most of their favorite shows online through services like Netflix, Hulu, or websites run by the major American networks.  Others download content (legally or otherwise), rent or buy DVD’s, or subscribe to services like Netflix which combine video streaming with DVD rentals-by-mail.

Many of these viewers also own devices that can bring web-based viewing right to their 50-inch television sets, using set top boxes or video game consoles with web connections.

“Admittedly, this is a small phenomenon now, but a number or recent transactions and new items point to a shift in consumer thinking,” said Vittore.

With the increasing ubiquity of Internet-capable devices, the challenge to traditional coax-based cable TV has never been greater.

“Just like with telephone land lines, it’s going to become hard to sell pay TV to anyone under 30,” Vittore said.

Provider Revenge: You Won’t Get Away That Easy!

With billions of dollars at stake, providers and content producers are intent on not allowing a repeat of what happened to the newspaper industry to afflict their business plans.  Giving it all away for free is not their idea of a sustainable business model.  Keeping tight control over content and its distribution is their ticket to maintaining profits.

Older Americans who’ve gone back to over the air television are least susceptible to provider revenge, but content is still king and the cable industry will own an increasing percentage of it if the NBC-Comcast merger is approved.  While the two companies are currently promising not to dispense with free over the air broadcasting, an increasing amount of content could be diverted to pay television channels like cable sports networks, movie networks, and general interest basic cable channels.  Broadcasters themselves are now hungry for the same dual-revenue stream their cable competitors already enjoy – advertising income and subscription fees.

Most of the coming wars over pay entertainment are expected to be fought on the broadband battlefield.  For younger Americans relying on Hulu and other video streaming services, subscription fees are coming.  Hulu promises to keep some free viewing options open, but additional access to back episodes or certain series are likely to be restricted only to those who agree to pay an anticipated $9.95 per month.  The cable industry’s own TV Everywhere streaming services offers a clearer dividing line — its available only for those who maintain their pay television package.

Broadband providers, often the same companies that stand to lose from the retreat from television subscriptions, are considering making up the difference with limits on broadband service to make sure consumers can’t watch too much online, or charging consumption fees for heavy online viewers to make up their losses on the TV side.

The long-standing business relationship between content producers and distributors, such as those between Hollywood studios and cable companies, have led to a united front against would-be competitors.  For consumers seeking access to the latest Hollywood movies through low cost rental services or online video, expect to wait longer.  The window of time between a movie release in the theaters and when it becomes available for rental through Redbox or Netflix is growing longer to protect video-on-demand revenues for the cable industry and DVD sales for Hollywood.

Some consumers don’t mind the wait, but are still regularly reminded what they can miss when they don’t agree to a monthly pay television bill.

Jeremy Levinn, a 27-year-old personal trainer from Manhattan, told the Post he jumped the cable ship last year, but Time Warner Cable reminded him whose still boss during the Olympics, when numerous events were available only on Universal-owned cable channels including USA, CNBC and MSNBC and not broadcast over the air.

[flv width=”384″ height=”236″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNN Converging Broadband and Television April 2010.flv[/flv]

CNN aired this review of the next generation of television sets capable of connecting with your broadband service to receive television shows and movies over the Internet.  (4 minutes)