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.

A federal judge Wednesday ruled that Verizon Wireless can continue to run its 3G network ads, suggesting they might be “sneaky,” but are not misleading.  U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Batten Sr. told AT&T’s attorneys that their request for a temporary restraining order was denied, but the judge indicated he will hear new arguments in a second hearing on December 16.

AT&T claimed that Verizon’s “There’s a Map for That” ad campaign mislead consumers into believing AT&T provided no service in vast areas of the country because Verizon’s ads depicted non 3G service areas in white, a color that traditionally represents “no service” on many cell phone coverage maps.

Judge Batten said people casually viewing the ads might misunderstand the commercials, but a viewer’s misinterpretation “doesn’t mean they’re misleading.”

“Most people who are watching TV are semi-catatonic,” he said, prompting laughter from the courtroom. “They’re not fully alive.”

AT&T’s apparent backup plan is a new ad of its own, attacking Verizon Wireless with… Luke Wilson.

[flv width=”640″ height=”450″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT Ad Luke Wilson.flv[/flv]

Actor Luke Wilson helps AT&T Mobility fire back at Verizon Wireless as the holiday season approaches. (30 seconds)

The effectiveness of Wilson’s spirited defense of AT&T is debatable, judging from early ad reviews.  We spotted one continuity error straight away.  At the 0:15 second mark, notice the “Access to over 100,000 apps” box is already filled with an “x” before Wilson turns to the board to fill it.  The “x” is there before it’s gone and back again.  Perhaps it’s an unintentional homage to the frustration experienced by AT&T-exclusive iPhone application developers not getting approval for applications previously approved.

One of the promised benefits of permitting the Verizon-Frontier spinoff is that Frontier will bring more and better broadband service to areas Verizon has ignored for years.  The company has been running television ads in West Virginia promoting Frontier’s promised “next generation” of broadband.  But what does that mean?

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Frontier Verizon Deal Advertisement West Virginia.flv[/flv]

Frontier Communications is running this advertisement in West Virginia.

The West Virginia Consumer Advocate Division of the Public Service Commission brought in Trevor R. Roycroft, PhD., former Associate Professor at the J. Warren McClure School of Communication Systems Management, Ohio University, to examine the details behind the marketing and public relations push to promote the deal.

He was not impressed.

After an extensive review of confidential and public documents from Frontier, his conclusion was that Frontier’s DSL service is just plain bad, and for plenty of West Virginians who may only have one choice for broadband in the foreseeable future, being stuck with Frontier’s idea of broadband is particularly bad.

Indeed, Frontier’s idea of what defines “next generation broadband” would be true, if this was the year 1992.

“Frontier has made no commitment regarding improved broadband deployment in West Virginia. Frontier, while achieving higher levels of DSL availability in West Virginia, generally offers its broadband services at higher prices and provides lower quality than those associated with Verizon’s DSL. Frontier’s ability to increase broadband deployment in West Virginia will depend on the condition of the outside plant that it has acquired, which may negatively impact Frontier’s costs of deployment. Furthermore, Frontier must upgrade substantial numbers of customer locations outside of West Virginia, and West Virginia will be competing with this larger priority,” Roycroft writes in his testimony to the West Virginia Public Service Commission.

The infrastructure Frontier utilizes to deliver its broadband service is revealing even to those Frontier customers not directly impacted by this transaction.  Some of the documents Roycroft reviewed laid bare the nonsense the company has used to defend its Acceptable Use Policy language defining an “acceptable amount” of monthly broadband usage at just five gigabytes.  Company officials have said for more than a year that they were concerned about the growth of usage on their network, and its potential to slow service for other customers.  But company documents, included within the scope of Roycroft’s testimony, tell a very different story:

Frontier plans to increase its core backbone from its current level of 10 Gbps to a capacity of 20 Gbps (should the spinoff be approved). With regard to the capacity of its existing backbone, Frontier states:

Frontier expanded the backbone from OC 48 to 10 Gigabit Ethernet during the first half of 2009. Because of this network expansion we do not have peak usage for the past 12 months. No backbone link has peaked above 2.8 Gigabit/second or 28% of the capacity of a link since the augment was completed in 2009.

Thus, Frontier’s current backbone configuration appears to have excess capacity. With the expansion of its backbone network to 20 Gbps, the company’s current data traffic load results in about 14% of capacity being utilized at peak.

Potentially limiting customers to just five gigabytes of usage is so unjustified, in Roycroft’s analysis, its potential imposition on West Virginian customers should be a deal-breaker.

Roycroft ponders whether Frontier will invest enough resources to make sure capacity is not an issue. The only way Frontier’s network will show signs of strain is if the company makes a conscious decision not to sufficiently upgrade their network as they take on millions of new Verizon customers, or they dramatically underestimate the average Verizon customer’s usage.

Roycroft was also asked to evaluate whether Frontier’s claims of 90% broadband availability in its overall service area and 92% in its West Virginia territory rang true.

Roycroft writes that Frontier’s numbers don’t tell the whole story.  In five states, Frontier admits the percentages are notably lower, so no guarantee can be inferred for West Virginia based on Frontier’s talking points.

Frontier’s “Advanced” Broadband Network Is Hardly Advanced and Barely Qualifies As Broadband

Heavy criticism was leveled at Frontier for its “advanced” broadband service.  Roycroft compared Frontier DSL with several other providers and was unimpressed with the company’s broadband speeds.

Roycroft's table illustrates what's on offer from the competition

“Frontier’s advertised DSL speeds are generally much lower than those available from Verizon and other carriers. Based on a location-based search of Frontier DSL service offerings, it appears that Frontier’s most prevalent DSL speeds are 3 Mbps and 768 kbps (for download),” Roycroft said.

Frontier's DSL Speeds in Selected Cities

Although the expressed upload speed for Rochester should be listed at a higher rate (I managed around 512kbps myself), Roycroft is correct when he says, “it can be seen that outside of Rochester, NY, the DSL speeds associated with Frontier offerings cannot be considered ‘cutting edge.'”

Even while noting Rochester’s potential DSL speeds, real-world speeds are another matter entirely.

[flv width=”640″ height=”405″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Real World Frontier vs Road Runner Speeds.flv[/flv]

One New York customer provided real world evidence of the significant differences in speed offered by Road Runner from Time Warner Cable and Frontier’s DSL (courtesy: 1ComputerSavvyGuy) (1 minute)

Frontier’s DSL offerings in West Virginia are of even lower quality. Frontier indicates that it offers three grades of DSL service in West Virginia:

Up to 256 kbps download/128 kbps upload;
Up to 1 Mbps download/200 kbps upload;
Up to 3 Mbps download/200 kbps upload.

These data transmission speeds, especially upload speeds, are at the very low end of commercial offerings that I have observed.

Comparing Verizon DSL vs. Frontier DSL Pricing & Gotchas, Contracts, and Internet Overcharging Schemes

Roycroft’s study found Frontier’s pricing significantly higher than Verizon for DSL service.

Frontier’s DSL prices, either with telephone service, or on a stand-alone basis, are significantly higher than are Verizon’s. For example, the entry-level Frontier plan has a nominal price that is 100% higher than Verizon’s.

However, when considering the per Mbps price, Frontier’s price is 160% higher. It is also notable that Frontier’s upload speeds are also low when compared to Verizon’s.  Consumers are increasingly relying on upload capabilities to share large files, such as videos. Overall, Frontier’s DSL products are low quality.

Comparing Prices

Roycroft also gave special attention to Frontier’s infamous 5GB Acceptable Use Policy, which he suggested was a major negative for West Virginia’s online experience.

Frontier indicates that it monitors network usage if “it receives a complaint of slow service or if it discovers that network bandwidth utilization is unusually high in a particular area.

Frontier was asked to identify any action taken against a customer associated with its acceptable use policy and, in response, the company stated that it has not “terminated a customer’s service based on exceeding the 5 GB threshold identified in the AUP.” However, the restriction on usage further raises the relative cost of Frontier’s service. Frontier indicates that consumers may face action by the company if they exceed the usage cap, thus indicating that the prices reflect both speed and volume. Verizon’s DSL service does not include a similar limit.

Frontier’s DSL pricing policies and usage restrictions will represent a significant negative impact on West Virginia consumers, should these policies be implemented in Verizon’s service area in West Virginia.

Even more importantly, Roycroft considered the argument for imposing such Internet Overcharging schemes as unwarranted.

“While DSL provides dedicated bandwidth to the customer in the last mile, DSL subscribers will share network capacity in the ‘middle mile.’ For example, shared data networks will carry consumer traffic from the telephone company central office to an Internet gateway. I believe that Frontier’s policy is more likely to reflect an unwillingness on Frontier’s part to invest in ‘middle mile’ Internet access facilities that would require capacity additions as customer demand increases, and choose to restrict customer usage instead of investing in the capacity needed to meet customer demand,” Roycroft writes.

“Furthermore, Comcast’s download-cap policy includes limits that are dramatically higher than Frontier’s. Comcast’s acceptable use policy identifies 250 gigabytes as the threshold at which Comcast may take action against a customer, which is fifty times the usage associated with Frontier’s policy,” he added.

Roycroft was also concerned about the many ‘gotchas’ that are part of Frontier’s marketing efforts which bring even higher prices to consumers choosing to have DSL service installed.

“To receive the services of Frontier’s technician, the consumer will incur a $134 fee unless the consumer signs up for a term service contract. Even with the term service contract, the customer must pay a $34 fee for the on-site set-up. Furthermore, the technicians that Frontier dispatches to new broadband customers’ homes are also sales agents. Thus, while it may be that these individuals can help with system set-up and the like, they also are part of Frontier’s overall up-selling strategy,” said Roycroft.

Frontier markets a variety of services to customers as part of their promotions and service offerings.  For instance, recent Dell Netbook promotions required customers to sign multi-year contracts for service, with an early termination fee up to $400 if the consumer chooses to cancel service.  Such promotions do not come out of the goodness of Frontier’s heart.  Indeed, such promotions provide even more revenue potential by pitching customers on its “Peace of Mind” services, which include computer technical support, backups, and inside wire maintenance for an additional monthly fee.

Customers don’t even qualify for many Frontier promotions unless they accept a bundled service package combining broadband with traditional phone service and a multi-year service contract.

Roycroft says West Virginia should demand modifications to Frontier’s proposal before it should even consider accepting it.  Among the changes:

• Frontier should be required to make broadband services available in 100% of its wire centers, and to 90% of its West Virginia customers by the end of 2013. Frontier should expand broadband availability to 100% of its customers by 2015.
• Frontier should be required to deploy and promote broadband services in West Virginia so that, by the end of 2013, at least 90% of its customers can achieve download speeds of 3 Mbps; 75% of its customers can achieve download speeds of 6 Mbps; and 50% of customers can achieve download speeds of 10 Mbps.
• To achieve these broadband objectives, Frontier should be required to exceed Verizon’s baseline level of capital investment by at least $117 million during the period ending December 31, 2013, or by an amount sufficient to meet the broadband objectives.
• Frontier should be required to offer broadband services at prices that do not exceed those currently offered by Verizon for 1 Mbps and 3 Mbps services, i.e., Frontier should offer services at Verizon’s advertised prices for 1 Mbps and 3 Mbps service (respectively, $19.99 per month and $29.99 per month) for a period of 24 months following the merger.
• Frontier should be prohibited from imposing its broadband “download cap” in West Virginia.
• Frontier should be required to provide individual written notice to its customers regarding the merger, and should notify customers of any change in services that result from the merger. Changes in billing format should also be clearly explained to customers, both in writing, and through a web-based tutorial.
• Frontier should be prohibited from migrating any Verizon customer to a Frontier plan that either increases the customer’s rates, diminishes the level of service, or has a materially adverse impact on any of the terms and conditions of the customer’s service. West Virginia customers should experience a rate freeze for a period of 24 months.
• Frontier should be required to allow former Verizon customers to take a “fresh look” at their purchases, including those customers who have term contracts with Verizon. All early termination charges should be waived for a period of 90 days following the merger, and the long distance PIC charge should also be waived for Verizon long-distance customers who select a long-distance provider other than Frontier.

Brian Whitton, Verizon's Executive Director of Access Technologies

At least Verizon is honest about it.  As providers contemplate slapping customers with usage limits, overlimit fees, and other tiered pricing systems, they’ve typically said they’re justified because of the strain they claim heavy users place on their broadband networks.  One network that doesn’t face that problem is Verizon’s robust fiber optic FiOS network, which is on the way to upgrading from the ridiculously fast current speeds to the “next generation” of FiOS speed: delivering 10 Gbps downlink and 2.5 Gbps uplink, shared among 32 locations.  That makes the cable modem competition, which shares slower speeds among many more customers wilt at the prospect.  DSL instantly becomes the dial-up service of the decade in comparison.

Make no mistake, Verizon tells all who ask: Fiber to the Home is near-infinitely upgradeable for decades to come, simply by swapping out some hardware at each end of the pipe.

Yet Verizon began making noises about ending its all-you-can-eat broadband buffet this past September, when Verizon Chief Technology Officer Dick Lynch said Verizon was in favor of consumption-based billing, too.

But why should Verizon FiOS, often priced higher than the cable competition, opt for Internet Overcharging schemes when it has a network that is nowhere near capacity and will increase its speeds even further next year?

As GigaOm’s Stacey Higginbotham found out, the answer is – because they can:

Brian Whitton, executive director of access technologies at Verizon did acknowledge how valuable broadband has become—precious enough that people will pay for premium access to it, especially those using up a disproportionate amount of network assets. “Ultimately this is the fairest cost-recovery model, and with a tiering plan or a meter everyone is paying their fair shares to finance the network,” Whitton said. Unlike other ISPs, Verizon doesn’t view heavy bandwidth users as hogs, but it does view them as potentially high-end customers.

Yet Verizon already does charge users a fair share to finance their network, based on the speed tier that customer chooses.  Those high-end customers are already paying Verizon premium prices for the fastest available speeds on Verizon’s fiber optic system.  Verizon’s ability to recoup their investment becomes easier and easier as costs decline to construct the fiber optic systems that will protect Verizon’s viability for decades to come, unlike those traditional phone companies sticking with copper wire lines until the last customer out the door turns the lights out for good.  Verizon’s average revenue per subscriber has never been higher with its ability to market video programming, speeds that make most cable operators blush, and an infinitely more reliable telephone network, all on one bill.  That helps achieve subscriber loyalty, particularly when offering service that keeps customers happy.

Creating Internet Overcharging schemes for your broadband service simply to monetize consumption does not keep customers happy.  Verizon sees the cream rising to the top — charging broadband enthusiasts more while promising nothing for customers who use the service less.  With average consumption per broadband user rising, there’s going to be a lot more cream to skim, charging an increasing number of customers more money for the exact same level of service.

No consumption billing scheme to date has ever provided customers with a “fair share” system, because none of them result in no charge for no consumption or charge a flat fee per gigabyte.  Instead, customers are allocated a pre-determined allowance for usage, charged whether they use it or not.  If they exceed it, punishing overlimit fees are always the result, unless a provider takes another step towards monetizing broadband by inventing overpriced “insurance plans” to protect consumers from overage fees.  The cost of delivering that data is already built-in to the price of today’s broadband plans, and those costs continue to decline.

Higginbotham adds another factor in the equation: with insufficient competition, those “fair share” schemes can inflate prices and lower allowances at a whim, as most customers lack a wide variety of competitors to choose from, which could help keep the greed factor in check.

Most places have two providers that offer slightly different sets of services and plans, making it hard to compare prices. I don’t mind paying more for a better network (I do so for my cell phone), but most consumers lack that option when it comes to wired access. Comcast—which competes against Verizon in about 12% of its footprint—is rolling out faster broadband to ensure that customers don’t leave the cable provider for Verizon’s fiber. But in other areas of the country, such as here in Austin, Tex., folks must choose between DSL (with some U-verse) and cable that hasn’t been upgraded to the faster DOCSIS 3.0 speeds.

Austin was one of the test markets for Time Warner Cable’s reviled “consumption billing experiment” this past April.  In other test cities, it’s more of the same.  In Rochester, New York broadband service is realistically available from two major players — Time Warner Cable and Frontier Communications.  The former has apparently passed over Rochester for DOCSIS 3 upgrades because the cable operator sees little need to upgrade service in an area whose only primary competitor believes DSL service is good enough, one that has stubbornly kept an Acceptable Use Policy defining an appropriate amount of usage at a piddly five gigabytes per month, and thinks fiber is for breakfast cereals, not for Flower City residents.

Verizon’s words help call out the fiction that some providers have used to peddle Internet Overcharging schemes on their customers.  It’s not about “fairness,” it’s not about “exafloods and Internet brownouts,” nor is it about “expanding networks.”  It’s about profit, pure and simple.  When you have a duopoly in place for broadband and almost no regulation governing that service, the sky is the limit for price increases and limits on usage.

[flv width=”480″ height=”284″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizon Whitton On Telecom Delivery 2-25-09.flv[/flv]

Verizon’s Executive Director of Access Technologies Brian Whitton speaks about the future of telecommunication delivery technologies with Kimberlie Dykeman of Web2point0.tv at The Future of Television East conference in New York (February 25, 2009 – 11 minutes)

For years cable subscribers have lamented the “all or nothing” approach to cable packages.  Choosing only the channels you want to watch, and pay for, is out of the question.  But as the economic downturn drags on, and more consumers drop their cable service, Comcast has continued experimenting with “economy packages” consisting of fewer channels at a lower price.

First appearing a year ago in cities like Hartford, the reduced channel lineup works fine for many consumers who don’t watch sports networks or need access to niche networks.

For customers in the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, Comcast’s $29.99 Digital Economy package ($10 more if you do not subscribe to phone or broadband service) offers more than just the local stations in the broadcast basic package, but fewer channels than Comcast’s traditional standard Digital Starter tier, priced at $57.50.

Digital Economy includes all of the local television stations in the area, plus 20 mainstream basic cable channels familiar to any cable subscriber, including A&E, Cartoon Network, CNN, Discovery, Disney, Food Network, Fox News, Hallmark, History, Lifetime, USA and the Weather Channel, among others.

The channel selection trends towards being attractive to older subscribers, but hopes to be attractive to families as well.

It’s “educational, family-oriented channels,” Nick Kozel, Comcast’s vice president of marketing and sales in the Twin Cities told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.

“This particular customer group typically likes them all, so what we’ve done is tailored what’s available to what a portion of the population really likes,” Kozel said.

The new package will be available in the Twin Cities market starting December 16 and includes one digital receiver and remote control.

Still, Twin Cities residents hope for the day when they can choose exactly the channels they want.

“Price each channel and let us pick the channels we want. These tiers are a joke to stick us with 50 channels we don’t want,” writes Derek.

“Having to buy a “package” is not consumer friendly. We want to choose and pay for only the channels that we watch, not the other 200 that are bundled in,” adds Clint.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

A Comcast subscriber explains the Digital Economy Package (3 minutes)