The deck is stacked against independent cable operators fighting to stay competitive in a marketplace obsessed with consolidation and volume discounts on cable programming. The excessive costs paid by small, often family owned cable operators have now become so great, they are impeding broadband upgrades and expansion, according to the American Cable Association.

The ACA represents small and medium cable operators that live in a different world than Comcast and Time Warner Cable. For years, these smaller, usually rural operators have been at a disadvantage negotiating with cable programmers for reasonable programming rates. The largest cable operators win the best volume discounts, often offset by higher rates for the smaller cable companies that are typical of ACA’s membership roster.

With the FCC now enforcing Section 706 of its mandate requiring the Commission to advance the cause of competitive and ubiquitous broadband, the ACA has gotten creative in comments urging the FCC to crack down on the kinds of unfair programming contracts that force small operators to spend an ever-increasing amount of their budgets on cable television networks instead of broadband expansion.

Video margins are dropping, which means smaller operators have less to invest in broadband. (Chart: SNL/Kagan)

“It has become evident that the increasing prices video programmers and broadcasters charge multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) can act as a drag on broadband deployment,” said ACA president Matt Polka. “If these prices continue their upward spiral, existing providers of both broadband and MVPD services and new entrants will be deterred from expanding their broadband networks or otherwise undertaking new builds.”

Removing barriers to investment is one of the requirements the FCC is supposed to enforce under Section 706 and it has recently shown a willingness to do that by overturning Tennessee and North Carolina laws restricting the growth of municipal broadband. The ACA now wants to learn if the FCC will give small cable operators some relief as well.

The ACA argues that broadband providers must offer consumers video along with broadband and voice services, yet they face ever-increasing video programming costs that squeeze margins.  As a result, smaller triple play providers’ ability to achieve a sufficient return on investment for deploying broadband, particularly in new areas, is quickly diminishing.

The trade group wants the FCC to reform program-access rules to guarantee fairer treatment for smaller cable operators who depend on group buying power through buying co-ops like the National Cable Television Cooperative. The ACA also wants a prohibition on programmers yanking their signals in the middle of retransmission consent contract negotiations. The ability to pull a signal off a cable system gives programmers an unfair negotiating advantage according to the ACA.

Phillip “How far will $20 get me in your office?” Dampier

Congress is famous for obfuscation when it comes to introducing legislation that promises one thing and delivers something quite different. Take the 2003 “Clear Skies Initiative,” which would have allowed the energy industry to increase polluting emissions, or “The Disclosure of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid Composition Act,” which allows frackers to keep secret the ingredients of millions of gallons of chemicals pumped into the ground to displace natural gas, and potentially your potable drinking water.

So it shouldn’t be much of a surprise that Rep. Bob Latta (R-Ohio) wants to “protect” the open and free Internet by introducing a new bill that opens and frees the telecom companies that steadfastly support his campaign coffers to install paid Internet toll booths. Like many pieces of legislation coming from some House Republicans these days, “freedom” only extends to corporate interests, not to you or I (unless we want to start a corporation of our own.)

Reclassifying broadband as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act is the Holy Grail for Net Neutrality supporters. It offers clear oversight authority that would make future lawsuits from Comcast, Verizon and other telecom companies untenable. Earlier court decisions have laid a foundation for broadband oversight under Title II, but the FCC itself must take advantage of that opportunity, and so far it has not.

Congressman Latta has introduced legislation to make sure the FCC can never take that step. His bill would specifically prohibit the FCC from reclassifying broadband Internet access as anything beyond an unregulated “information service.”

According to Latta, only with his legislation can America be assured the Internet will stay “open and free.” — “Open and free” for the picking by companies who dream of new revenue monetizing Internet traffic. Not satisfied charging some of the world’s highest prices for Internet access, many of the largest cable and phone companies in the country now want the right to “double-dip” — charging consumers to reach Internet content and content producers for delivering it. It would be like paying postage to mail a letter and having it arrive postage due or letting the phone company charge both the caller and the person called for a long distance telephone call.

“The legislation comes after the FCC released a proposal to reclassify broadband Internet access under Title II as a telecommunications service rather than an information service,” says a press release from Latta’s office.

Would I lie to you? Rep. Bob Latta (R-Ohio)

That is patently false. In fact, FCC chairman Thomas Wheeler has twisted himself into a human pretzel with clever language and a clear determination not to reclassify broadband under Title II. Wheeler prefers sticking to the rickety Section 706 faux-authority for Net Neutrality — the same section that keeps handing FCC lawyers loss after loss in federal court. After Wheeler announced his intention to propose allowing Internet companies to build paid fast lanes for Internet traffic, the resulting backlash from content companies and the public made him grudgingly offer a “discussion” about utilizing Title II.

That kind of “discussion” will be familiar to every 16-year old teenage girl who is told “we’ll talk about it” after asking mom and dad if she can take her new 22-year old boyfriend on vacation and stay in their own hotel room.

Ironically, detractors like Latta are the ones that usually accuse Net Neutrality of solving a problem that doesn’t exist. But that didn’t stop Congressman Latta from introducing legislation to stop the current ex-telecom lobbyist chairman of the FCC from going all Elizabeth Warren on us, suddenly imposing draconian pro-consumer regulations against those job creators at the cable companies Wheeler used to represent. But on the bright side, when Wheeler doesn’t do what Latta’s bill wouldn’t let him do, Latta can still declare victory against “big government.” If you live in Latta’s district, you can read all about it in the forthcoming government-subsidized, no-postage-needed “newsletter” he and other members of Congress will pelt your mailbox with right before election time.

“In light of the FCC initiating yet another attempt to regulate the Internet, upending long-standing precedent and imposing monopoly-era telephone rules and obligations on the 21^st Century broadband marketplace, Congress must take action to put an end to this misguided regulatory proposal,” said Latta. “The Internet has remained open and continues to be a powerful engine fueling private enterprise, economic growth and innovation absent government interference and obstruction. My legislation will provide all participants in the Internet ecosystem the certainty they need to continue investing in broadband networks and services that have been fundamental for job creation, productivity and consumer choice.”

Consumers not included. Maybe he just forgot.

“At a time when the Internet economy is thriving and driving robust productivity and economic growth, it is reckless to suggest, let alone adopt, policies that threaten its success. Reclassification would heap 80 years of regulatory baggage on broadband providers, restricting their flexibility to innovate and placing them at the mercy of a government agency. These businesses thrive on dynamism and the ability to evolve quickly to shifting market and consumer forces. Subjecting them to bureaucratic red tape won’t promote innovation, consumer welfare or the economy, and I encourage my House colleagues to support this legislation, so we can foster continued innovation and investment within the broadband marketplace.”

Guess not. The Internet should only be about business in Latta’s mind. Consumers that support Net Neutrality are nothing more than parasites sucking away valuable potential profits from the dynamic, flexible and innovative world of traffic shaping, usage caps, and double-dipping.

Latta isn’t interested that your provider is turning your weekend Netflix binge into an exercise of maddening rebuffering futility as your cable/phone company waits for protection racket proceeds a paid peering agreement with Netflix. That is because he doesn’t represent you. He represents AT&T, Time Warner Cable, Comcast, and CenturyLink.

Latta can afford to travel through the Internet toll booth when one considers who his top contributors keeping his campaign flush with cash are:

• More than $32,000 in contributions from AT&T and its executives;
• $29,500 from Tom Wheeler’s old haunt — the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (Big Cable lobby);
• $15,000 from the American Cable Association (Small Cable lobby);
• $21,000 from Time Warner Cable and its executives;
• $16,000 from Verizon and its executives;
• $11,400 from CenturyLink;
• $11,000 from Comcast (they are ditching Ohio customers to Charter after merging with Time Warner Cable so why throw good money after bad).

Latta’s close friendship with Big Telecom is so obvious, it has made co-sponsoring his fact-free bill about as popular as Justin Bieber at an NAACP convention. Even his like-minded Congressional colleagues are staying away. But his industry friends sure appreciate his efforts on their behalf.

One wonders why his constituents return him to office when he would be obviously much more comfortable in his next job — lobbying for AT&T or Comcast. Before our Internet connections slow, let’s hope his constituents hasten a much-needed turbo-speed departure for the congressman, already a shadow employee of AT&T.

227194356 05 28 14 LATTA Broadband Bill (Text)
 

Beck

Glenn Beck and his independent network TheBlaze are not happy about Time Warner Cable and Comcast merging operations and think it will concentrate too much power in the hands of a single entity that already ignores independent voices seeking a spot on the cable dial.

Beck left Fox News Channel to help start a new network — TheBlaze — that began as GBTV, an online streaming video operation. In the fall of 2012, the network, which airs more than 40 hours a week of new programming, secured exclusive carriage on Dish, the satellite television provider. Now that the exclusivity agreement has expired, TheBlaze management and viewers have launched a very vocal campaign to get the channel on cable systems across the country. The venture has been modestly successful with smaller cable operators like Buckeye Cablevision in Ohio and ETC Communications in Michigan. Beck’s network can also be seen on Cablevision’s lineup in the suburbs of New York City. But for most of the country, the only way to watch is to stream it online for $9.95 a month/$99.95 a year. Large cable systems have so far shown little interest in picking up the network.

“Comcast is one of the bigger pains in the neck for TheBlaze,” Beck told his radio listeners.

“Since launching the GetTheBlaze campaign, 50 small, midsized and major cable systems have begun carrying our network,” said TheBlaze CEO Chris Balfe. “These are the cable systems that must be responsive to their customers to survive. Monopoly type [multichannel video programming distributors] like Comcast and Time Warner Cable do not have a good history of listening to customers or supporting independent programmers whose content is in demand like TheBlaze. While we are skeptical that giving Comcast even more market power will benefit consumers, promote competition or lead to more diversity of voices, we will continue our successful campaign because eventually, even giants have to listen to what their customers want.”

“Look, the amount of decision makers, which is so surprisingly small in the industry in general, is potentially getting smaller,” Steve Krakauer, TheBlaze’s vice president of digital content told POLITICO. “Keeping up the fight is so important.”

Cable industry observers agree that life can be difficult for an unaffiliated independent cable network. Ovation found itself thrown off Time Warner Cable’s lineup for nearly a year because of a lack of original programming and miniscule ratings. But networks owned by studios like Universal or large broadcasting entities like Viacom stay, despite similar viewer response. Ovation had no leverage to compel continued carriage. Networks owned by larger companies often do, because they are packaged and sold to cable operators in a bundle. A cable company refusing to carry one low-rated cable network could be threatened with a much more expensive rate for the channels it does want or even face the loss of larger, must-have channels owned by the same company.

Polka

Beck isn’t alone being concerned.

The American Cable Association, a trade group that represents small and medium-sized cable operators, said it is carefully considering the potential impact of the merger on the cost of video programming sold to smaller operators.

“ACA has long acknowledged many problems in the pay-TV market, including the soaring cost of retransmission consent and sports networks and the record-setting number of broadcaster-imposed TV signal blackouts,” CEO Matthew Polka said in a statement. “ACA will be looking closely to see whether this transaction makes matters worse for small and medium-sized cable operators and their customers.”

How accurate is the map?

The biggest story you know nothing about is taking place at the Federal Communications Commission in Washington, where regulators are trying to figure out what to do with $185 million in leftover broadband expansion funds Internet Service Providers either could not qualify for or did not want. The FCC is on the verge of making a decision, one that will rely on broadband map data that service providers are now calling grossly inaccurate.

During the first phase of the Connect America program to fund broadband expansion in rural areas, the Commission offered up to $300 million to providers willing to wire consumers and businesses deemed too unprofitable to serve.

The rules largely favored phone companies, and although some including Frontier Communications gratefully accepted the funding to expand their DSL service, both of America’s largest phone companies expressed little interest. Many others, including CenturyLink and Windstream, petitioned to change the rules.

In the end, less than half of the available funding — $115 million — was actually spent, none in areas served by AT&T and Verizon.

The initial guidelines for participation were not exactly a high bar to cross. Under the program’s original rules, providers are required to deploy broadband within three years to certain locations that receive less than 768kbps downstream and 200kbps upstream (or no service at all). That “means test” set the bar far below the minimum speed providers can even call “broadband” under the FCC’s own current definition: 4/1Mbps.

Anyone served by 1-3Mbps DSL “broadband” was instantly ineligible because the FCC effectively deemed those speeds ‘good enough for now.’ The FCC argued it wanted to first target funds to those without any service at all, not those who had inadequate service.

Participating carriers receive compensation up to $775 per home to defray connection costs, bringing expenses closer to the Return on Investment-test that decides whether your rural home will have broadband service or not. Large phone companies complained the subsidy was not nearly enough and did not bother applying. Some others said even with the subsidy, it was still too unprofitable to wire rural homes in their service areas.

This not-so-auspicious start of the Connect America project has driven the FCC to propose modifying the rules to increase participation by disinterested providers. In an opaque “Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,” the Commission proposes new rules that will “further accelerate the deployment of broadband facilities to consumers who lack access to robust broadband.”

Under the new guidelines, providers could be able to apply for funding if the areas they propose to serve are not already getting at least 4/1Mbps service. But in a surprising footnote, the FCC announced they will “use 3Mbps downstream and 768kbps upstream as a proxy for 4/1Mbps service.” In other words, the FCC is ignoring its own standard definition of broadband and settling for something less. That will leave customers waiting for something better than 3Mbps service up the creek, excluded from Connect America funding.

The U.S. Telecom Association is a lobbying group dominated by AT&T, Verizon and other phone companies.

The U.S. Telecom Association (USTA), which represents phone companies, was appalled, suggesting this footnote will block funding from approximately one million rural households that receive what most of us would consider substandard broadband.

“This is particularly true for rural areas served by DSL which in most cases has been engineered to provide an upstream speed of 768 Kbps,” the USTA wrote in comments to the FCC. “In such cases, significant and costly network upgrades would be necessary to provide broadband service meeting the 4/1Mbps  benchmark. Therefore, rather than relying on evidence of 3/768 service to exclude areas from eligibility, the Commission should use the next speed tier—6/1.5Mbps as a proxy for 4/1 service.”

Windstream, in its own comments, was reduced to educating the FCC about the basic technical facts of DSL:

One Mbps upload speeds are not necessarily available to all customers served by standard ADSL 2+ architecture over a 24 AWG copper pair of 12,000 feet. Rather, delivery of reliable upload speeds of 1 Mbps would require an upgrade, such as two-pair bonded ADSL 2+. Two-pair bonded ADSL2+ essentially doubles last mile deployment cost since the end user modem is two to three times the cost of a normal single pair modem, two cable pairs are used instead of one, and two ADSL2+ ports are required at the DSLAM. Moreover, to achieve 1 Mbps of customer payload throughput would require an upload connection speed of more than 1.2 Mbps, while an upload connection speed of 1 Mbps would produce an actual throughput of about 820 Kbps.

Even where the loop length from the DSLAM to the customer is less than 12,000 feet, a service provider can only deliver service meeting the 4/1 requirement—or more precisely, service at speeds of 6/1.5Mbps, the next-fastest standard service tier—if the DSLAM is ADSL2+ capable and fiber-fed.

Windstream provides a primer on DSL to the FCC.

The resource that will determine who qualifies for broadband funding and who does not is the National Broadband Map, which seeks to describe the broadband options available at hundreds of millions of American addresses. If the map shows an area unserved, it qualifies for funding. If the map shows there is no broadband inadequacy, no funding will be offered.

Unsurprisingly, providers of all kinds are hurrying in comments that declare often considerable inaccuracies in the FCC’s map. This is ironic since much of the collected data on which the map is based was voluntarily supplied by those providers.

In various submissions filed with the FCC, several ISPs suggest the national map is not to be trusted. Some complain the updated service areas they earlier submitted have never been incorporated into the map, others are discovering inaccuracies for the first time because they can make the difference between winning or not qualifying for rural broadband funding (either for themselves or a competitor). Among other complaints: providers are overestimating their coverage and fibbing about actual speeds, the map’s census tract granularity ends up declaring an area served if even one household manages to get DSL service while others cannot, and providers only serving business customers are treated as if they serve everyone.

Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant is asking the FCC to clean up the inaccuracies in the Mississippi portion of the National Broadband Map.

The state of Mississippi is the poster child for inaccuracies in the National Broadband Map. All that was required to disqualify most of the state from rural broadband funding was a boastful and inaccurate submission from one cable broadband reseller that claimed they served virtually all of Mississippi. Nobody bothered to question the veracity of their submission or verify it. Now the governor’s office is involved in efforts to scrub the inaccurate broadband map they consider more a fantasy than reality on the ground.

With the FCC preparing to launch the second phase of the Connect America Fund with up to $1.8 billion of available funding per year over five years, the money sharks are in the water circling one another.

Cable operators and wireless ISPs are asking the FCC not to hand out money to their competitors and phone companies are returning fire claiming those providers are lying about their coverage areas and have restrictions on service.

Companies ranging from Comcast to small, independent cable operators working with the American Cable Association are filing objections to the existing map. Wireless ISPs, often family-owned, are even more worried what will happen if phone companies like Windstream get federal dollars to upgrade their DSL service while unsubsidized WISPs are left to compete on their own.

In fact, the Competitive Carriers Association argues wireless providers are best positioned to make use of the unspent funds to deploy rural wireless broadband immediately.

“Wireless carriers offer the best opportunity to bring much needed broadband services to unserved and underserved areas, and it only makes sense for the FCC to consider proposals from wireless carriers,” said CCA president Steven K. Berry. “Many of our members are ready and willing to build out these networks, but depend on [financial] support in order to do so.  Wireless remains underfunded, and this could be an opportunity for the FCC to provide significant support for the services consumers want most.”

Not if the USTA and Windstream have anything to say about it. Both are on the attack in comments filed with the FCC:

WISPs: “Coverage should be independently verified before such areas are considered ineligible for Connect America funding. Like satellite providers, WISPs often have capacity caps and service quality issues, including unpredictable degradation from third-party interference from common devices such as cordless phones, garage door openers and microwave ovens when WISPs use unlicensed spectrum. The sustained speeds WISPs offer, particularly during busy times, also tend to be slower than those offered by [phone company broadband], and certainly slower than the 4Mbps downstream standard required of future recipients of federal funding.” — U.S. Telecom Association

The USTA also attacks WISPs for their usage caps, which they claim should disqualify them from serious consideration because their networks are technically and realistically inadequate to service today’s broadband consumer.

Cable “Competitors”: Windstream claims the bare existence of a cable operator alone should not disqualify the phone company from funding. Windstream suggests cable companies in its service areas may only serve one or two customers in a census tract, not really offer service at all, or provide sub-standard broadband that is so bad, nobody will do business with them.

Windstream proposes its own competition test: “In many areas […] with an alleged presence of an unsubsidized competitor, Windstream has received no requests in the past two years from customers for telephone number ports that are accompanied by cancellation of the customer’s Windstream broadband service. In other words, despite the alleged presence of a competitor providing service at speeds of at least 3/768 in areas where Windstream itself does not provide service exceeding 3/768, Windstream has not received a single request in two years in an entire area to port a phone number to a competitor and cancel the associated Windstream broadband service. Windstream submits that the lack of such porting requests throughout an entire area over a reasonable historical period is strong evidence that there is no competitor providing 3/768 or better service in that area.”

The independent phone company proposes that alleged unsubsidized competitors offer proof they are actually providing service before the FCC excludes an area from funding consideration.

“Here is our view.” — Phillip Dampier

Consumers are free to share their own views with the FCC on these matters by filing their own comments here. The Proceeding Number you will need is 10-90. It is generally easier to create a .PDF, standard .txt file, or Microsoft Word document and attach it to the submission form. Your comments will be publicly visible and posted to the FCC website.

Stop the Cap! feels the FCC should not renege on its commitment to fund rural providers that will guarantee customers will receive at least 4/1Mbps service. This barely adequate minimum will require phone companies to upgrade their facilities to next generation DSL technology that can support future speed upgrades. Compromising on lower speeds gives phone companies the option to deploy outdated early generation DSL that cannot be upgraded easily. In a positive development, many phone companies seem willing to commit to these upgrades with some financial assistance.

Funding should also be available to the provider that can deliver the best broadband service at the lowest cost. As urban and suburban customers have learned, that service often does not come from the phone company. Cable operators willing to commit to rural broadband upgrades should not be disqualified from funding, nor should community-owned providers who want to build their own networks.

We have also repeatedly complained about broadband mapping that lacks a formal mechanism to clearly verify coverage and speeds independent of the ISP supplying the data. Providers have an incentive to artificially boost or reduce coverage, particularly if it means the difference between qualifying for federal broadband expansion funding or disqualifying a competitor because the provider can falsely claim they already offer the service.

Our thanks to Cassandra Heyne, who dubbed the current situation an FCC ‘maptastrophe.’

Echoing the sentiment of many of the member organizations that finance it, the nation’s largest cable lobbying group — the National Cable and Telecommunications Association — may now see itself as a trade organization of broadband providers, so it is considering a name change.

The group filed a trademark application for the brand, “NCTA The Internet and Television Association” at the end of December according to a report by Fierce Cable.

An NCTA spokesperson claimed the new name was just an idea at this point and no formal name change is anticipated at this time. But the move does represent a growing trend away from the product its members are most famous for providing: cable television.

The NCTA got its start in September 1951 as the National Community Television Council, representing the interests of operators that provided community antenna service primarily in the mountainous Appalachian region. The following year it was rebranded the National Community Television Association (NCTA).

By the late 1960s, “community television” was dropped in favor of “cable television” and the group remained known as the National Cable Television Association until 2001, when operators realized the growing importance of broadband. As a result, the group adopted the name it still uses today: the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.

The NCTA is dominated by the nation’s largest cable operators, particularly Comcast and Time Warner Cable. Smaller, independent cable operators have felt disenfranchised from the NCTA, which caters to the interests of enormous corporate telecommunications companies, so 150 independent operators banded together and formed the American Cable Association (ACA) in 1993.