Home » cable channels » Recent Articles:

When Do You “Need” Faster Speeds? When Competition Arrives Offering Them

broadband dead end“We just don’t see the need of delivering [gigabit broadband] to consumers.” — Irene Esteves, former chief financial officer, Time Warner Cable, February 2013

“For some, the discussion about the broadband Internet seems to begin and end on the issue of ‘gigabit’ access. The issue with such speed is really more about demand than supply. Most websites can’t deliver content as fast as current networks move, and most U.S. homes have routers that can’t support the speed already available.” — David Cohen, chief lobbyist, Comcast Corp., May 2013

“We don’t focus on megabits, we don’t focus on gigabits, we focus on activities. We go to the activity set to get a sense of what customers are actually doing and the majority of our customers fit into that 6Mbps or less category.” — Maggie Wilderotter, CEO, Frontier Communications, May 2013

“It would cost multiple billions” to upgrade Cox’s network to offer gigabit speeds to all its customers. — Pat Esser, CEO, Cox Communications, Pat Esser, chief executive of Cox Communications Inc., January 2013

“The problem with [matching Google Fiber speeds] is even if you build the last mile access plant to [offer gigabit speeds], there is neither the applications that require that nor a broader Internet backbone and servers delivering at that speed. It ends up being more about publicity and bragging. There has been a whole series of articles in the paper about ‘I’m a little startup business and boy it is really great I can get this’ and my reaction is we already have plant there that can deliver whatever it is they are talking about in those articles, which is usually not stuff that requires that high-speed.” — Glenn Britt, CEO, Time Warner Cable, December 2012

“Residential customers, at this time, do not need the bandwidth offered with dedicated fiber – however, Bright House has led the industry in comprehensively deploying next-generation bandwidth services (DOCSIS 3.0) to its entire footprint in Florida – current speeds offered are 50Mbps with the ability to offer much higher. We provision our network according to our customers’ needs.” – Don Forbes, Bright House Networks, February 2011

‘Charter [Cable] is not seeing enough demand to warrant extending fiber to small and medium-sized businesses — and certainly not to every household.’ — “Speedier Internet Rivals Push Past Cable“, New York Times, Jan. 2, 2013

Unless you live in Kansas City, Austin, in a community where public broadband exists, or where Verizon FiOS provides its fiber optic service, chances are your broadband speeds are not growing much, but are getting more expensive. The only thing innovative coming from the local phone or cable company is a constant effort to convince customers they don’t need faster Internet access anyway.

At least until a competitor threatens to shake up the comfortable status quo.

Time Warner Cable claims they are perfectly comfortable offering residential customers no better than 50/5Mbps, except in markets like Kansas City (and soon in Texas) where 100Mbps is more satisfying. Why is a glass Time Warner claims is full to the brim everywhere else in the country only half-full in Kansas City? Google Fiber might be the answer. It offers 1,000/1,000Mbps service for less money than Time Warner used to charge for 50Mbps service, and Google is also headed to Austin.

special reportAT&T scoffed at following Verizon into the world of fiber optic broadband, where broadband speeds are limited only by the possibilities. Instead, they built their half-fiber, half-Alexander Graham Bell-era copper wire hybrid network on the cheap and ended up with broadband speeds topping out around 24Mbps, at least in a perfect AT&T world, assuming everything was ideal between your home and their central office.

At the time U-verse was first breaking ground, cable broadband’s “good enough for you” top Internet speed was typically 10-20Mbps. Now that incrementally faster cable Internet speeds are available from recent DOCSIS 3.0 cable upgrades, AT&T is coming back with an incremental upgrade of its own, to deliver around 75Mbps.

It is still slower than cable, but AT&T thinks it is fast enough for their customers, except in Austin, where Google Fiber provoked the company to claim it would build its own 1,000Mbps fiber network to compete (if it got everything on its Christmas Wish List from federal, state, and local governments).

Are you starting to see a trend here? Competition can turn providers’ investment frowns upside down and get customers faster Internet access.

Wilderotter: Most of our customers are satisfied with 6Mbps broadband.

Wilderotter: Most of our customers are satisfied with 6Mbps broadband.

In rural markets were Frontier Communications faces far less competition from well-heeled cable companies, the company can claim it doesn’t believe most of its customers need north of 6Mbps to do important things on the Internet. If they did, where would they go to do them?

Where Comcast and AT&T directly compete, major Internet speed increases are a matter of “why bother – who needs them.” Comcast is more generous where it faces down Verizon FiOS. AT&T also knows the clock is ticking where Google Fiber is coming to town.

Verizon FiOS, Google Fiber, and a number of community-owned fiber to the home broadband networks like EPB in Chattanooga and Greenlight in Wilson, N.C. seem more interested in boosting speeds to build market share, increase revenue to cover their expenses, and make a marketing point their networks are superior. They respond to requests for speed upgrades differently — “why not?”

Verizon figured out offering 50/25Mbps service was simple to offer and easy to embrace. Two clicks on a FiOS remote control and $10 more a month gets a major speed upgrade for basic Internet customers that used to get 15/5Mbps service. Verizon management reports they are pleased with the number of customers signing up.

In Chattanooga, Tenn. EPB Fiber offered gigabit Internet service because, in the words of its managing director, “it could.” The community-owned utility did not even know how to price residential gigabit service when it first went on offer, but the costs to EPB to offer those speeds are considerably lower over fiber to the home broadband infrastructure.

Broadband customers in Chattanooga, Kansas City and Austin are not too different from customers in Knoxville, Des Moines, and Houston. But the available broadband speeds in those cities sure are.

LUS Fiber in Lafayette, La. changed the song Cox was singing about their ‘adequate’ broadband speeds. Earlier this year, Cox unveiled up to 150/25Mbps service to cut the number of departing customers headed to the community owned utility, already offering those speeds.

Convincing Wall Street that spending money to upgrade networks to next generation technology will earn more money in the long run has failed miserably as a strategy.

“Competitors have been overbuilding, investors are wondering where the returns are,” said Mark Ansboury, president and co-founder of GigaBit Squared. “What you’re seeing is an entrenchment, companies leveraging what they already have in play.”

With North American broadband prices rising, and some cable companies earning 90-95% margins selling broadband, one might think there is plenty of money available to spend on broadband upgrades. Instead, investors are receiving increased dividend payouts, executive compensation packages are swelling as a reward for maximizing shareholder value, and many companies are buying back their stock, refinancing or paying off debt instead of pouring money into major network upgrades.

That is not true in Europe, where providers are making headlines with major network improvements and speed increases, all while charging much less than what North Americans pay for broadband service.

UPC Netherlands is Holland's second biggest cable company and it is in the middle of a broadband speed war with fiber to the home providers.

UPC Netherlands is Holland’s second biggest cable company and is in the middle of a broadband speed war with fiber to the home providers.

In the Netherlands, the very concept of Google Fiber’s affordable gigabit speeds terrify cable operators like UPC Netherlands, especially when existing fiber to the home providers in the country are taking Google’s cue and advertising gigabit service themselves. UPC rushed to dedicate up to 16 bonded cable channels to boost cable broadband speeds to 500Mbps in recent field trials, without giving any serious thought to the cable operators in the United States that argue customers don’t need or want the faster Internet speeds fiber offers.

“We had to address it head on very recently because of the fiber (competition)” said vice president of technology Bill Warga. “The company is called Reggefiber in the Netherlands. What they’re touting is a 1Gbps service, [the same speed] upstream and downstream. We came out with 500Mbps service. We had to build a special modem because (DOCSIS) 3.1 chips aren’t out yet. We had to double up on the chips in the modem and put it out there because we had to have a competing product, if anything just in the press. That was a reaction but that tells you how quickly in a marketplace that something can move.”

Despite that, groupthink among cable industry attendees back home at the SCTE Rocky Mountain Chapter Symposium agreed that Google Fiber was a political and marketing stunt, “since the majority of users don’t need those types of speed.”

Who does need and want 500Mbps? Executives at UPC, who have it installed in their homes, admits Warga. But cost can also impact consumer demand. Currently, the most popular legacy UPC broadband package offers 25Mbps for €25 ($32.50). The company now sells 60/6Mbps for €52,50 ($48.75), 100/10Mbps for €42,50 ($55.25) or 150-200/10Mbps for €52,50 ($68.25).

Warga also admits the competition has put UPC in a speed race, and boosted speeds are coming fast and furious.

“They’ll come in and say they’re 100, or 101Mbps we’ll come back and say we’re 110 or 120, or 130Mbps,” Warga said. “It’s a bit of a cat and mouse game, but we always feel like we can be ahead. For us DOCSIS 3.1 can’t come soon enough.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”367”]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSJ Cable Broadband Speeds 1-13.flv[/flv]

The Wall Street Journal investigates why cable companies are getting stingy with broadband speed upgrades while gigabit fiber networks are springing up around the country. (4 minutes)

TBS and TNT Will Stream Live Online for Authenticated Pay TV Subscribers

Phillip Dampier May 15, 2013 Consumer News, Online Video Comments Off on TBS and TNT Will Stream Live Online for Authenticated Pay TV Subscribers

tbsMore than two years after the cable industry began promoting the concept of TV Everywhere, offering paying subscribers access to cable networks and shows online and on-demand, Time Warner, Inc. is finally moving to introduce live streaming of its TBS and TNT networks 24 hours a day to authenticated cable, satellite, and telco-TV subscribers.

The move comes just a few days after ABC announced its own Watch ABC service, which will also only be available to customers with a pay television subscription.

The move is designed to increase viewing and advertising opportunities for the Time Warner cable networks. Since online viewers will need credentials supplied by their pay-TV provider to reach the streams, non-paying viewers will be kept away.

A number of providers have their own implementation of TV Everywhere, introducing apps and viewing portals where paying customers can scroll through and watch cable channels without having to visit the website of each network.

Your Next Time Warner Cable Set-Top Box: Roku

Phillip Dampier January 9, 2013 Consumer News, Online Video, Video 4 Comments
The Roku set top streaming device.

The Roku set top streaming device.

The days of renting expensive set top boxes from Time Warner Cable may finally be coming to an end, at least if you happen to subscribe to the cable company’s broadband service.

Time Warner Cable this week announced a new partnership with Roku that will bring 300 Time Warner Cable channels to the video streaming device.

Time Warner Cable customers who also own Roku devices will soon find a TWC “channel” on the menu, from which subscribers can access the same streamed content found on the cable company’s viewing apps for iOS and Android devices. The service represents true IPTV television — an all digital experience streamed over Time Warner Cable’s broadband service.

Customers only have to pay for the Roku device, which ranges from $50-100. Lower priced units do not deliver a true HD viewing experience. Higher priced models support 1080p viewing and support additional features like motion control for games and external USB and Ethernet ports. Time Warner Cable currently limits HD viewing to 480p on its streaming apps, so a cheaper unit may suffice for secondary television sets.

Roku boxes also offer cable customers other viewing options apart from Time Warner Cable, including independent networks, games, movie channels, foreign language and ethnic programming, religious entertainment, global news, and a variety of self-produced and public access programming from cities around the country. Roku boxes also support Netflix and Amazon Video on Demand.

Enjoy arrest and deportation.

But there are a few downsides, at least for the moment. Local broadcast channels are not currently available except in New York City, but that is expected to change soon. Recording programming delivered over a Roku box is not easily possible, and viewing will reduce available bandwidth on your broadband connection.

Considering Time Warner now charges just shy of $8.50 a month for each set top box, switching to Roku will pay for itself in as little as six months. Time Warner Cable expects most customers will consider the streaming device for televisions in bedrooms and guest rooms.

Saratoga, Calif.-based Roku has had a blockbuster year, doubling the number of its employees and approaching five million units sold. Last year, consumers watched more than one billion hours of television over Roku devices.

[flv width=”534″ height=”320″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/NY1 TWC and Roku 1-8-13.mp4[/flv]

Time Warner Cable’s NY1 reports on the Roku-Time Warner partnership that will let customers stream the cable company’s lineup without a traditional set top box. (1 minute)

Let The Slashing Begin: Time Warner Cable Cuts Ovation, Current TV

Phillip Dampier January 3, 2013 Consumer News, Video Comments Off on Let The Slashing Begin: Time Warner Cable Cuts Ovation, Current TV

currenttvTime Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt warned programmers in early December that low-rated cable channels were at risk of being dropped from the second-largest cable operator in the country.

Ovation and Current TV now understand he meant it.

Customers are now being notified that the cable company has dropped both networks. Most customers will never notice the loss — only about 1% of Time Warner customers, around 33,000 nationwide — watched Ovation last month and about as many parked their remotes on Current TV.

Time Warner Cable released a statement explaining escalating programming costs are forcing the company to closely assess each network as it comes due for renewal. The cable company called Ovation one of the worst performing networks on its lineup. It was more abrupt about Current. The company claimed it dropped the network simply because “it was sold.”

Several weeks ago, Britt hinted networks that began offering one type of programming but shifted to another in a bid to win more viewers are especially vulnerable to being dropped. Britt appeared to be thinking about Ovation, which calls itself a cultural fine arts channel but last month devoted 70 percent of its schedule to infomercials, reruns from TV networks that hardly qualify as “fine arts,” and endless repeats of PBS’ ‘Antiques Roadshow.’ For this kind of programming, Time Warner Cable has paid Ovation $10 million over the past several years.

ovation

Ovation has gotten 25,000 signatures on its petition drive to try and convince Time Warner Cable to bring the network back to its lineup.

“They’ve had ample opportunity to improve the ratings and the content, and have failed to deliver,” Time Warner said in a statement.

Current TV, which was partly founded by former Vice President Al Gore as a broadcast home for viewer generated content (think YouTube on the airwaves) has always turned in dismal viewership numbers. More recently, the channel has shifted its format, airing a variety of liberal political talk radio and television shows deemed too left-wing for MSNBC, which has helped win the network some additional viewers, but not in every case. Disgraced former New York governor Eliot Spitzer, formerly with CNN, has a TV show on Current he admits doesn’t draw flies.

“Nobody’s watching, but I’m having a great time,” Spitzer said.

twcOn Wednesday, the network announced it was acquired by Qatar-based Al-Jazeera, a kiss of death for most mainstream cable systems that are still unwilling to carry programming from a network the Bush Administration came close to calling ‘with the terrorists.’

Time Warner Cable dropped the network from its lineup the moment the sale was announced.

Current TV intends to gradually rebrand itself as Al Jazeera America, with a 24-hour English language news and information format. Al Jazeera has won respect for its international news coverage, but continues to be saddled with the perception it has a subtle anti-American bias.

But not every network with low viewer numbers is at immediate risk of being placed on Time Warner’s chopping block.

The Kremlin’s subtle hands of influence have kept RT — Russia Today — closely aligned with Vladimir Putin’s policies as relations cool between Moscow and Washington. But that network remains on the Time Warner Cable lineup.

aljazeera

The new owner of Current TV.

One thing all threatened networks have in common is that they are independently owned and operated and are not a part of a much larger network or studio conglomerate. That makes them low-hanging fruit for cable operators to pick off because the owners lack leverage to force renewal.

Fox Business Network, which has continuously turned in abysmal numbers since its inception is a case in point. Despite often having fewer than 15,000 viewers in its target demographic, it safely maintains its place on Time Warner Cable’s lineup because it was included in a carriage agreement deal that bundled the much larger Fox News Channel. As long as Time Warner agrees to contracts that tie the fate of both networks together, Fox Business Network will have a home on the cable system even if nobody watches.

With the writing on the wall, other low-rated networks have responded by easing their hard-line tactics at contract renewal time. The parent owner of IFC and WEtv have agreed to a temporary contract extension as the two networks fight to remain on Time Warner’s lineup. Hallmark TV and Hallmark Movie Channel may be in a similar position soon enough.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Citizens for Access to the Arts Fights to Keep Ovation 12-12.mp4[/flv]

Competition? Comcast Announces It Will Sell Ads on Behalf of AT&T U-verse

Phillip Dampier October 29, 2012 AT&T, Charter Spectrum, Comcast/Xfinity, Competition 1 Comment

In another sign competition between cable and phone companies may not be as robust as they would have you believe, Comcast last week announced a deal to sell local advertising on behalf of AT&T U-verse.

Under the agreement, Comcast’s Spotlight ad sales division will now sell local advertising slots on behalf of AT&T’s U-verse in cities where both companies provide service.

Comcast says the agreement will cover 21 cities, including:

  • Atlanta
  • Champaign-Springfield-Decatur (Ill.)
  • Chicago
  • Detroit
  • Flint-Saginaw-Bay City (Mich.)
  • Fresno-Visalia (Calif.)
  • Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo-Battle Creek (Mich.)
  • Hartford-New Haven (Conn.)
  • Houston
  • Indianapolis
  • Jackson, Miss.
  • Jacksonville (Fla.)
  • Lansing (Mich.)
  • Little Rock-Pine Bluff (Ark.)
  • Memphis
  • Miami-Ft. Lauderdale
  • Monterey-Salinas (Calif.)
  • Nashville
  • Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto (Calif.)
  • San Francisco
  • West Palm Beach-Ft. Pierce (Fla.)

This leaves Comcast with a lock on local ad sales for both its own cable and AT&T’s U-verse systems. Most major cable networks offer their affiliates opportunities to insert local commercials during certain advertising breaks. The ad insertions provide a lucrative revenue stream for pay television providers, which can target viewers of specific cable networks or run the same messages across hundreds of cable channels.

The deal will save AT&T from having to hire additional employees to handle local ad sales and will let advertisers cover one or both systems in a single ad buy.

But critics wonder if Comcast cooperating this closely with AT&T is good for competition.

The deal is not unprecedented, however. AT&T has also partnered with Charter Cable to cross market local ad sales in cities where U-verse and Charter compete head to head.

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

Your Account:

Stop the Cap!