Just how bad is your cable company?

Apparently pretty bad, considering the number of viral videos and guerrilla campaigns being launched against the industry these days, and Time Warner Cable in particular.

“Time Warner Cable Customer Service” is a group that has already heard from Time Warner Cable’s legal team about the cable operator’s trademarks and the potential for apparent “customer confusion.” The parodists might be at risk of losing their domain name, have already had their YouTube and Twitter accounts suspended, and have been told they are not allowed to record any phone calls with Time Warner Cable employees (although the company is allowed to record them… and you.)

What has the cable operator so upset? This:

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Time Warner Cable What Can We Do Worse 4-13.flv[/flv]

Members of “Time Warner Cable Customer Service” take to the streets of Manhattan asking passersby what can the cable company do worse. Then they invade a Time Warner Cable store…. (Warning: Adult Language – NSFW) (3 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Honest Cable Company 4-13.flv[/flv]

Another group decided a more general parody was in order. The “First Honest Cable Company” provides full disclosure about your cable service and what they really think of you. (Warning: Adult Language – NSFW) (2 minutes)

Cable operators and publicly owned utilities in Tennessee are battling for control over the prices companies pay to use utility poles, with facts among the early casualties.

The subject of “pole attachment fees” has been of interest to cable companies for decades. In return for permission to hang cable wires on existing electric or telephone poles owned by utility companies, cable operators are asked to contribute towards their upkeep and eventual replacement. Cable operators want the fees to be as low as possible, while utility companies have sought leeway to defray rising utility pole costs and deal with ongoing wear and tear.

Little progress has been made in efforts to compromise, so this year two competing bills have been introduced by Republicans in the state legislature to define “fairness.” One is promoted by a group of municipal utilities and the other by the cable industry and several corporate-backed, conservative front groups claiming to represent the interests of state taxpayers and consumers.

Some background: Tennessee is unique in the pole attachment fee fight, because privately owned power companies bypassed a lot of the state (and much of the rest of the Tennessee Valley and Appalachian region) during the electrification movement of the early 20th century. Much of Tennessee is served by publicly owned power companies, which also own and maintain a large percentage of utility poles in the state.

Some of Tennessee’s largest telecom companies believe they can guarantee themselves low rates by pitching a case of private companies vs. big government utilities, with local municipalities accused of profiteering from artificially high pole attachment rates. Hoping to capitalize on anti-government sentiment, “small government” conservatives and telecom companies want to tie the hands of the pole owners indefinitely by taking away their right to set pole attachment rates.

The battle includes fact-warped editorials that distort the issues, misleading video ads, and an effort to conflate a utility fee with a tax. With millions at stake from pole attachment fees on tens of thousands of power poles throughout the state, the companies involved have launched a full-scale astroturf assault.

Grover Norquist’s Incendiary “Pole Tax”

Conservative Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform wrote that the pole attachment fee legislation promoted by public utilities would represent a $20 million dollar “tax increase” from higher cable and phone bills. Even worse, Norquist says, the new tax will delay telecom companies from rushing new investments on rural broadband.

Norquist

In reality, Americans for Tax Reform should be rebranded Special Interests for Tax Reform, because the group is funded by a variety of large tobacco corporations, former clients of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and several wealthy conservative activists with their own foundations.

Norquist’s pole “tax increase” does not exist.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) provides guidelines and a formula for determining pole attachment rates for privately owned utilities, but permits states to adopt their own regulations. Municipal utilities are exempted for an important reason — their rates and operations are often already well-regulated.

Stop the Cap! found that pole attachment revenue ends up in the hands of the utility companies that own and keep up the poles, not the government. Municipal utilities stand on their own — revenue earned by a utility stays with the utility. Should a municipal utility attempt to gouge other companies that hang wires on those poles, mechanisms kick in that guarantee it cannot profit from doing so.

A 2007 study by the state government in Tennessee effectively undercut the cable industry’s argument that publicly owned utilities are overcharging cable and phone companies that share space on their poles. The report found that “pole attachment revenues do not increase pole owners’ revenue in the long run.”¹

The Tennessee Valley Authority, which supplies electricity across Tennessee, regularly audits the revenues and costs of its municipal utility distributors and sets end-user rates accordingly. The goal is to guarantee that municipal distributors “break even.” Any new revenue sources, like pole attachment fees, are considered when setting wholesale electric rates. If a municipal utility overcharged for access to its poles, it will ultimately gain nothing because the TVA will set prices that take that revenue into account.

Freedom to Distort: The Cable Lobby’s Astroturf Efforts

Freedom to distort

Another “citizens group” jumping into the battle is called “Freedom to Connect,” actually run by the Tennessee Cable Telecommunications Association (TCTA). Most consumers won’t recognize TCTA as the state cable lobby. Almost all will have forgotten TCTA was the same group that filed a lawsuit to shut down EPB’s Fiber division, which today delivers 1,000Mbps broadband service across the city and competes against cable operators like Comcast and Charter Cable.

One TCTA advertisement claims that some utilities are planning “to double the fees broadband providers pay to the state’s government utilities.”

In reality, cable companies have gone incognito, hiding their identity by rebranding themselves as “broadband providers.” No utility has announced it plans to “double” pole attachment fees either.

TCTA members came under fire at a recent hearing attended by state lawmakers when Rep. Charles Curtiss (D-Sparta) spoke up about irritating robocalls directed at his constituents making similar claims.

“What was said was false,” Curtiss told the cable representatives at the hearing. “You’ve lost your integrity with me. Whoever made up your mind to do that, you’re in the wrong line of work.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/TCTA Pole Attachment Fees Ad 3-13.flv[/flv]

TCTA — Tennessee’s cable industry lobbying group, released this distorted advertisement opposing pole attachment fee increases.  (1 minute)

The Chattanooga Free-Press’ Drew Johnson: Independent Opinion Page Editor or Well-connected Activist with a Conflict of Interest?

Johnson (Times Free Press)

In its ad campaign, the TCTA gave prominent mention to an article in Chattanooga’s Times-Free Press from Feb. 27: “Bill Harms Consumers, Kills Competition.”

What the advertisement did not say is it originated in an editorial published by Drew Johnson, who serves as the paper’s conservative opinion editor. Johnson has had a bone to pick with Chattanooga’s public utility EPB since it got into the cable television and broadband business.

That may not be surprising, since Johnson is still listed as a “senior fellow” at the “Taxpayers Protection Alliance,” yet another corporate and conservative-backed astroturf group founded by former Texas congressman Dick Armey of FreedomWorks fame.

Johnson’s journalism credentials? He wrote a weekly column for the conservative online screed NewsMax, founded and funded by super-wealthy Richard Mellon Scaife and Christopher Ruddy, both frequent donors to conservative, pro-business causes.

TPA has plenty to hide — particularly the sources of their funding. When asked if private industry backs TPA’s efforts, president David Williams refused to come clean.

“It comes from private sources, and I don’t reveal who my donors are,” he told Environmental Building News in January.

Ironically, Johnson is best known for aggressively using Tennessee’s open records “Sunshine” law to get state employee e-mails and other records looking for conflicts of interest or scandal.

Newspaper readers may want to ask whether Johnson represents the newspaper, an industry-funded sock puppet group, or both.  They also deserve full disclosure if the TPA receives any funding from companies that directly compete with EPB.

The Institute from ALEC: The Institute for Policy Innovation’s Innovative Way to Funnel AT&T and Comcast Money Into the Fight

Provider-backed ALEC advocates for the corporate interests that fund its operations.

Another group fighting on the side of the cable and phone companies against municipal utilities is the Institute for Policy Innovation. Policy counsel Bartlett D. Cleland claimed the government is out to get private companies that want space on utility poles.

“The proposed new system in HB1111 and SB1222 is fervently supported by the electric cooperatives and the government-owned utilities for good reason – they are merely seeking a way to use the force of government against their private sector competitors,” Cleland said. “The proposal would allow them to radically raise their rates for pole attachments to multiples of the national average.”

The facts don’t match Cleland’s rhetoric.

In reality, the state of Tennessee found in their report on the matter in 2007 that Tennessee’s pole attachment fees are “not necessarily out of line with those in other states.”²

In fact, some of the state’s telecom companies seemed to agree:

• EMBARQ (now CenturyLink) provided data on fees received from other service providers in Tennessee, Virginia, South and North Carolina. In these data, Tennessee’s rates ($36.02 – $47.41) are similar to those in North Carolina ($23.12-$52.85) and Virginia ($28.94 – $35.77). Rates were lower in South Carolina.
• Cable operators, who have less infrastructure on poles than telephone and electric utilities, paid even less. Time Warner Cable provided mean rates per state showing Tennessee ($7.70) in the middle of the pack compared to Florida ($9.83) and North Carolina ($4.86 – $13.64).

In addition to his role as policy counsel, Cleland also happens to be co-chair of the Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Force of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Members of that committee include Comcast and AT&T — Tennessee’s largest telecom companies, both competing with municipal telecommunications providers like EPB.

¹ Analysis of Pole Attachment Rate Issues in Tennessee, State of Tennessee. 2007. p.23

² Analysis of Pole Attachment Rate Issues in Tennessee, State of Tennessee. 2007. p.12

Dr. John Malone’s Liberty Media will buy a 27.3 percent interest in Charter Communications with a $2.62 billion investment in America’s fourth largest cable operator.

Liberty will buy the stake from investment firms Apollo Management, Crestview Partners, and Oaktree Capital Management.

“We are pleased with Charter’s market position and growth opportunities and believe that the company’s investments in its high-capacity digital network which provides digital HD and on demand television, high-speed data and voice, will benefit its customers and shareholders alike,” Malone said in a statement.

Malone is no stranger to the cable industry, having been at the helm of Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI), the largest cable operator in the country in the 1980s and 1990s. TCI systems were sold to AT&T in 1999, which eventually spun them off to Comcast and Charter Communications, which still run them today.

Dr. John Malone

Since Malone’s exit at TCI, he has been in charge of Liberty Global, which owns cable systems overseas and controls several U.S. cable programming interests through his Liberty Media operation. The investment in Charter represents Malone’s return to an American cable industry he helped pioneer.

The agreement requires Liberty to acquire no more than 35 percent of Charter until January 2016, at which point Liberty’s maximum allowable controlling interest rises to 39.99 percent. Liberty also wins four seats on Charter’s board of directors. But many industry analysts predict Malone will not be satisfied with anything less than eventual full control.

Malone often takes an initial minority interest in the companies he later intends to acquire outright. Macquarie analyst Amy Yong told Reuters he employed a similar tactic to gain control of SiriusXM, the satellite radio company.

“He’s probably going to have a pretty big say in the company’s future over the next few years. This will accelerate capital returns and take advantage of Charter’s tax assets to consolidate the cable industry some more,” Yong said.

Malone is attracted to investment opportunities in companies with high marketplace leverage opportunities and exploiting potential revenue from captive customers in the rural, less-competitive markets Charter has traditionally favored.

Here today, gone tomorrow: Bresnan Communications that was Optimum is now Charter Cable.

Malone also has a strong philosophy towards marketplace consolidation, something ongoing in the cable industry, particularly among smaller cable operators serving less-populated areas.

Under the leadership of ex-Cablevision executive Thomas Rutledge, Charter Communications recently acquired the interests of Cablevision West — former Bresnan Cable systems in the mountain west. Malone sees considerable opportunities expanding operations in smaller communities that have either received substandard cable service, or none at all.

Malone has recently been stockpiling available cash for investments, spinning off his former cable programming properties Starz, a premium cable channel, Discovery Communications, which runs the Discovery Networks, and Liberty Interactive, which owns the lucrative home shopping channel QVC.

Charter Communications has had a difficult history. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen bought a controlling interest in the cable operator in the late 1990s, primarily because he saw cable broadband as a natural fit for his vision of a future wired America. Allen’s weighty investment was used to jump into a cable industry consolidation frenzy still underway more than a decade ago. Cable operators claimed consolidation was necessary to increase efficiency by building up regional clusters of cable systems. Before consolidation, it was not unusual for two or three different cable operators to serve customers in separate parts of a metropolitan area. Often one operator would serve the city with one or two other cable companies offering service in suburban and exurban communities nearby.

In 1999 alone, under Allen’s leadership, Charter Cable acquired 10 cable companies.

By 2005, Charter Cable had amassed millions of new subscribers, but not as many as company executives claimed when they artificially inflated subscriber numbers to protect the value of the company’s stock. Four executives were indicted that year for criminal accounting fraud. By 2009, with $22 billion in debt, the company declared bankruptcy, eventually wiping out shareholders.

The court’s decision to forgive 40 percent of the company’s debt angered creditors but opened an opportunity for private equity firm Apollo Capital Management to gain control by ending up with the majority of shares in the restructured company.

For years, the company has continued to receive some of the worst customer satisfaction ratings in the industry, usually ranking at or near the bottom. But many Charter customers stay because there is little competition from other players, especially telephone companies. AT&T’s U-verse is the most likely triple-play competitor, but AT&T has avoided introducing U-verse in many of Charter’s service areas because they are deemed too small.

Malone sees Charter’s future revenue potential grow as a broadband provider, considered both a money-maker and must-have service. Analysts say that Charter is well-positioned to poach more customers from phone companies, which typically only offer slow DSL service in much of Charter’s rural footprint.

Gore: Malone is the Darth Vader of cable.

But customers may find with Malone’s involvement, that service may come at a price. Malone was criticized heavily in the 1980s and 1990s for leading the charge for customer rate increases. TCI’s captive customers in Tennessee found their cable bills increased between 71-116 percent in just three years during the 1980s.

Former Sen. Al Gore, Jr., at the time called Malone the head of a “Cable Cosa Nostra” and the Darth Vader of big cable. The cable executive was a frequent target of lawmakers flooded with constituent complaints about poor cable service and accelerating prices.

In 1999, The Guardian noted Malone was an admirer of telecom oligopolies:

He is scathing about regulatory attempts to prevent monopolies and mergers. Governments, he says, are “antediluvian” in their approach to the emerging new world economic order. Instead of trying to prevent mergers and collusion between media and communications companies, Malone says governments should actually promote the creation of “super-corporations” (such as his own) with enough capital to exploit the potential of new technology.

That attitude may soon be back in play with the cable industry’s increasing focus on expanding broadband service as their new primary revenue generator.

The corporate-funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) took a hit in the Georgia legislature last week as the clock ran out on several initiatives backed by its members and supporters on behalf of the group’s corporate clients.

While H.B. 282, a municipal broadband ban introduced by Rep. Mark Hamilton (R-Cumming) was soundly defeated in an unusual, bipartisan 94-70 vote, two other measures supported by Hamilton never came up for votes, including one that would have placed restrictions on city employees speaking out against corporate-ghostwritten bills like the public broadband ban he introduced.

Hamilton is no stranger at ALEC. He received $3,527.80 in ALEC “scholarships” in 2008 alone, according to the Center for Media and Democracy. Those payments covered certain travel expenses, wining and dining, and entertainment for state lawmakers (and often their families) bought and paid for by ALEC’s corporate members which include large telecom companies. After 2008, ALEC no longer had to disclose their scholarships and neither do many politicians who receive them.

In the last cycle, Hamilton cashed checks well into the thousands of dollars from AT&T, Charter Communications, Comcast and Verizon. That doesn’t include $1,000 from the Georgia Cable TV Association.

Rep. Don Parsons, another bill supporter, happens to be an active member of the ALEC Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Force. He has received $5,735.48 during his first three years in that role.

ALEC’s principle role is to get corporate-backed legislative ideas written into state laws. The group maintains a large database of pre-approved legislation ready-made for introduction in any statehouse. Simply change a few words here and there and suddenly it isn’t AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner Cable or Comcast introducing the bills they helped draft, it is Reps. Hamilton and Parsons.

In 2013, these two representatives went over the top for their corporate friends at ALEC.

Mark Hamilton’s H.B. 228: The “Keep Your Mouth Shut Else or Else” Act

Hamilton

Among the most overreaching bills introduced in the 2013 session was Rep. Hamilton’s H.B. 228 – an untitled bill that would prohibit local government employees from using government computers, fax machines or email to promote or oppose legislation by the General Assembly. It would also prohibit employees from contacting members of the General Assembly or the governor to discuss the impact of pending legislation on local governments, unless the employee is registered as a lobbyist or information is requested directly by a member of the General Assembly.

The greatest wish-come-true of ALEC is introducing legislation supported by unshackled corporate interests while muzzling local governments from objecting to the legislation.

In the community broadband battle, large cable and phone companies have limitless budgets to spend opposing public broadband with scare mailers, push polling, newspaper, radio and even television ads. Local officials fighting to defend their interests in better broadband do not. Hamilton’s bill would have taken this imbalance even further, making it a crime for any agencies, authorities, bureaus, departments, offices, and commissions of the state or any political subdivision of the state to provide members of the General Assembly with information about their broadband problems. Communities could not correct misinformation, explain a bill’s unintended consequences, or request changes to the bill.

“HB 228 is utterly ridiculous,” said Conyers City Manager Tony Lucas. “When did a local government, contacting one of our representatives or our governor, become professional lobbying? It’s respective governments conducting business for or on behalf of our citizens.”

Don Parsons’ H.B. 176: AT&T’s “Put Your Cell Tower Wherever You Want” Act

Rep. Parsons had trouble coming up with a good name for his latest legislative gift to AT&T. Originally entitled the “Advanced Broadband Colocation Act,” that title was eventually scrapped because it was not snappy enough. In its place, the “Mobile Broadband Infrastructure Leads to Development (BILD) Act” was suddenly born.

Parsons

But after reading both it and a substitute amendment, we call it the “Put It Anywhere Act,” because the bill’s real intent is to largely strip away cell tower location authority from Georgia’s local governments.

Parsons does not host an AT&T cell tower in his backyard in Marietta, but other Georgian homeowners might had the bill passed.

H.B. 176 allowed cell towers to be placed anywhere a wireless company wanted with very limited local input. Companies were under no obligation to prove that the new towers were needed. Local governments could no longer veto their choices, much less limit additions to existing towers or suggest more suitable alternative locations.  Parsons’ bill even removed authority from local governments to insist that companies remove abandoned towers before constructing new ones.

Parsons went all-out for AT&T. Knowing that resource-strapped local governments often have bigger priorities, he set a deadline on cell tower applications at 90 days for existing towers, five months for new ones. Unless the community rejects a proposal showing good cause, it would be deemed automatically approved.

Amy Henderson, director of communications for the Georgia Municipal Association, scoffed at claims the bill was designed to streamline the cell tower application process.

“Dictatorship is just streamlined government,” she told the Rockdale Citizen. “It doesn’t necessarily mean it’s in the best interest of the public.”

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Youtube – Rep Parsons on HB176 3-2-13.flv[/flv]

Rep. Parsons’ rambling YouTube video featuring a laundry list of AT&T talking points about the need for cell companies to throw up cell towers wherever they please because it is good for business (even if it isn’t so good for you or your neighbors). Parsons’ video then launches into a hissyfit directed at the Georgia Municipal Association, unhappy with Parsons’ sweeping transfer of authority away from local communities in favor of AT&T and others. Al Gore never sighed this much. It garnered a whopping 41 views on YouTube to date and in the spirit of open dialogue, Parsons disabled comments on the video.  (17 minutes)

Private vs. Public: A Phone-y Debate

At the heart of most of ALEC’s legislative initiatives is a sense that public institutions are somehow hampering private enterprise. Community broadband is considered an especially dangerous threat because incumbent providers claim public broadband represents unfair competition.

But as ALEC itself demonstrates, corporate welfare is alive and well in the statehouses of even the reddest states. The idea that taxpayers should not be footing the bill for things the private sector can do without costing taxpayers a nickel just doesn’t fly with reality.

As Free Press reports, phone and cable companies have been on federal welfare since their inception. A 2011 Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy study shows AT&T and Verizon receiving more than $26 billion in tax subsidies from 2008–2010.

The FCC’s 2012 report on Universal Service Fund subsidies shows nearly $3 billion in federal payments to AT&T, Verizon and Windstream. In 2010, Windstream — a telecommunications company with services across the South — applied for $238 million in federal stimulus grants to improve its service in 16 states. More than 16 million taxpayer dollars went to upgrade the company’s services in Georgia.

“Phone and cable companies would not be recording the soaring profit margins that they do, if there were truly a free market,’” said Free Press Research Director S. Derek Turner. “They have created an unlevel playing field that gives them massive first-mover advantages. The real-dollar benefits of that can’t be quantified.”

Rogers Communications, Canada’s largest cable operator, told investors at an investment bank conference it intends to accelerate plans to monetize wireless and broadband data usage this year.

Anthony Staffieri, chief financial officer of Rogers Communications told attendees at Morgan Stanley’s Technology, Media & Telecom Conference that Rogers’ future revenue outlook was going to be data-centric.

“We think data, monetizing data, is going to be a key aspect of that, both on the wireless side, as well as on the cable side of things,” Staffieri said.

Staffieri

Key to Rogers is the development of data plans that maximize revenue potential by exploiting the customer’s discomfort with overlimit fees. Staffieri admits the company has plans that can cost the company revenue if customers downgrade to a usage bucket that brings them very close to their usage limit.

But most customers do not choose those “exact fit” data plans. They typically select more expensive, larger-bucket plans so they can rest easy knowing they will not get slapped with a overlimit fee.

“And so they’re coming into data plans that are probably more than they need,” Staffieri said. “But for most users, what they’re looking for is comfort in usage. And so what we found is there’s a preponderance to buy more than what you need. So there’s no surprise at the end of the month in terms of billing. And so it’s all about that comfort in usage that we’re focused on in the price plans.”

In wireless, Rogers is also counting on the explosive growth of usage that comes after introducing 4G LTE coverage.

“Simply on 3G to LTE, you see an immediate growth in data usage,” Staffieri said. “Same users, but if you were to look at the data set, it’s just within a defined period of time, they can just access more. And so for whatever reason, whatever they’re doing with it, it’s just driving more usage, more efficiency and they’re using it in the business context.”

Staffieri says Rogers is experiencing 30-50% increases in data usage year over year. Rogers introduced new wireless plans in the fall of 2012 that refocus customers on their anticipated data usage, with gradually more expensive wireless plans to match.

“That really gets the customer focused on choosing something that continues to drive data growth,” Staffieri noted.

Rogers Cable broadband customers have also faced data caps and consumption-oriented billing for years. Although Rogers competitively responded to a Bell offer introduced in January that includes unlimited use service for customers who want it, that option comes at an added cost — one that can be priced up or down according to marketplace conditions.

Rogers primary focus is on encouraging its cable broadband customers to move towards higher-speed, more expensive data plans.

MONETIZED: Rogers sells a 25/2Mbps broadband plan for $52 a month that includes only an 80GB monthly usage allowance. A $2/GB overlimit fee applies, up to a maximum of $100 per month. Taxes, a modem rental fee or purchase, a one-time activation fee of $14.95 and up to a $99.99 installation fee also apply.

“On the cable side, making sure we have the best Internet experience was the other piece of it,” Staffieri said. “We ended the year with 90% of our footprint able to get 150Mbps data speed ($122.99/mo with 250GB usage allowance). And so to the extent that we continue to lead on Internet, we think that’s going to be important ingredient for the top line [revenue] growth.”

On the wireless side, Rogers is following the lead of big providers in the United States and gradually shifting the cost of new smartphones away from itself and onto its customers by adjusting its subsidy program.

“As we see data [usage] pulling [revenue] growth, overall, that bodes well for a continuation of the subsidization,” Staffieri said. “For us, it’s really been about making sure that we give the customer choice. And so when we combine that with the introduction of the Flex Plan, which we did in 2012, what we’re seeing is more and more customers opting into new handsets. But more and more, it’s on the customer’s nickel as opposed to our nickel on the Flex Plan programs.”

Rogers Wireless’ Individual plans. Rogers’ customers have to pay extra for long distance calling — most plans only cover local calls. Data plans are stingier and more expensive than what most Americans pay, and steep overlimit fees up to $0.02 per megabyte ($20/GB) apply. Like in the United States, Rogers is moving to bundle unlimited calling and texting into more of their plans. What differentiates more plans today is how much data usage is included.

Staffieri admitted Bell is giving Rogers the most competitive headaches in Ontario because of their aggressively priced promotions.

“Certainly, [Bell’s Fibe IPTV] has been competitive for us. In the short-term, we continue to deal with what I would consider to be aggressive pricing in terms of acquisition and retention offers by our IPTV competitor,” said Staffieri. “We’ve always been competing with their satellite product and so that competition has always been there. But I would describe it as certainly having picked up and continuing to pick up. And it’s largely been through pricing offers as opposed to product.”

Staffieri says Rogers is competing with improved set-top equipment like the NextBox 2.0 — a whole-home DVR with an improved user interface. It also offers customers Anyplace TV, a TV Everywhere service that allows customers to watch the Rogers’ TV lineup on tablets inside the home.

The Toronto Maple Leafs, the National Hockey League’s most valuable sports franchise, is today 75% co-owned by Bell Canada Enterprises (BCE) and Rogers Communications.

As is the case in the United States, Canadian cable companies are also facing dramatically increasing programming costs, particularly for sports programming.

But to a greater degree than in the U.S., Canadian media conglomerates own and control a larger share of cable and broadcast networks, programming producers, would-be competitors like satellite television, and even sports teams and the networks that show their games.

That positions them to negotiate with themselves over content costs, because they own or control the sports franchise, the cable or broadcast network that televises their games, and the cable, satellite, or telephone provider through which most Canadians watch.

“We’ve tried to be disciplined on the extent that content price increases are there because consumers want it, then we want to make sure we’re disciplined in passing on that cost to the customer,” Staffieri said. “And so we strive to make sure that in the TV and video business our gross margins are consistent.”

“So if you were to look at how that’s played out over the last several quarters and several years, it’s been fairly consistent. And so that’s what we strive to do is to make sure that those programming costs ultimately are passed on to the consumer, which is ultimately driving up the cost through their demand.”