Last year, Stop the Cap! told you the story of Mark Williams, the Lee, Massachusetts resident that was quoted an installation fee of $12,000 from Time Warner Cable.

The town intervened, claiming the cable company was violating its franchise agreement by not providing standard cable installation for any customer who also received electric and phone service.  Time Warner agreed to reduce the fee to $4,000 — still unacceptable to Williams.  Months later, and after a threat of sanctions from the Board of Selectmen, Williams got his cable-TV, broadband, and phone service installed for $35 — the same rate other Berkshire customers pay.

Williams did have to spend around $1,500 to bury an underground cable that runs some 600 feet from the nearest utility pole to his home.  Williams wasn’t interested in overhead wiring and didn’t mind paying the additional fee to have the cable buried where he wanted it.

Lee, Massachusetts is located in broadband sparse western Massachusetts

Cable companies routinely deny cable television services to customers who live in sparsely populated areas, where the company is not expected to earn back its wiring investment within a short period of time.  In such cases, either the customer (and other interested neighbors) split the wiring costs or they go without service.  But Lee’s franchise agreement insisted the cable company wire any customers in its franchise area who also have access to other utilities, which includes nearly everyone.

Other communities trying to get their outlying residents cable service could find providers amenable if they insist on similar clauses during franchise renewal negotiations.

Williams tells The Berkshire Eagle he is grateful for the support of his town government, especially patent attorney Malcolm Chisholm of the Lee Cable Advisory Committee for taking on Time Warner on his behalf.

“He’s a real terrier and sinks his teeth into something until it’s done right,” Williams told the newspaper.

Copps

A Statement from FCC Commissioner Michael Copps: The Lone Dissenter in Today’s 4-1 Decision Approving the Merger of Comcast and NBC-Universal:

Comcast’s acquisition of NBC Universal is a transaction like no other that has come before this Commission—ever. It reaches into virtually every corner of our media and digital landscapes and will affect every citizen in the land. It is new media as well as old; it is news and information as well as sports and entertainment; it is distribution as well as content. And it confers too much power in one company’s hands.

For any transaction that comes before this Commission, our statutory obligation is to weigh the promised benefits against the potential harms so as to determine whether the public interest is being served. There are many potential harms attending this transaction—even the majority recognizes them. But all the majority’s efforts—diligent though they were—to ameliorate these harms cannot mask the truth that this Comcast-NBCU joint venture grievously fails the public interest. I searched in vain for the benefits. I could find little more than such touted gains as “the elimination of double marginalization.” Pardon me, but a deal of this size should be expected to yield more than the limited benefits cited. I understand that economies and efficiencies could accrue to the combined Comcast-NBCU venture, but look a little further into the decision and you will find that any such savings will not necessarily be passed on to consumers. When they tell you that at the outset, don’t look for lower cable or Internet access bills. As companies combine and consolidate, consumers have seen their cable bills out-strip the Consumer Price Index by orders of magnitude.

Many of the new commitments that have been added aim no higher than maintaining the status quo. The status quo is not serving the public interest.

It is also claimed that the duration of the commitments made by Comcast-NBCU are longer than any that have been attached to previously-approved mergers. That may be true—but it is also true that power is patient and that big businesses can bide their time when they have to in order to reap the fullest harvest.

While approval of this transaction was from its announcement the steepest of climbs for me, given my long-standing opposition to the outrageous media consolidation this country has experienced over the past few decades, I did meet with stakeholders on all sides to make sure I understood their perspectives on the matter. And I worked to develop ideas to minimize the harms and to advance at least some positive public interest benefits. I know my colleagues worked assiduously on this proceeding, too.

Commissioner Clyburn, for example, worked successfully to achieve commitments from Comcast-NBCU to improve diversity, expand broadband deployment in unserved areas and increase broadband adoption by low-income households. The Chairman and his team, led by John Flynn, and many, many other members of the FCC team put more effort into this transaction than I have seen put into any transaction during my nearly ten years here at the Commission. I also salute the unprecedented cooperation between the agency and the Department of Justice.

Comcast's Online Toll Plaza

But at the end of the day, the public interest requires more—much more—than it is receiving. The Comcast-NBCU joint venture opens the door to the cable-ization of the open Internet. The potential for walled gardens, toll booths, content prioritization, access fees to reach end users, and a stake in the heart of independent content production is now very real.

As for the future of America’s news and journalism, I see nothing in this deal to address the fundamental damage that has been inflicted by years of outrageous consolidation and newsroom cuts. Investigative journalism is not even a shell of its former self. All of this means it’s more difficult for citizens to hold the powerful accountable. It means thousands of stories go unwritten. It means we never hear about untold instances of business corruption, political graft and other chicanery; it also means we don’t hear enough about all the good things taking place in our country every day.

The slight tip of the hat that the applicants have made toward some very limited support of local media projects does not even begin to address the core of the problem. Given that this merger will make the joint venture a steward of the public’s airwaves as a broadcast licensee, I asked for a major commitment of its resources to beef up the news operation at NBC. That request was not taken seriously. Increasing the quantity of news by adding hours of programming is no substitute for improving the quality of news by devoting the necessary resources. Make no mistake: what is at stake here is the infrastructure for our national conversation—the very lifeblood of American democracy.

We should be moving in precisely the opposite direction of what this Commission approves today.

There are many other facets of the joint venture that trouble me. I worry, for example, about the future of our public broadcast stations. Comcast-NBCU has committed to carry the signals of any of those stations that agree to relinquish the spectrum they are presently using. Will public television no longer be available to over-the-air viewers? And, what happens when the duration of this commitment has run its course? Might the public station be dropped to make room for yet more infotainment programming? In too many communities, the public television station is the last locally owned and operated media outlet left. Public television is miles ahead of everyone else in making productive, public interest use of the digital multi-cast spectrum licensed to it.

Why in the world would we gamble with its future?

While the item before the Commission improves measurably on the program access, program carriage and online video provisions originally offered by the applicants, I believe loopholes remain that will allow Comcast-NBCU to unduly pressure both distributors, especially small cable companies, and content producers who sit across the table from the newly-consolidated company during high-stakes business negotiations for programming and carriage. Even when negotiations are successful between the companies, consumers can still expect to see high prices get passed along to them, as Comcast-NBCU remains free to bundle less popular programming with must-have marquee programming. Given the market power that Comcast-NBCU will have at the close of this deal over both programming content and the means of distribution, consumers should be rightfully worried.

In sum, this is simply too much, too big, too powerful, too lacking in benefits for American consumers and citizens. I have respect for the business acumen of the applicants, and have no doubts that they will strive to make Comcast-NBCU a financial success. But simply blessing business deals is not the FCC’s statutorily-mandated job.  Our job is to determine whether the record here demonstrates that this new media giant will serve the public interest. While I welcome the improvements made to the original terms, at the end of the day this transaction is a huge boost for media industry (and digital industry) consolidation. It puts new media on a road traditional media should never have taken. It further erodes diversity, localism and competition—the three essential pillars of the public interest standard mandated by law. I would be true to neither the statute nor to everything I have fought for here at the Commission over the past decade if I did not dissent from what I consider to be a damaging and potentially dangerous deal.

Issa

The incoming Republican chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has asked some of the nation’s largest phone and cable companies for a list of pesky regulations they would like to see the Republican-dominated House eliminate through deregulation.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) last month sent letters to more than 150 major trade associations, corporations, and their think tanks/lobbying firms, asking them to list the government regulations they would like repealed.

Issa’s letter was generally hostile towards Obama Administration policies, setting the stage for large companies to let loose on the administration’s “interference” in private business.

“As a trade organization with members that must comply with the regulatory state, I ask for your assistance in identifying existing and proposed regulations that have negatively impacted job growth in your members’ industry,” Issa wrote in one letter to the National Association of Manufacturers. “Additionally, suggestions on reforming identified regulations and the rulemaking process would be appreciated.”

According to Politico, which obtained copies of several letters, Big Telecom companies were on Issa’s mailing list. AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and their respective trade associations and lobbyists are expected to complain about consumer protection reforms including Net Neutrality, policy disclosure requirements, and the recent stimulus funding for broadband projects that many of the nation’s largest telecom companies informally boycotted.

Issa portrayed his campaign to invite large corporations to draft regulations and oversight ideas for their own industries as a “job protection” measure.

Issa spokesman Kurt Bardella said the incoming chairman intends to begin wide-ranging investigations into several aspects of the Obama Administration and their policies. Asking America’s top corporations for their ideas on addressing job creation is part of that process according to Bardella.

“Is there something that we can do to try to ease that [regulatory] burden and stimulate job creation?” Bardella told Politico. “Is there a pattern emerging? Is there a consistent practice or regulation that hurts jobs? Until you have all the facts, you really can’t make a lot of determinations and judgments.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Rep. Issa to Big Biz Help Me Help You 1-4-11.flv[/flv]

CNBC covered Issa’s letter to some of America’s largest corporations asking ‘Help Us Help You.’  (7 minutes)

Sinclair Broadcasting is threatening to pull 33 television stations in 21 cities from Time Warner Cable customers on January 1st if the cable company doesn’t agree to demands to pay around 20-25 cents per month per subscriber for each of the stations, primarily Fox and MyNetworkTV affiliates.

It’s just the latest in a series of retransmission rights battles underway between broadcasters and cable companies over cable carriage agreements.

Sinclair is a major group owner of television stations, and the impact on viewers in places like western New York, Dayton, Ohio, Greensboro, N.C., San Antonio, Tex., and Pittsburgh, Pa., won’t be missed because these markets have multiple Sinclair-owned or programmed stations involved in the dispute.

As always, the dispute is about money.  This week, viewers of affected stations, including our readers Lance and Andrew, started being annoyed with repeated warnings scrolled at the bottom of screens about the potential loss of their “favorite stations.”  In the case of WUHF, viewers might have thought a serious weather warning was being issued as text crawled against a distinctive red background.

So far, the dispute has not infected Sinclair’s local newscasts, which have often been used as a sounding board for the company’s past retransmission consent fights.  But then, many Sinclair stations have abandoned producing local news themselves over the past few years as a cost-savings measure.  However, many of the stations involved have put the dispute high on their home pages, as a too-cute-by-half link: “Learn About Time Warner Cable’s Plans to Drop Carriage Of This Station.”  Sinclair leaves no doubt about who they blame for the debacle.

Stations Impacted

• AL  Birmingham — WTTO (CW)
• AL  Birmingham — WABM (MyNetworkTV)
• FL  Pensacola — WEAR (ABC)
• FL  Tallahassee — WTWC (NBC)
• FL  Tampa — WTTA (MyNetworkTV)
• KY  Lexington — WDKY (Fox)
• ME  Portland — WGME (CBS)
• MO  Girardeau — KBSI (Fox)
• NC  Greensboro — WXLV (ABC)
• NC  Greensboro — WMYV (MyNetworkTV)
• NC  Raleigh — WLFL (CW)
• NC  Raleigh — WRDC (MyNetworkTV)
• NY  Buffalo — WUTV (Fox)
• NY  Buffalo — WNYO (MyNetworkTV)
• NY  Rochester — WUHF (Fox)
• NY  Syracuse — WSYT (Fox)
• NY  Syracuse — WNYS (MyNetworkTV)
• OH  Cincinnati — WSTR (MyNetworkTV)
• OH  Columbus — WSYX (ABC)
• OH  Columbus — WTTE (Fox)
• OH  Dayton — WKEF (ABC)
• OH  Dayton — WRGT (Fox)
• SC  Charleston — WTAT (Fox)
• SC  Charleston — WMMP (MyNetworkTV)
• PA  Pittsburgh — WPGH (Fox)
• PA  Pittsburgh — WPMY (MyNetworkTV)
• TX  San Antonio  —  KABB (Fox)
• TX  San Antonio — KMYS (MyNetworkTV)
• VA  Norfolk — WTVZ (MyNetworkTV)
• WI  Milwaukee — WVTV (CW)
• WI  Milwaukee — WCGV (MyNetworkTV)
• WV  Charleston — WCHS (ABC)
• WV  Charleston — WVAH (Fox)

Sinclair’s website warns viewers negotiations with Time Warner Cable are not promising:

Sinclair (or in some cases the licensees of the television stations not owned by Sinclair) and Time Warner are in the process of negotiating a renewal of the current agreement between Sinclair and Time Warner Cable which is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2010. Without a renewal, Time Warner Cable will no longer have the right to carry the broadcast of the television stations covered by this expiring agreement. Unfortunately, based on the status of the negotiations Sinclair does not believe we are going to be able to reach agreement on an extension of the deal. As a result, Time Warner would no longer be carrying the stations covered by the agreement with Sinclair beginning on January 1, 2011. Although some might try and characterize this as a dispute, in the end it represents nothing more than the failure of two companies to reach a business agreement, something that happens in the business world thousands of times a day.

Taking a cue from News Corp., Sinclair claims Time Warner Cable is stalling, hoping the Obama Administration will intervene and prohibit signal blackouts while negotiations are still underway.  Despite the claim the cable company is the one with the plan to drop stations, Sinclair informs viewers it is giving them early warning to help them make arrangements with alternative providers like Verizon FiOS, AT&T U-verse, or satellite companies to “avoid interruptions” in programming.

Time Warner Cable recognized the seriousness of the Sinclair dispute and has given it top billing on their Roll Over or Get Tough website.  So far, the cable company has rolled over in every dispute, eventually caving to programmer demands.  But the cable company would claim it has at least reduced the rates being demanded, or won concessions that allow subscribers to catch shows on-demand as part of its TV Everywhere project.

Because the cable industry has so far been dealt the weaker hand in these disputes, they are spending an increasing amount on lobbying the issue in Washington, right down to creating a front group that claims to represent viewers.  The s0-called “American Television Alliance,” has a mission statement that, on the surface, doesn’t wade too deep into actual solutions:

The ATVA’s mission is a simple one – to give consumers a voice and ask lawmakers to protect consumers by reforming outdated rules that do not reflect today’s marketplace.  We are united in our determination to achieve our goal: ensure the best viewing experience at an affordable price, without fear of television signals being cut off or public threats of blackouts intended to scare and confuse viewers.

The overwhelming majority of the interests represented by the ATVA are giant cable and phone companies (and two groups willing to play along when sharing common interests: Public Knowledge and the New America Foundation.)

The group filed comments petitioning the Federal Communications Commission to modify retransmission consent policy to give cable and phone companies additional tools to battle with intransigent broadcasters.  The most important, and one we agree with, is an end to the ban on importing distant network signals from nearby cities to replace those from local stations who simply dump “take it or leave it” offers on operators who then raise rates to cover ever-inflating programming costs.

As it stands now, cable systems cannot grab network stations from other cities to at least restore network programming, because FCC rules prohibit it, even if the nearby station doesn’t mind.  While that might not help Time Warner viewers in cities like Rochester, where the nearby Fox affiliates in both Buffalo and Syracuse are also owned by Sinclair, the cable operator’s extended reach made possible serving all three major upstate cities might still deliver relief by grabbing further distant Fox stations like WYDC in Corning, WFXV in Utica, or WFXP in Erie, Pa and distributing them across all three affected cities.

Unfortunately, the Fox TV network has also made it clear stations could risk their affiliation deals with the network if they were to grant retransmission consent to providers that effectively undercut other Fox affiliates.

The ATVA also wants providers to retain the right to continue carrying disputed signals so long as good faith negotiations are ongoing, and has also suggested binding arbitration as another alternative reform.  Broadcasters have rejected both.

Some of the ATVA’s proposals are worthy of merit to benefit consumer interests, but consumer groups might do better creating their own group to fight this issue, if only to keep broadcasters from dismissing the group as heavily stacked with cable and phone companies with a biased, vested interest in the outcome.

Just reviewing the FCC petition left a bad taste when they quoted everyone’s favorite “dollar-a-holler” group — the League of United Latin American Citizens, which continues to amaze with its omnipresent Zelig-performance in just about every telecommunications policy debate involving LULAC’s benefactors.

More than a few politicians are likely to accept broadcaster arguments, which would ultimately weaken the effectiveness of any reform effort.

Although the cable trade press reports it is business as usual at most of the nation’s largest cable companies, news that several companies are losing more cable-TV subscribers than they are adding is creating concern in boardrooms and on Wall Street.  Although the power of the perennial “rate increase” has kept revenues up, cable operators like Time Warner Cable are beginning to realize they can’t just keep raising rates expecting customers to sit still for it.

For more than 30 years, cable operators have assumed (correctly) that raising rates far in excess of inflation will bring about a lot of grumbling from upset subscribers, but few will actually resort to cutting the cord and going back to free TV (or books).  But as many cable households now routinely pay “triple-play” bills well in excess of $200 a month, that is finally starting to change:

• For many households, the switch to digital TV and an increasing number of sub-channels has proved adequate to meet the needs of many viewers, so long as they receive a decent picture and at least a handful of digital sub-channels;
• Online access to at least some cable programming, movies, and television shows on-demand has solved the problem of having too few viewing options.  If nothing of interest is running on local channels, a quick visit to Netflix or Hulu can satisfy most viewers;
• Many increasingly prefer spending their free time online instead of parked in front of the television;
• The realities of the current economy and tightened middle class budgets make many cable packages simply unaffordable, even if customers wanted them.

Time Warner Cable has recognized the growing strain on their video side of the business and has initiated some strong marketing efforts to hold onto customers who are one rate increase away from canceling.

This fall, the cable company unveiled its $33 per service promotion, charging that price for each component of their triple-play package for a year.  While Time Warner has more aggressively priced individual services in the past for new customers, this one is unique because it is open to existing customers as well.  Customers speaking to Time Warner’s retention agents are being offered this package in an effort to keep customers hooked up to the company’s video, broadband, and phone services.  Currently, many markets also include a free year of Showtime or at least six months of DVR service, and a year of Road Runner Turbo.  In highly competitive markets, informal promotions can bring even lower prices or extra add-ons.

A few weeks ago, the cable company unveiled online video streaming of ESPN Networks for existing cable subscribers, and an online remote DVR-programming application that lets subscribers set up recordings while away from home.

Now the company is further bolstering its video packages:

1. As part of its long term agreement with Disney, ABC and ESPN, this week Time Warner Cable added over 300 hours of new On Demand programming content from ABC, Disney and ESPN. In addition, the company will launch Primetime HD On Demand tomorrow, which will also be available to Digital Cable customers at no additional cost.  The new channel Primetime HD On Demand will carry primetime programming from ABC, NBC and CBS in High Definition. Subscribers will have over 100 hours of the networks’ popular primetime programs including NBC’s 30 Rock and The Office; ABC’s Grey’s Anatomy and Desperate Housewives; and CBS’ Medium and CSI.
2. Time Warner Cable Look Back will bolster the existing “Start Over” feature by archiving up to three days of programming on more than two dozen different networks and cable channels.  Now, if you missed a favorite show that aired the evening before, you can watch it on demand.  As with “Start Over,” Time Warner has disabled fast-forwarding, so no zipping through commercials is allowed.  But the service comes free of charge, and includes an impressive lineup of participating networks including ABC, NBC, Fox Cable Networks, Discovery Networks, and Scripps’ Food Network, Cooking Channel, HGTV, and DIY.
3. HBO Max and Go Max, part of TV Everywhere, will reach more than 50 million Time Warner Cable customers by the end of the month.  These services deliver online on-demand access to movies, series, and specials airing on HBO and Cinemax and will be available to customers paying for the premium channels at no additional charge.  More than 70 million customers will have access by the second quarter of 2011.
4. Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt told investors on a conference call held last week that the cable company is aggressively pursuing renewal agreements with programmers that allow the cable company to begin offering smaller, budget priced packages of cable-TV programming.  While it won’t be the a-la-carte option many consumers crave, cable programming packages could begin to resemble what home satellite dish customers used to receive — a core package of two dozen channels with theme or network-based add-on “programming packs” for additional fees.  For example, customers looking for reality or educational programming might buy a “Home and Garden” package consisting of Food TV, HGTV, The Weather Channel, Discovery and The Learning Channel.  Movie fans might get a package of Encore, AMC, Turner Classic Movies, Fox Movies and MGM.  “We have negotiated some additional flexibility beyond what we had a few years ago that will allow us to begin to offer some smaller packages at lower prices. Probably not all the way where we’d like to be. But we’re moving in the right direction,” Britt told investors.

The cable company’s friendly former owner — Time Warner, Inc.,  has also helped man the barricades against cable’s competitors.  For Netflix and Redbox customers: longer waiting times for access to the latest Time Warner movies are likely.  The current delay of 28 days could be extended, according to CEO Jeff Bewkes.

“So far the 28-day window has clearly been a success versus no delay,” Bewkes told investors. “The question of whether we ought to go longer is very much under scrutiny. It may well be a good idea.”

Even local movie theaters face some potential competition, as Time Warner considers introducing a premium pay-per-view option that would allow cable customers to watch movies currently in theaters at home.  But they’ll pay a heavy price to watch — reportedly between $30-50 per title, and the cable operator will insert anti-recording technology into the signal to prevent digital recordings.

Will these new services ultimately stop the bleeding from departing cable customers?  For most it’s a matter of dollars and sense.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Cutting Cable’s Cord 11-9-10.flv[/flv]

The media has gotten aggressive about talking to viewers about how they can get rid of their cable-TV subscription and save plenty.  (10 minutes)

Thomas Clancy Jr., 35, in Long Beach, N.Y., canceled the family’s Cablevision subscription this spring. He said he has been happy with Netflix and other Internet video services since then, even though there isn’t a lot of live sports to be had online.

“The amount of sports that I watched certainly didn’t justify a hundred-dollar-a-month expense for all this stuff. I mean, that’s twelve hundred dollars a year,” Clancy told the Associated Press. “Twelve hundred dollars is … near a vacation.”

Customers like Clancy are comfortable with technology and well-versed on how to hook up Internet video and integrate it with the family’s TV sets.  For customers like him, online video will increasingly be an attractive alternative to high cable TV bills.

For some western New Yorkers, Wegmans' Redbox kiosk is their new "cable company."

For homes with less tech-savvy subscribers who have watched their wages fall over the past decade even as cable rates keep increasing, economic realities driven home by the Great Recession are making the decision for them.

“The price of cable TV has risen to the point where it’s simply not affordable to lots of lower-income homes. And right now there are an awful lot of lower-income homes,” Craig Moffett, a Wall Street analyst who favors the cable industry said. “The evidence suggests that what we’re seeing is a poverty problem rather than a technology phenomenon.”

For these customers, including many in the middle class, each time cable companies like Time Warner increase cable rates, they drop a service or two.

“First it was Showtime, the Movie Channel, and Starz!,” writes Stop the Cap! reader Joanne in Penfield, N.Y., a suburb of Rochester. “Then when they raised the rates again on the premium channels, we dropped them all — bye bye HBO and Cinemax.”

“When Time Warner sends us their rate increase notice right after Christmas as they’ve done for years, we’re dropping digital cable and returning our cable boxes,” she writes.  “If they keep it up, we’ll drop cable altogether — something we might have done earlier if we had some competition around here.”

“I don’t care how much they claim it’s a ‘great value,'” Joanne says. “My husband got laid off from his job at Xerox in 2009 and was just let go from his new job at Carestream.  I already work myself and we have three kids, and our health insurance premiums are skyrocketing at the end of the year.  We haven’t had a real raise in five years, so that made the decision for us.”

Joanne now rents movies from Redbox just inside the local Wegmans grocery store and has a $9 monthly subscription with Netflix, mostly for online streaming.

“It’s more than made up for the $40+ a month we used to spend on premium channels with Time Warner,” she said.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WISN Milwaukee Time Warner Cable Offers Start Over For WISN 12 ABC Programs 11-9-10.flv[/flv]

WISN-TV in Milwaukee introduces viewers to Time Warner Cable’s newest on-demand features.  (1 minute)