"It's your high prices," Americans tell subscription television companies.

For the first time in the history of the subscription television industry, more Americans disconnected their cable-TV, satellite and telco IPTV service than signed up.  The reason?  Americans have finally reached their limit on what they’re willing to pay to Comcast, Time Warner Cable, DISH, AT&T, and others for subscription television.

At first, only premium movie channel subscriptions for networks like HBO and Showtime took the hit, but now Americans are cutting cable’s cord at an accelerating pace.  SNL Kagan, which has tracked the cable industry for decades, reports cable and phone companies saw their worst second quarter in history — losing 216,000 subscribers who canceled their basic cable subscriptions.  If the same losses continue in the third quarter, the pay TV industry will see their total number of households decline to below 100 million subscribers nationwide.

SNL Kagan notes the losses have little to do with online video viewing.

“Although it is tempting to point to over-the-top video as a potential culprit, we believe economic factors such as low housing formation and a high unemployment rate contributed to subscriber declines in the second quarter,” said Mariam Rondeli, an SNL Kagan analyst.

Another factor is the continued decline in wages for America’s middle class.  Despite long working hours and maxed out productivity, Americans take home pay began declining in 2003 and continues its downward slide, now made worse by the housing crisis and high unemployment.

Under these conditions, subscription TV is becoming a luxury.

Looking closer into the numbers, there are a few companies that managed to add subscribers, mostly at cable’s expense.  Verizon FiOS did best of all, adding 414,000 new customers.  DirecTV managed to add 81,000 new subscribers in the second quarter.  Most of those gains came because of promotional pricing which gave consumers a break on their monthly bill for up to a year.

The cable industry is where most of the bleeding is taking place.  Six out of eight major cable operators broke records in subscriber losses in the spring and early summer, cumulatively losing 711,000 customers.  Their overall share of the pay TV market dropped from 63.6 percent in 2009 to 61 percent today.

That’s why cable operators are telling their retention departments to make deals with customers threatening to leave.  Many subscribers are scoring new customer promotional pricing for up to a year in return for a commitment to stay with the cable company.  All customers have to do is call and threaten to cancel and negotiate.

Stop the Cap! recommends not taking their first offer.  Check your cable operator’s website and start with new customer pricing as a negotiating tool.  If they only offer a few dollars in discounts, tell them you will think about it and then call back and speak with someone else.  Avoid committing to “price protection agreements” or other contract terms that hold you in place for a year, unless they give you new customer pricing.

Sometimes the best offers are reserved for those who show up at the cable office with set-top boxes and cable modem equipment in hand, ready to turn in.  When they ask why you want to terminate service, make it clear it’s all about the prices they are charging.  Hint that you’d stay if you could receive the same pricing a new customer gets.

Share your experiences in negotiating and what kind of deals you scored in our comments section.

[flv width=”512″ height=”298″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSJ Pay TV Loses Subscribers 9-1-10.flv[/flv]

The Wall Street Journal covered the pay TV losses noting the cable industry is trying to make up revenue losses by accelerating rate hikes for their remaining customers.  (3 minutes)

Kent

Suddenlink president and CEO Jerry Kent sends word that the days of cable companies spending capital on system upgrades are basically over.

Interviewed on CNBC, Kent was responding to concerns about the cable industry’s long history of leveraged buyouts — amassing enormous debt to launch buyouts of small and medium sized cable companies as the march towards industry consolidation continues.

Kent’s own cable system — Suddenlink, was built partly on purchased cable systems from Cox and Charter Cable.  In the changing economy, Wall Street now wants to see cable companies with plenty of free cash flow on hand as part of their balance sheets, not just potential revenue growth through increased numbers of households made possible through debt-ridden acquisitions.

Kent sees Suddenlink, and many other cable operators, performing better as they transition away from making investments in system upgrades to accommodate demand.

“I think one of the things people don’t realize [relates to] the question of capital intensity and having to keep spending to keep up with capacity,” Kent said. “Those days are basically over, and you are seeing significant free cash flow generated from the cable operators as our capital expenditures continue to come down.”

Kent told CNBC Suddenlink had the fastest residential Internet service in the country — 107Mbps. (EPB in Chattanooga claims it offers 150Mbps residential service, although we don’t see much about it beyond a June press release on their website.)  Suddenlink’s speeds are one-way only, however.  The upstream speed for that tier of service is considerably slower — 5Mbps.  EPB offers the same upstream and downstream speeds.

Kent appeared on CNBC to discuss the “threat” to cable television company business models by online video.  Kent believes Suddenlink, and the cable industry more generally, is positioned to protect cable-TV profits with the TV Everywhere concept — offer online video of cable programming, but only to authenticated, current cable subscribers.  Those without cable subscriptions can’t watch.

Financial reports submitted by many of the nation’s cable operators confirm Kent’s claim that capital spending is being reduced.  Even among cable systems that claim they need to enact usage caps and other Internet Overcharging schemes to “invest in broadband upgrades,” the financial reports don’t lie — they are not using increased revenue for system upgrades.  They are instead retaining the revenue as free cash – available for other purposes, paying down debt, or returning it to shareholders through dividend payouts.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Internet v. Cable 8-20-10.flv[/flv]

CNBC interviewed Suddenlink CEO Jerry Kent on how the cable industry intends to cope with invasive online video, threatening to erode cable-TV profits.  (8 minutes)

Sen. David Hoyle (D-Time Warner Cable)

After 18 years representing the people of Gaston County, N.C., Senator David Hoyle closed out his ninth and final term in the North Carolina Senate with a disgraceful admission:  He allowed the state’s largest cable company, Time Warner Cable, to draft legislation in his name to thwart competition and allow skyrocketing cable and broadband bills for his constituents.  Worse yet, he admits he’s proud he did it.

Hoyle, who calls himself a “pro-business Democrat,” ignored his own constituents’ interests when he introduced legislation earlier this year that would effectively curtail municipal broadband projects across the state from providing enhanced broadband at significant savings for residents.

Stop the Cap! has covered Hoyle’s water-carrying for the cable and phone companies since he announced his pro-cable legislation and accompanying municipal broadband moratorium.  Our regular reader Tim sent word Hoyle blurted out whose interests he really represented on a Charlotte TV newscast last week.  Not having to answer to voters in a future election gave Hoyle remarkable courage to tell viewers he carried more water for Time Warner Cable than Gunga Din:

When the I-Team asked him if the cable industry drew up the bill, Senator Hoyle responded, “Yes, along with my help.”

When asked about criticism that he was “carrying water” for the cable companies, Hoyle replied, “I’ve carried more water than Gunga Din for the business community – the people who pay the taxes.”

Evidently Hoyle forgot his constituents pay taxes too, along with ever-increasing bills from Time Warner Cable.  With Hoyle’s help, North Carolina’s phone and cable companies hoped to limit competition, guaranteeing future rate increases and higher bills — a Hoyle Tax that consumers across the state would pay indefinitely.

Last December, Hoyle was more high-minded when announcing his imminent retirement from office:

[…]Having had the honor and privilege to serve my community and state in every way that has been asked of me, beginning 45 years ago as mayor of Dallas, it is now the time and the season to welcome the next phase of my life.

After much thought, I have made the difficult decision not to seek re-election to the Senate. While I will not seek re-election, please be assured that I will serve the rest of my term with the same diligence, dedication and integrity with which I have served from my first election. Public service has always been a central part of my life and my commitment to our community and our state remains strong.

Hoyle’s actions prove that his diligence, dedication, and integrity only extend to the businesses that heartily supported him while in office.  That pact protected each others’ interests while trampling yours.

Despite Hoyle’s dogged efforts to place a moratorium on municipal broadband projects in the state, even going as far as to suggest fiber was “obsolete,” several of his colleagues thought better and blocked the attempt.

For consumers in Salisbury, not too far from Charlotte, the good news is fiber optic broadband will outlast memories of a  senator working at the behest of the cable industry.

Fibrant, the city-owned fiber broadband provider, will commence beta testing of its new service in September.  It will deliver broadband service 10 times faster than that offered by Time Warner Cable and AT&T U-verse at highly competitive prices.  Standard 15Mbps service — upstream and downstream — will cost 10 percent less than the competition’s slower services.

Salisbury has spent $50 million to construct the network using bond money that will be paid back from revenue earned by the system.

For Hoyle, spouting traditional industry talking points, that’s a recipe for disaster.  Considering Hoyle raked in substantial contributions from Time Warner Cable, Sprint/Nextel PAC, and telecom lobbyist Parker, Poe, Adams, and Bernstein PAC, among others, voters may wonder whether Hoyle’s anti-municipal broadband declarations were also written by the telecom industry.

Opponents like Hoyle declare earlier municipal broadband efforts have been financial failures for cities.  If so, why the industry fulminates about such “failures” that would hardly threaten them is more than a little curious.

Other opponents claim government cannot do anything right, so they should stay out of the private sector cable business.

This "financial failure" in Dalton, Georgia has cornered 70% of the residential market offering superior service, and keeps $1.5 million in monthly revenues at home in northwest Georgia.

Yet residents in decidedly red-state Dalton, Georgia had more than enough of their free market cable system — Charter Cable.  The community of 38,000 supported a move in 2003 by Dalton Utilities to build a publicly-owned alternative.  They couldn’t install service fast enough, and today Dalton Utilities’ Optilink brings in $1.5 million in revenue every month which stays in Dalton.  The local government option today reaches nearly 70 percent of the residential market and last week was voted 2010 #1 Internet Provider in the Daily Citizen’s Readers’ Choice Awards for the third year in a row.

Opelika, Alabama also rejected the “government can do nothing right” talking point in a referendum to support a fiber to the home network for their community as well.

In reality, although no government is perfect, Americans do trust local government to provide safe drinking water, put out fires, and arrest criminals — all incredibly vital services.  As broadband increasingly joins electricity, gas, phone and water as an essential utility, providing it at unregulated monopoly pricing just isn’t going to cut it any longer.

Hoyle has a future as a paid mouthpiece for the industries he befriends, but more importantly, he’s represents s a teachable moment.  The next time an elected official scoffs at the notion he’s bought and paid for by the companies who write him generous campaign contribution checks, just remember Senator David Hoyle… North Carolina’s first senator from Time Warner Cable, but almost certainly not the last.

[flv width=”432″ height=”260″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCNC Charlotte Salisbury to test fiber-optic cable system 8-24-10.mp4[/flv]

WCNC-TV in Charlotte got Sen. David Hoyle’s remarkable admission that Time Warner Cable wrote the bill he introduced to stop cable competition for North Carolina consumers.  (3 minutes)

Kyle "What Broadband Problem?" McSlarrow

In Kyle McSlarrow’s world, the only broadband problem is the one invented by the Federal Communications Commission when it claims that service is not being deployed to all Americans on a “reasonable and timely” basis.  The head of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA), the cable industry’s lobbying group, has declared today’s broadband a U.S. “success story that keeps getting better.”

Writing in the group’s “CableTechTalk” blog, McSlarrow tells his readers that 95 percent of Americans already have broadband service available to them that meets the 4Mbps minimum speed standard proposed by the FCC, so where is the big problem?

McSlarrow’s interest in the economics of rural broadband is ironic considering the cable industry routinely bypasses rural Americans.  Where cable lines do predominate, meeting the FCC’s anemic 4Mbps minimum speed standard is not the biggest problem — cost is.  Where cable lines don’t reach, speed is an issue for many wireless and DSL subscribers.  For others, broadband service is not available at any price.

McSlarrow plays cable’s advantage on speed issues to promote minimum speeds higher than those sought by phone companies like AT&T and Verizon.  Of course, cable broadband does not rely on antiquated copper wire telephone networks.  In rural areas, many of these networks are held together with minimal investment.  DSL at any speed can be a luxury when available.

McSlarrow’s recognition that most of rural America will continue to be served by telephone companies doesn’t stop the cable industry from seeking an advantage over their nearest competitors by advocating for reduced subsidies for rural areas and policies that guarantee no potential competitor can ever see a dime in government broadband money.

Because the report plainly acknowledges that there is no reasonable business case to be made for extending broadband facilities to many of the unserved homes.  So instead of viewing the report’s finding as an indictment of broadband providers, it’s  perhaps better read as a statement of principle by the Chairman and two commissioners that, in their opinion, broadband already should be universally available, and, if there is no business case for that universal deployment, the government may have to step in to achieve it. So far as that goes, we agree.  For example, we support the report’s call to action on specific items that will speed broadband deployment to unserved communities.  Immediate FCC action on Universal Service Fund (USF) reform and pole attachment policy is critical to connecting unserved areas.

As explained in comments we filed last week, our industry strongly supports the USF reforms recommended in the National Broadband Plan (NBP).  To fund the FCC’s broadband USF proposals, we recommend adopting our proposal – filed in a November 2009 rulemaking petition – to reduce subsidies in rural areas where ample phone competition exists.  The sooner the Commission reduces unnecessary funding in the existing high-cost support program, the sooner it can direct funding to broadband deployment and adoption.

McSlarrow’s comments neglect to tell the whole story about what the NCTA actually wrote in its comments filed with the FCC:

The 4Mbps/1Mbps standard reflects today’s marketplace reality that most consumers choose not to purchase the highest speed tiers that are offered by their broadband provider. By setting a standard based on the services actually purchased by consumers, the Plan strikes the appropriate balance – not so low that it deprives consumers of the ability to purchase a service that meets their needs and not so high that it will require a significant infusion of new government funding.

Second, based on this definition of broadband, the Plan found that the vast majority of Americans – 95% of households – already have access to broadband, and that 80% of those consumers live in geographic areas served by two or more providers. For these areas where broadband has already been deployed, there is no basis for any increase in support; indeed, as NCTA has demonstrated, in many of these areas there is no basis for any high-cost support at all.

Consequently, the only areas that should see an increase in the support they receive are those areas that do not have broadband and qualify for CAF support, i.e., areas where there currently is no business case for private investment in broadband facilities.

In Great Britain, speeds promised don't match speeds delivered. The FCC is studying whether the same is true in the United States.

McSlarrow is disingenuous about Americans’ interest in improved broadband.  It’s not surprising many do not choose the highest speed tiers available from telephone and cable providers when one considers the premium prices charged for that service.  Some NCTA members charge $99 for 50/5Mbps service, which in other countries like Hong Kong sells for a fraction of that price.  One need only consider Google’s plan to deliver 1Gbps service to a handful of American communities.  It’s easier to count the communities that were not interested in this super-fast service.

The cable industry can afford to relent on a 4Mbps minimum speed standard for downloading as virtually all cable broadband providers already offer “standard service” plans well above that rate.  The cable industry’s own “lite” plans, usually 1.5Mbps or less, are not exactly the industry’s most popular.  Americans will choose higher speed service at the right price.

Broadband availability figures have become an important political issue, which is why controlling broadband mapping is so important to cable and phone companies.  Being able to offer that “95 percent of Americans already have access,” a figure in dispute by the way, can make a big difference in the debate.  As Stop the Cap! readers have seen repeatedly, broadband maps that depict broadband service as widely available in many areas actually is not, especially from phone company DSL service, which depends heavily on the quality of the existing infrastructure.

Most importantly, the NCTA seeks a new, even stricter standard for broadband funding under Universal Service Fund reform that would immediately deny money to any applicant that cannot prove there is no chance for any private investment in broadband.  As we’ve seen from broadband improvement applications filed under the Obama Administration’s broadband stimulus program, cable and phone companies routinely object to most proposals, claiming “duplication” of existing broadband service even in areas they have chosen not to provide service.  The NCTA would have us set the bar even lower, allowing any private entity to kill funding projects based solely on their claimed interest in providing the service themselves.

One sensitive spot the FCC did manage to hit was taking providers to task for advertising broadband speeds they don’t actually provide to customers.  While DSL speeds vary based on distance from the telephone company’s central office, cable broadband speeds vary depending on how many customers are online at any particular moment.  The cable industry’s shared access platform can create major bottlenecks in high-use neighborhoods, dramatically reducing speeds for every customer.  While some cable operators are better than others at re-dividing neighborhoods to increase capacity, others won’t spend the money to upgrade an area until service becomes intolerable.  That means consumers sold 10Mbps service may actually find it running at less than half that during evening hours.

A sampling of British cable and telephone company DSL providers, all of which aren't giving their customers what they are paying for.

McSlarrow’s view is there isn’t a problem there either — the FCC is relying on old data:

The key statistics in the report are drawn from Form 477 data for December 2008, data that was out of date when it was released earlier this year and is now 18 months old.  Broadband providers have made two subsequent Form 477 filings (with another one scheduled in a few weeks), so the reliance on stale data is frustrating.

Equally troubling is the Commission’s repetition of the NBP’s claim that “actual” broadband speeds are only half of “advertised” speeds.   After the NBP was released, we submitted an expert technical report demonstrating that the comScore data used was deeply flawed.  Since then, cable and telco ISPs have been working constructively with Commission staff on a hardware-based testing regime that should produce more accurate results.  Given the hard work that has been devoted to produce accurate speed measurements, it is disheartening that the 706 Report chose to perpetuate the NBP’s flawed speed data conclusions.

Finally, some of the data relied on in the 706 Report is not publicly available.  The report relies extensively on a cost model created for the NBP, but that model hasn’t been released, making it impossible to validate its results.  The Commission also repeatedly refers to an FCC staff report on international trends, but that report also has not been released.

The frustration McSlarrow writes about is shared by cable subscribers stuck in overloaded neighborhoods where service does not come close to marketed speeds.  The FCC is conducting an independent speed analysis that goes beyond speedtest data, and the results will be forthcoming.  In other countries where similar speed claims have not met reality, providers were usually found culpable for promising service they didn’t deliver.

Just ask Ofcom, the British regulatory agency charged with addressing this dilemma.  Earlier today they released evidence that 97 percent of UK broadband customers were not actually getting the speeds they were promised, and the gap between marketed speed and actual speed was growing. Will things be any different for American providers who use fine print to disclaim their bold marketing promises about speed?  Time will tell.

Finally, McSlarrow’s concerns about withheld data is ironic enough to call it a “pot to kettle” moment.  As those challenged with broadband mapping can attest, nobody keeps raw data about broadband availability and speeds closer to the vest than cable and telephone companies.

Of course, the ultimate agenda of the NCTA is to defend its industry’s record in broadband service, which means reducing any broadband challenges into little more than whining by Americans who don’t know how good they have it.

This man could be one of five helping to guide the future of your broadband service. Kyle McSlarrow is the head of the cable industry lobby.

Free Press, the pro-consumer advocacy group, spent $42,000 to alert the public the fix was in at the Federal Communications Commission.

The agency has been holding secret meetings with four (now five) contenders in the battle for consumer broadband reform: Verizon, AT&T, Google, and Skype.  The Washington Post reports this morning the lack of cable industry participation we reported last night has apparently not been a problem after all.  The cable industry lobbying group NCTA is also invited.

Consumers aren’t invited.  Neither is the press.

Josh Silver from Free Press:

“It looks like yet another federal agency is catering to big business behind closed doors and ignoring the American public. It’s inexcusable that the FCC is brokering backroom deals with industry lobbyists, while pretending to run a transparent process. After the financial crisis and the oil spill, you would think the Obama administration would have learned a lesson. But we won’t stand by and watch the Internet go the way of Wall Street and the Gulf of Mexico.”

“Despite the chairman’s campaign to be transparent, it’s doing the same things as the previous administration,” added Silver.

A source at the meeting said the sides were far apart on the issues — telecommunications companies oppose Net Neutrality, content producers favor it.  Telecom companies don’t want broadband oversight, some content producers do.