Several million Time Warner Cable and Bright House customers in New York, California, Texas and Florida will lose CBS programming this Wednesday at 5pm if the three companies do not iron out their differences in contract renewal negotiations.

CBS and Time Warner Cable have taken their fight public over retransmission consent talks that have left the two sides far apart. The cable operators say CBS has gotten greedy asking for as much as 600 percent more than what the cable companies paid under the old agreement that expired in June. CBS says the fact its stations have never been thrown off cable systems before is proof that their terms are reasonable.

Cable analysts say CBS’ old agreement cost the two cable operators between 75 cents and one dollar a month per subscriber. Most believe CBS is now asking for between $1-2 a month per subscriber to renew the agreement.

CBS wants to be paid at levels comparable to the most popular cable networks and believes the fact the network is now number one in the ratings delivers negotiating power. CBS has not made its aggressive position on carriage fees a secret. Executives have told investors it plans to quadruple cable and satellite fees over the next four years with a goal to raise an extra $1 billion. Wall Street analysts have recommended the stock to investors and its value has risen at least 65% in the past year.

But Time Warner Cable spokeswoman Maureen Huff believes CBS is asking for too much.

“Broadcasters have already hit customers with 84 broadcaster blackouts in the past 18 months,” Huff said in a statement. “Les Moonves, president and CEO of CBS, has always been outspoken about the programming fees he believes he deserves. He has said ‘the sky is the limit’ when talking about the price he thinks he deserves for his CBS stations, and he clearly means it. He doesn’t seem to care about our customers’ budgets or the going rates for CBS programming.”

But critics contend Time Warner Cable does not come to the table with clean hands on the issue of expensive carriage fees. Time Warner Cable seemed less concerned about the skyrocketing costs of cable programming when it set high asking prices for TWC-owned regional sports networks SportsNet and TWC Deportes.

CBS says it deserves at least as much as what Time Warner Cable pays Time Warner Entertainment’s TNT, which reportedly charges at least $1 a subscriber.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBS Time Warner Cable Customers about to lose CBS 7-20-13.mp4[/flv]

CBS is now running this ad in New York City warning Time Warner Cable customers they are about to lose WCBS-TV, the local CBS affiliate.  (1 minute)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Time Warner Cable CBS Outrageous Fees 7-20-13.mp4[/flv]

Not so fast, says Time Warner Cable. CBS wants 600% more for WCBS, driving up the price customers pay for cable television. (1 minute)

If no agreement is reached, CBS expects customers will lose access to its network-0wned affiliates starting at 5pm Wednesday afternoon. Although most media reports are focused on the fact CBS stations in New York, Los Angeles, and Dallas are affected, not all are CBS affiliates. In fact, customers in a few other cities will also find their CBS-owned stations dropped:

• New York: WCBS (TWC)
• Los Angeles: KCBS, KCAL (TWC)
• Dallas-Ft. Worth: KTVT, KTXA (TWC)
• St. Petersburg-Tampa: WTOG (Bright House)
• Riverhead (Long Island): WLNY (TWC)

Some Bright House customers are also affected by dispute.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Time Warner Cable and Bright House would also drop Showtime from lineups across the country in a retaliatory move, but this was not confirmed by either cable company.

Station owners are seeking higher retransmission consent payments from cable and satellite operators to establish additional sources of revenue. Pay television customers ultimately foot the bill with higher priced cable television service. As prices rise, pay television operators increasingly worry customers will either defect to a competitor or cut the cable television cord for good. Some operators are adopting a tougher stance, willing to drop stations from the lineup.

Most station owners believe the larger number of stations they own or control, the less likely a cable operator will actually throw a station off the lineup. This month, Wisconsin-based Journal Broadcast Group is threatened with the loss of nearly half of its 15 television stations on Time Warner Cable systems in Wisconsin, Nebraska, and California:

• WTMJ Milwaukee
• KMTV Omaha
• WGBA Green Bay/Appleton, Wisc.
• WACY Green Bay/Appleton, Wisc.
• KMIR Palm Springs, Calif.
• KPSE Palm Springs, Calif.

Bigger is better

Some stations have been off the lineup since July 10 in some markets, with digital sub-channels first removed by Time Warner Cable in a warning shot in others.

Larger station owners like Sinclair Broadcast Group have felt less threatened. The more stations under negotiation, the more leverage station owners have in contract renewal talks.

Sinclair is further boosting its position in the local TV station business, spending almost $2 billion in the last 18 months buying 81 more television stations.

Sinclair owns and operates, programs or provides advertising sales services to 140 television stations in 72 markets nationwide. They are a force to be reckoned with. Despite angry words over the station owner’s asking price, both Dish Networks and DirecTV renewed their carriage agreements with Sinclair without disrupting viewing.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSJ Retransmission Dispute TWC CBS 7-20-13.flv[/flv]

The Wall Street Journal’s “Moneybeat” looks into the retransmission dispute between CBS and Time Warner Cable and what impact it may have on viewers. (5 minutes)

Phillip “It worked for Qwest so why not community broadband” Dampier

While doing research on another story, I recently uncovered a fascinating legal case that set an important precedent on whether it is right for a community to hold a referendum before authorizing a new telecommunications provider to offer service in a community.

Opponents of community-owned broadband networks routinely claim such services are “undemocratic” because they can exist without the majority support of the community they propose to serve. In 2001, Qwest (now CenturyLink) ran into just such a “majority-rules” provision in Boulder, Colo. that companies like AT&T and Time Warner Cable advocate should be a law everywhere.

A provision in Boulder’s Charter required that voters in a municipal election approve any cable franchise before it was granted by the city. Wishing to avoid the cost of such an election, Qwest sued the City of Boulder and asked for summary judgment to declare the policy unlawful. Chief Judge Lewis Babcock found Qwest’s argument compelling enough to invalidate the city’s mandatory referendum provision.

Qwest argues that the language in [U.S. Federal Law] 47 U.S.C. § 541 regulating franchising authorities is in direct conflict with [Boulder’s] § 108’s mandatory election provision. I agree.

First, the Act provides guidance to, and restrictions on, “franchising authorities.” Section 541’s requirements are directed toward franchising authorities. See 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1), (3), (4). Under the statute, a “franchise” is “an initial authorization, or renewal thereof,” issued by a franchising authority to construct or operate a cable system. 47 U.S.C. § 522(9). A “`franchising authority’ means any governmental entity empowered by Federal, State, or local law to grant a franchise.” 47 U.S.C. § 522(10) (emphasis added).

Here, Qwest approached City officials to seek franchise approval. The City granted a revocable permit to Qwest, and agreed to “grant a cable television franchise authorizing [Qwest] to provide cable television service within the City for a term of years” once an affirmative vote by the qualified taxpaying voters occurred. There is no evidence that the City negotiated the franchise in any manner, or put any additional restrictions or caveats on the franchise beyond voter approval. City officials follow the will of the voters with no additional scrutiny or decision-making. Thus, the City has abdicated franchising authority to the City’s voting citizens. These voters cannot, by the plain terms of the statute, be a “governmental entity empowered by Federal, State, or local law to grant a franchise.” 47 U.S.C. § 522(10). Therefore, direct conflict between the federal and local laws exist, as it is impossible for the franchise to be granted by a governmental entity as required by the Act, and simultaneously granted by the voters as required in § 108.

Second, § 541 imposes numerous and specific requirements on franchising authorities. The statute forbids exclusive franchises, see § 541(a)(1); unreasonable refusals to award additional competitive franchises, see id. at (a)(1); requirements that have the purpose or effect of prohibiting, limiting, restricting, or conditioning the provision of a telecommunications service by a cable operator, see id. at (b)(3)(B); ordering a cable operator or affiliate thereof to discontinue the provision of a telecommunications service, discontinuing the operation of a cable system by reason of the failure of a cable operator to obtain a franchise or franchise renewal, see id. at (b)(3)(C)(i)-(ii); or requiring a cable operator to provide any telecommunications service or facilities as a condition of the initial grant of a franchise. See Id. at (b)(3)(D).

A franchising authority has affirmative requirements as well. It must assure that access to cable service is not denied to any group of potential residential cable subscribers because of the income of the residents of the local area in which such group resides, see id. at (a)(3); and allow the applicant’s cable system a reasonable period of time to become capable of providing cable service to all households in the franchise area, see id. at (a)(4)(A).

However, by allowing voters unfettered and unreviewed discretion to grant or reject a franchise, § 108 is in conflict with virtually every provision in § 541. Because only WOWC has received a franchise, voters could effectively grant WOWC an exclusive franchise simply by refusing to vote affirmatively for a second operator. See id. at (a)(1). Voters could unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise, as they could deny a franchise for any reason or for no reason. See id. Qwest correctly argues that § 108 “provides voters with the unfettered and unreviewable discretion either to grant or deny a cable television franchise for any reason, or for no reason at all.”

In brief, the judge found cable franchises are granted or denied at the municipal level by local government, not through referendums. The City of Boulder was effectively abdicating its responsibility under federal law to manage the franchising process itself. There is no provision in federal law that allows citizens to directly vote a cable franchise agreement up or down, although voters can use the ballot box to remove local officials who do not represent the will of the majority.

More importantly, the judge recognized that turning the process over to local citizenry could unintentionally hand an incumbent provider a monopoly just by voting down any would-be competitor. Why would local citizens oppose competition? As we’ve seen in the fight for community broadband, incumbent providers will spend millions to keep would-be competitors out with a variety of scare tactics and propaganda. Providers have suggested community networks are guaranteed financial failures, will result in yards being torn up to install service, might result in local job losses, and will raise taxes whether residents want the service or not.

Judge Babcock also found that laws that could limit effective competition to incumbent cable companies are in direct conflict with the 1992 federal Cable Act:

The legislative history clearly supports the proposition that Congress was focused on fostering competition when passing the 1992 Act. The Senate Report regarding the Act states, “[I]t is clear that there are benefits from competition between two cable systems. Thus, the Committee believes that local franchising authorities should be encouraged to award second franchises.”

[…] Given the clear intent of Congress to employ § 541 as a vehicle for promoting vigorous competition, I conclude that § 108 is in conflict. Section 108 serves only to provide a significant hindrance to the competition that Congress clearly intended to foster. It forces the potential franchiser to spend money, time, advertising, and logistical support on an election. Thus, § 108 “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.”

Perhaps the time has come to raise similar challenges in states where legislatures have passed community broadband bans or placed various impediments on providing service. If Qwest can successfully argue that such rules are designed to limit competition, local communities can certainly argue the panoply of anti-competition laws that were written by and for incumbent cable and phone companies deserve the same scrutiny.

Referendums are an inappropriate way to approve the entry of new competitors.

Cox Communications has found a new way to target cord-cutters and sell television service to its broadband-only customers reluctant to sign up for traditional cable television.

flareWatch is a new IPTV service delivered over Cox’s broadband service. For $34.99 a month, customers participating in a market trial in Orange County, Calif. receive 97 channels.  About one-third are local over the air stations from the Los Angeles area, one-third top cable networks, and the rest a mixture of ethnic, home shopping, and public service networks. Expensive sports channels like ESPN are included, but most secondary cable networks typically found only on digital tiers are not. Premium movie channels like HBO are also not available.

The service is powered by Fanhattan’s IPTV set-top box. Cox offers up to three “Fan TV” devices to customers for $99.99 each.

flareWatch’s channel lineup in Orange County, Calif.

The service is only sold to customers with Preferred tier (or higher) broadband service and is being marketed to customers who have already turned down Cox cable television.

What Cox reserves for the fine print is an admission the use of the service counts against your monthly broadband usage allowance. Preferred customers are now capped at 250GB of usage per month. While occasional viewing may not put many customers over Cox’s usage caps, forgetting to switch off the Fan TV set-top box(es) when done watching certainly might. flareWatch also includes another usage eater — a cloud-based DVR service. Cox does not strictly enforce its usage caps and does not currently impose any overlimit fees, but could do so in the future.

[flv width=”480″ height=”292″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Cox FlareWatch 7-13.mp4[/flv]

Cox’s brief promotional video introducing flareWatch. (1 minute)

Cool… usage capped.

Cox spokesman Todd Smith described the introduction of flareWatch as a “small trial,” and that “customer feedback will determine if we proceed with future plans.”

The service is clearly intended to target young adults that are turning down traditional cable television packages. Most of those are avid broadband subscribers, so introducing a “lite” cable television package could be a way Cox can boost the average revenue received from this type of customer. It may also serve as a retention tool when customers call to disconnect cable television service.

The MSO is selling flareWatch at five Cox Solutions stores in Irvine, Lake Forest, Rancho Santa Margarita, and Laguna Niguel.

Customers (and those who might be) can share their thoughts with Cox about flareWatch by e-mailing [email protected] and/or [email protected]. Stop the Cap! encourages readers to tell Cox to ditch its usage cap, and point out the current cap on your Cox broadband usage is a great reason not to even consider the service.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/The Verge Fan TV revealed is this the set-top box weve been waiting for 5-30-13.flv[/flv]

The Verge got a closer look at the technology powering flareWatch back in May. Fan TV could be among the first set-top boxes to achieve “cool” status. Unfortunately, technical innovation collides with old school cable company usage caps, which might deter a lot of Cox’s broadband customers from using the service.  (4 minutes)

Comcast: Get a box or lose your cable TV service

Comcast will encrypt the entire lineup of its cable television service, including local channels, starting with two markets in New England and gradually rolling out this summer across all of Comcast’s service areas.

The encryption will obsolete cable reception of QAM signals, which some cable customers use to avoid paying for set-top equipment.

Comcast called FCC approval of its encryption request a victory for consumers because it will “allow us to automate certain system functions and will reduce the need for scheduled in-home appointments, providing greater convenience for our customers.” Comcast also candidly said it will dramatically reduce signal theft and unauthorized viewing by past due customers, which can now be shut off from the cable office instead of dispatching technicians to the home to disconnect service.

Consumer and Comcast customer Brier Dudley begs to differ. In two columns in the Seattle Times, Dudley writes Comcast is tightening the screws on its customers, forcing them to get unwanted equipment that will eventually cost them monthly rental fees set “at market rates.”

Comcast began requiring digital adapters to unscramble digital signals in 2009. Since then, it steadily has been converting more of its system to digital, scrambling more channels and expanding the requirement to use some kind of a cable box or adapter on every TV.

This requirement received the FCC’s blessing last year. The agency agreed to let cable companies scramble all of their channels and require descramblers on every set.

The FCC’s justification was muddled. Scrambling would purportedly prevent stealing content, though the FCC requires conventional television broadcasters to beam their shows freely over the air.

The FCC also made a tortured environmental argument for the move, saying the mandatory adapters allowed cable companies to remotely activate and deactivate service, reducing service calls and their carbon footprint.

Unmentioned is the environmental effect of factories in China making adapters that must be delivered, attached to every TV and continuously plugged in.

Comcast is attempting to mitigate customer anger about the necessary new equipment, offering free boxes for a limited time. But customers might need a road map to find what they qualify for without having to pay an even higher cable bill:

Limited Basic customers with no set top boxes in their homes will be eligible for up to two DTAs (standard definition digital signal adapters), at no charge for two years (five years if you also receive Medicaid), if they request DTAs beginning 30 days before the date of encryption and no longer than 120 days after encryption. New customers, customers who already have DTA devices or those who request them after the offer period will likely be subject to rental fees much sooner, if not immediately;

Customers who subscribe to a higher level of service and receive Limited Basic service on a secondary TV without Comcast supplied equipment are eligible for one device at no charge for one year;

All other customers are subject to Comcast’s new $1.99 per month “additional outlet service charge” for each outlet registered to a DTA. In Seattle, customers who want to watch local channels in HD have to fork over another $2.50 a month for a special HD version of Comcast’s DTA box.

What if you don’t want the extra equipment and return it? Comcast will automatically cancel your cable TV service.

“Customers who do not have digital equipment on their account will not be able to view any channels after Limited Basic channels are encrypted. For this reason, XFINITY TV service will be removed from the account,” warns Comcast. “This may affect multi-product package rates or discounts.”

The encryption will also cripple third-party set-top devices like older versions of Boxee (not compatible with Comcast’s DTA) and TiVo, which will now need a mind-numbing, complicated workaround to keep operating.

Comcast customers will receive written notification as the company gets ready to encrypt service in each area.

Esteves

Time Warner Cable is spending less to maintain and improve services for residential customers even as broadband usage grew 40-50 percent, redirecting spending on its business services division instead.

Irene Esteves, chief financial officer of Time Warner Cable, told attendees at Morgan Stanley’s Technology, Media & Telecom Conference that the growth in the company’s capital spending is associated with serving business, not residential customers.

Esteves reported that spending on residential services was actually down slightly in the last year. The business services division used its increased capital to wire 100,000 office buildings and provisioned 1,900 cell towers with backhaul service last year.

But despite decreasing costs, Time Warner Cable expects to continue increasing broadband prices, primarily because it can.

“What we have found is […] as customers use it more, value it more, we can then price it more,” said Esteves. “And we think that’s a terrific dynamic for the market for quite a bit of time.”

Powering usage growth more than anything else is online video.

“If we look at peak volume, which is really what drives our capacity planning, 66% of that increase comes from streaming video,” notes Esteves. “Again, the more they use it, the more they love it, the more important we become to them as a service provider. So we’re continuing to watch that usage pattern and cheering them on.”

For traditional television viewing, Time Warner’s march to digital will also carry on, but it will happen slowly.

Time Warner Cable has chosen a gradual transition to IP video for cable television service. Subscribers can expect about a dozen channels per year to be removed from analog service until the cable system offers a completely digital television package. In Maine and New York City, that digital transition is already complete.

“We’re taking a more measured approach over a 5-year time period,” said Esteves. “We’re taking [away] analog channels in the 10 to 12 per year kind of measure, which is less disruptive to our customers and less capital-intensive.”

That kind of transition, coupled with annual rate increases, could potentially alienate customers, but Time Warner has retrained its retention specialists to assuage customers headed for the door.

“With the increasing promotional activity in the marketplace, we have more and more of our customers on promotion and it’s imperative that when the [promotion expires], we’re being very thoughtful about who rolls off to what, when,” said Esteves. “We’re training specialists to talk to customers, listen to them, find out the reasons for potentially leaving and recapturing those.”

But the industry is also under pressure from Wall Street to cut promotional activity and stop discounting service excessively, because it gets customers used to a lower price.

“If you think about the promotional prices in the marketplace, that really drives people to price shop and that just increases the transactions and the turmoil in the industry, which increases everyone’s cost and reduces everyone’s profitability,” Esteves said. “So the real conundrum for the entire industry is how do we each build on our retention rather than build on the promotional side in order to keep our customers and become more profitable.”