Comcast has been a part of life in Muskegon, Mich. for decades, thanks in part to an unusually long 25-year franchise agreement signed when President Reagan was serving his last year in office. In 1988, the Berlin Wall was still in place, Mikhail Gorbachev formally implemented glasnost and perestroika, Snapple appeared on store shelves nationwide, and compact discs finally outsold vinyl records for the first time.

All good things must come to an end and Comcast’s contract to serve will finally expire Aug. 2. City officials want residents to understand that after two plus decades, it is appropriate to take some time to consider all the options. But a 2007 law has cut that time of reflection down to a month, and removed most of the powers Michigan communities used to have to select the best cable operator for their community. It’s a fact of life Comcast is well aware of, and it underlined that point by tossing a carelessly written, pro forma/fait accompli franchise renewal proposal into the mail that left Muskegon’s civic leaders cold. But if they fail to act fast, Comcast will win automatic approval of whatever it proposes to offer the 38,000 residents of the western Michigan city for years to come.

Statewide Video Franchising in Michigan

In December 2006, primarily at the behest of AT&T, the Michigan legislature passed a new statute that would create a uniform, statewide video franchise agreement template that providers could use to apply for or renew their franchises to operate. In theory, establishing a uniform, simplified franchise application would lead AT&T to quickly wire Michigan with U-verse, its competing cable/broadband/phone service, and bring dramatically lower prices for cable service and fewer complaints because of greater competition.

The Uniform Video Services Local Franchise Act was remarkably similar to those passed in more than a dozen other states — no mistake considering it was based largely on an AT&T-written draft distributed and promoted by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an AT&T-backed third-party group that encourages state legislatures to enact corporate-ghostwritten bills into law.

Under the new law, much of the power reserved by local officials to approve cable franchises and enforce good customer service was stripped away and handed to the state’s Public Service Commission. The deregulation measure tipped the balance of power in providers’ favor, making it possible to do business on their terms, not those sought by community leaders. Among the law’s provisions:

1. Communities are still bound by the terms of their existing franchise agreements, but providers can break the legacy contracts for any reason, forcing a new agreement under the new statewide franchise law. If a provider wants out, they can abandon the community or transfer operations to a new provider with 15 days advance notice and no prior approval.
2. A franchise renewal proposal will be automatically approved if a city does not reject it within 30 days.
3. Communities cannot unreasonably restrict providers from access to public rights-of-way, an important consideration for AT&T’s U-verse, which requires the placement of large, sometimes noisy utility cabinets (a/k/a “lawn refrigerators”) to connect its fiber network with residential copper wiring.
4. Communities are limited to collecting up to 5% of video revenue in franchise fees and up to 2% to support Public, Educational, and Government (PEG) channels. In the past, some communities asked cable operators to wire schools, libraries, and local government offices at no cost, and several negotiated other forms of support for PEG channels, which allow local citizens to view town board meetings and create and distribute locally produced programming. Today, those agreements are only possible on a voluntary basis, without any threat if a provider refuses, they will get their franchise request rejected.
5. Providers are no longer obligated to honor agreements setting timetables to wire communities. Instead, they can handpick areas to be served, except in cases where racial or income discrimination can be proven.

Since the law was clearly designed to help new entrants like AT&T’s U-verse and Verizon FiOS, Michigan’s incumbent cable companies either demanded the same rights, remained neutral, or halfheartedly protested the proposed law suggesting it unfairly benefited new competitors. Cable companies, for example, would not benefit from laws throwing out buildout requirements because their networks are already largely complete.

But once signed into law, cable operators did begin asking cities to voluntarily adopt the new uniform statewide video franchise. Muskegon joined most other Michigan cities in declining the invitation.

AT&T did begin wiring Michigan for U-verse service, although there is no evidence it would not have done so had the Act never been signed into law. But that has not helped Muskegon, because the dominant phone company in the area is Frontier Communications. Frontier has so far shown no interest in building a competing cable TV service, so the only competition residents get are from two satellite companies.

City of Detroit v. State of Michigan and Comcast

Soon after the statewide franchise law was passed, Comcast notified the city of Detroit it could take the proposed renewal of its existing 1985 franchise agreement and go pound salt. The franchise agreement with the city expired in February 2007, just a month after the new law took effect. It was a new day, Comcast told city officials, and the company offered its own proposal for renewal — a 5% take-it-or-leave-it franchise fee and nothing else. Comcast even rejected the city’s counteroffer to include a 2% PEG fee, permitted under the new law.

Franchise negotiations went nowhere, but Comcast had nothing to fear. The city did not properly reject their franchise renewal offer so, as far as the company was concerned, it automatically won a franchise renewal.

The city sued both Comcast and the State of Michigan in the summer of 2010 alleging the statewide law violated the federal Cable Act, usurped local “home rule” authority, and that Comcast was illegally trespassing in the city without a franchise agreement. The Michigan Attorney General took Comcast’s side, defended the state law, and helped the cable company argue its case in court.

Comcast did not want the case heard and asked for its immediate dismissal, which was rejected.

In the summer of 2012, the judge split the decision between the city and Comcast. The judge found that Comcast had probably been operating illegally in Detroit since 2007 and owes the city damages. The judge also found parts of the state law troubling enough to invalidate. In particular, he emphasized cities do have a clear right to reject franchise proposals offered by cable operators and that in many cases those operators must adhere to their existing franchise agreements until they expire. Cities also have the right to protect and manage their rights-of-way, ending the perception cable and phone companies have the right to place hardware almost at-will in public areas.

Comcast wants to avoid paying Detroit damages for potentially operating illegally without a valid franchise.

The judge found nothing inherently faulty with the concept of statewide video franchising, nor did he rule that providers are required to serve everyone in a geographic area or that cities are allowed to enforce local customer service standards.

The impact of the statewide law, even after the judge’s ruling, still erodes local control. As pre-2007 franchise agreements expire, it is highly unlikely cable operators will continue to offer free service to municipal buildings, will not accept requirements to provide “universal service” or even language requiring wiring of every home that meets a “homes per mile” test. Some cable operators are even closing local customer service centers that used to be required in many franchise agreements.

Comcast did not appreciate the court ruling, sought to have it set aside, and failed. Now the Court of Appeals will likely weigh in on the case by the end of this year. Comcast is particularly concerned about the prospect of paying damages to the city of Detroit for illegally operating without a valid franchise. The judge hearing the case considered that a very real possibility and requested submissions from all parties about how much Comcast should pay the city.

Muskegon officials cited the judge’s rulings in the Detroit case in their letter rejecting Comcast’s proposed renewal agreement. The city wants to renegotiate certain terms regarding its PEG channels, still wants complimentary service to public buildings, and requests cable service be extended to the Hartshorn Marina.

Six Years Later, Cable Rates and Complaints Still Rising, the Competition is Fleeting, and Many Believe the Law Has Achieved Nothing

The Michigan Public Service Commission is tasked with reporting annually to the legislature and the public about the impact of the AT&T-sponsored law. The PSC’s broad conclusion is that the new law is working:

Increases in subscribers as well as the emergence of another video/cable provider are positive signs for the video services industry in the state of Michigan. Both franchise entities and providers have continued to report that video/cable competition is continuing to grow. Growth in competition has been observed each year since the Commission began issuing this report. In addition to the increase in competitive providers, companies continued to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into the Michigan video/cable market in 2012.

As the Act enters its seventh year of existence, signs of progress and competition continue to be evident. It appears that both franchise entities and providers perceive that providers are offering more services to customers. In addition, more areas throughout Michigan are beginning to have a choice of video/cable service providers.

But in the same report, the PSC admits the overwhelming consensus among those in individual communities is the law has made little to no difference in competition or pricing. For example, every provider has continued to raise their rates, particularly after promotional new customer packages expire. Much of the savings calculated in Michigan took introductory prices into account, such as when AT&T U-verse entered a market. After 1-2 years, those savings evaporate. AT&T has increased its pricing just as often as dominant cable providers Comcast and Charter.

The PSC touts that 15 new competitors have begun offering service in Michigan since the law was enacted. But besides AT&T’s U-verse., the majority of those new entrants are municipal telephone companies, small/family owned rural cable companies, or providers that specialize in serving only apartment complexes or condos. All but AT&T serve only tiny areas in Michigan and most have customers that number only in the hundreds to low-thousands.

Michigan’s New Competitors

• Ace Telephone Company of Michigan Inc.
• AT&T (U-verse)
• Bloomingdale Communications, Inc.
• Drenthe Telephone
• Martell Cable Service Inc.
• Mediagate Digital
• Michigan Cable Partners (MICOM Cable)
• Packerland Broadband
• Sister Lakes Cable TV
• Southwest Michigan Communications Inc.
• Spectrum Broadband
• Summit Digital
• Sunrise Communications LLC
• Vogtmann Engineering
• Waldron Communication Company

How many new Michigan customers has this competition netted since 2011? 2,116

The overwhelming majority of Michigan communities still have just one cable operator and no competitor. AT&T U-verse accounts for almost all the communities reporting a second provider.

Complaints have also been higher every year the statewide franchise law has been in effect. In 2007, there were 615 formal complaints made to the PSC. Every year thereafter, the number of complaints exceed 2007 levels, ranging from 757 in 2011 to 1,074 in 2010. Comcast is by far the worst offender — 51 percent. AT&T and Charter had a smaller percentage of complaints, 15 and 14 percent respectively. The majority of complaints among all providers deal with billing issues.

Since the new law took effect, many communities have felt so disempowered, they stopped reporting local complaints to the PSC. But among those who have, the story is the same in states without statewide franchise laws:

• System updates not completed as promised. Large numbers (of residents) have gone to satellite;
• Upgrades needed to allow for better reception and channel selection;
• There are two providers in our area, yet little increase in competition;
• Cost to extend service to reach potential customers affects competition;
• Cable provider left when switching from analog to digital, stating not enough customers to afford the changeover. Now only satellite is available;
• No broadband/high-speed Internet service in many townships;
• No phone, cable service available;
• Michigan has totally failed bringing affordable Internet service to this community, and has prevented our township government from providing the needed services.

The perceived impact of the 2007 law isn’t so great either:

• Communities lost in-kind and other services from the incumbent provider;
• Cable rates continue to increase;
• Zero value added and has eroded local control of franchising;
• Customers have a choice now, but rates are still higher;
• Providers simply poach competitor’s customers as evidenced by flat franchise revenue; as one increases the other decreases;
• This statute has proven to accomplish literally nothing for municipalities and only serves to benefit providers;
• The Act did nothing to improve service.

Comcast’s discounted Internet service for the poor forces customers to jump through hoops to get the service and considers protecting revenue from existing customers more important than expanding the service to reach those who need it most.

Those are the views of John Randall, program manager at the Roosevelt Institute/Telecommunications Equity Project.

For $9.95 a month, those that can meet some complicated eligibility requirements and prove they are not existing Comcast customers are qualified for 3Mbps broadband service with a 768kbps upload rate. It represents a $30 savings off Comcast’s regular price — a considerable amount of revenue that Comcast is effectively forfeiting for the benefit of poor families who live in Comcast’s footprint.

Except Comcast isn’t actually “out” that much at all, argues Randall.

Of the 2.6 million households eligible for Internet Essentials from Comcast, only 150,000 have taken Comcast up on their offer. That represents only 5.8 percent of those eligible. In Comcast’s hometown — Philadelphia — there are just 3,250 families hooked up, which represents only 3.3 percent of those eligible.

Randall calls the program ineffective and says the onerous requirements to qualify (and re-qualify) are such a hassle, few families bother. What is worse, those families already sacrificing something else in their lives to get broadband service for the benefit of their school-age children are punished for their noble efforts — they are completely ineligible for Internet Essentials regardless of income or need because they are existing customers. Randall argues Comcast carefully constructed the program more as a public (and government) relations exercise than a charitable endeavor. Comcast zealously protects its existing revenues from being cannibalized by customers switching to the discount plan.

Some might argue that Comcast is managing the program with costs in mind, but Randall dismisses that as nonsense.

“Within its footprint (which spans 50 million households in 39 states– 45 percent of the US population), the cost for Comcast to connect additional households is vanishingly low,” says Randall. “With no additional network build needed, Internet Essentials represents almost pure profit for Comcast.”

Randall claims Comcast’s gross profit margin on its broadband service is around 95 percent where the network has already been built. At that rate, Comcast’s cheap Internet still delivers almost $18 million in additional income, and there is a promise of much more as soon as a customer defaults on a bill, misses a qualification deadline, or their children graduate. When any of these occur, Comcast will reset customers to regular rates.

“While most observers might assume that the program is an act of corporate generosity, it was originally conceived in the fall of 2009 as a way to turn a profit by offering slower connections to certain low-income households,” said Randall.

“These plans were temporarily tabled at the direction of Comcast lobbyist David Cohen, who knew that this type of program would be attractive to the FCC and thus useful as a bargaining chip. When the time came for negotiations over Comcast’s $13.75 billion takeover of NBC Universal, Comcast was able to offer something it was planning on doing anyway. In the end, the FCC was able to claim credit for forcing Comcast to implement a program to combat the digital divide, while in reality no arm-twisting was needed,” he added.

One of the biggest challenges of America’s digital divide is making affordable Internet access available. Cable companies in particular are prepared to wring even more money from their Internet customers in the form of higher prices, new and increasing equipment rental fees, and consumption billing schemes that charge more for less service.

But that isn’t the story elected officials receive from Congress.

The potential public relations benefits far outweigh any costs to offer the service. Randall notes Comcast had delivered the Internet Essentials message to over 100 members of Congress and more than 2,000 state and local officials. To broaden its outreach effort, Comcast also engaged leading intergovernmental associations at the state and local level such as the National Governors Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, U.S. Conference of Mayors, and various other organizations of elected officials. On top of that, Comcast says that the impressions generated by media coverage of Internet Essentials launch events earned it “millions of dollars” worth of media.

What message don’t these public officials hear?

America is subjected to local broadband monopolies and duopolies that guarantee the lack of competition for high-speed Internet access.

“It earns Comcast good press while distracting regulators and public officials into thinking that changes in policy aren’t needed and that digital divide problems will somehow work themselves out on their own as a result of corporate generosity. In the long run, Comcast Internet Essentials will do no more than contribute to the delay of much-needed regulation,” concludes Randall.

Netflix kicks off the summer rating the streaming video performance of some of America’s largest ISPs, and the results deliver only a few surprises.

Google Fiber is the runaway leader, but Verizon FiOS — also a fiber-based network — is lagging behind several cable operators, notably Charter Cable and Suddenlink.

In mid-June, GigaOM reported Verizon was engaged in a battle with Cogent — a bandwidth provider Netflix depends on to help it reach Verizon customers.

Cogent promptly blamed Verizon for the slowdown:

Cogent and Verizon peer to each other at about ten locations and they exchange traffic through several ports. These ports typically send and receive data at speeds of around 10 gigabit per second. When the ports start to fill up (usually at 50 percent of their capacity), the internet companies add more ports. In this case, through, Verizon is allowing the ports that connect to Cogent to get crammed. ”They are allowing the peer connections to degrade,” said Dave Schaeffer, chief executive officer of Cogent said in an interview. “Today some of the ports are at 100 percent capacity.”

“Think of it as the on-ramp to the freeway being log-jammed,” Schaeffer said. And that means your Netflix content, especially content sent by Netflix’s content delivery network, slows down, and you get pixelated pictures and buffering.

Verizon just as quickly shot back at GigaOm and Cogent:

Cogent is not compliant with one of the basic and long-standing requirements for most settlement-free peering arrangements: that traffic between the providers be roughly in balance. When the traffic loads are not symmetric, the provider with the heavier load typically pays the other for transit (see our ex parte filing [PDF] from the 2010 Comcast/Level 3 spat for more info on peering and transit agreements). This isn’t a story about Netflix, or about Verizon “letting” anybody’s traffic deteriorate. This is a fairly boring story about a bandwidth provider that is unhappy that they are out of balance and will have to make alternative arrangements for capacity enhancements, just like any other interconnecting ISP.

Customers don’t care. They just know their efforts to watch Arrested Development are being stymied, and Netflix’s June ISP results illustrate the degraded performance customers are getting.

Cablevision, the top performing cable operator, can likely thank its recent investments in network upgrades for improved performance, not its participation in Netflix’s OpenConnect Content Delivery Network, designed to improve streaming performance for participating ISPs. Cablevision is a member, but so are Frontier Communications (#14) and Clearwire (#17 and dead last).

OpenConnect couldn’t help Frontier DSL or Clearwire wireless customers achieve good results — the technology in use and the upstream connections both companies maintain with the Internet backbone mattered much more.

In general, fiber performs best when everyone is getting along, cable comes in second, DSL third, and wireless last.

But if you want the best performance possible, and Google Fiber is not in your neighborhood, your best bet is to move to Sweden, where the top-six providers all outperformed every American cable, DSL, and wireless provider. In Finland, the top-four beat everyone but Google Fiber. The nine best-rated ISPs in Denmark also outclassed their American counterparts, while in Norway a half-dozen providers did better.

But many ISPs in the United States can still be proud: the top eight beat Mexico. Mediacom, AT&T U-verse & DSL, Bright House, CenturyLink, Windstream, Frontier, Verizon DSL and Clearwire have some work to do… if they want to keep up with those speed mavens in Guadalajara.

Time Warner Cable won’t engage in an expensive bidding war for ownership of Hulu so it is trying to convince the online video venture’s current owners not to sell.

Sources tell Bloomberg News the cable company has offered to buy a minority stake in the online video streaming service alongside its current owners, which include Comcast-NBC, Fox Broadcasting, and Walt Disney-ABC.

If Hulu accepted the offer, the other bidders’ offers may not even be entertained.

Among those filing binding bids/proposals with Hulu as of the July 5 deadline:

• DirecTV, which reportedly wants to convert Hulu into an online companion to its satellite dish service for the benefit of its satellite subscribers;
• AT&T and investment firm Chernin Group, which submitted a  joint bid, presumably to beef up online video options for U-verse customers.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Plot Thickens in Bidding War for Hulu 7-9-13.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News discusses how the various bidders for Hulu would adapt the service for their own purposes. It’s all about bulking up online video offerings.  (4 minutes)

Hulu’s new owners could continue to offer the service much the same way it is provided today, with a free and pay version. But most expect the new owners will throw up a programming “pay wall,” requiring users to authenticate themselves as a pay television customer before they can watch Hulu programming. If Time Warner Cable acquired a minority interest and the current owners stayed in place, Time Warner Cable TV customers could benefit from free access to certain premium Hulu content, now sold to others for $8 a month. That premium content would presumably be available to U-verse customers if AT&T emerges the top bidder, or DirecTV could offer Hulu to satellite subscribers to better compete with cable companies’ on-demand offerings.

Hulu’s influence will be shifted away from broadcast networks and more towards pay television platforms regardless of who wins the bidding. That could end up harming the major television networks that provide Hulu’s most popular content. Many of Hulu’s viewers are cord-cutters who do not subscribe to cable or satellite television. Placing Hulu’s programming off-limits to non-paying customers could force a return to pirating shows from peer-to-peer networks or third-party, unauthorized website viewing.

Online video rights are so important to cable operators and upstarts like Intel, which wants to launch its own online cable-TV like service, providers are willing to pay a premium for streaming rights.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Why Hulu Is Attracting Billion Dollar Bids 7-8-13.flv[/flv]

Richard Greenfield, analyst at BTIG, and Scott Galloway, chairman and founder of Firebrand Partners, discuss Hulu and the ability to stream on multiple platforms. They speak on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg Surveillance.” (4 minutes)

The Los Angeles Times reports that pay TV distributors are in a rush to make deals, not only to offer more viewing options for customers, but to potentially get rid of expensive and cumbersome set-top boxes.

Interlopers like Intel, Apple, and Google who want to break into the business have not had an easy time dealing with programmers afraid of alienating their biggest customers. Even DirecTV, which has done business with some of the largest cable networks in the country for well over a decade still meets some resistance.

Acquiring Hulu could be an important part of DirecTV’s strategy to develop the types of services satellite TV has yet to manage well. On-demand programming is no easy task for satellite providers. But if DirecTV acquired Hulu, satellite customers could find DirecTV-branded on-demand viewing through the Internet. The Times speculates DirecTV could even build an online subscription service for subscribers who don’t want a satellite dish, receiving the same lineup of programming satellite customers now watch.

Distributors that acquire enough online streaming rights could even launch virtual cable systems in other companies’ territories, potentially pitting Comcast against Time Warner Cable, but few expect cable operators to compete against each other.

Free TV? Not quite.

Despite offering free over-the-air television, ABC is putting its programming and stations behind a new paywall that can only be breached by “authenticated” cable and AT&T U-verse subscribers able to prove they already pay to watch.

Watch ABC is the television network’s contribution to the cable industry’s “TV Everywhere” project that offers online viewing options for current cable television subscribers.

Watch ABC now offers on-demand and live viewing of programming aired by the network and six network-owned television stations both at the desktop and through apps for iOS, Android, and the Kindle: New York City’s WABC-TV, Philadelphia’s WPVI, Los Angeles’ KABC, Chicago’s WLS, San Francisco’s KGO, and Raleigh-Durham’s WTVD. (Coming soon: Houston’s KTRK and Fresno’s KFSN.)

During the “online preview,” ABC permitted online viewers within confirmed coverage areas to watch the station nearest them for free. Now, viewers will also have to confirm they are paying cable or AT&T U-verse customers to watch online.

But even then, not everyone will qualify. ABC only has streaming authentication agreements with AT&T U-verse, Cablevision, Charter, Comcast, Cox Communications, and Midcontinent Communications. Watch ABC is currently off-limits to everyone else, including customers of Verizon FiOS, Time Warner Cable, and both satellite services.

ABC has also banned IP addresses known to be associated with anonymous proxy servers. This measure is designed to enforce geographic restrictions to be sure only local viewers can get access to the station in their area.

By this fall, ABC affiliates owned by Hearst are expected to also join Watch ABC’s paywall system.

ABCNews.com announced an experiment with a paywall in the summer of 2010. It never came to fruition.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WPVI Philadelphia Watch ABC in Philadelphia 5-14-13.mp4[/flv]

WPVI in Philadelphia turned over airtime during its evening newscast to self-promote the new ‘Watch ABC’ app and explain how it works. Effective now, it only works with preferred partner cable companies and AT&T U-verse. (Aired: May 14, 2013) (2 minutes)