Coming soon nationwide? Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T and CenturyLink sure hope not.

Verizon is talking to major cable programmers about launching a nationwide version of FiOS TV as an over-the-top video service that works with your existing broadband provider.

The NY Post reports Verizon is looking at launching an online pay television service for customers without installing additional fiber optic lines to deliver it.

The service would likely be an extension of the “TV Everywhere” online video platforms that many national cable and telco-TV providers already offer existing cable TV subscribers. What would make Verizon’s offer radically different is selling the virtual cable TV service in areas where it does not offer FiOS service.

Verizon must carefully negotiate with programmers to distribute networks over an online video service that would likely compete directly with those programmers’ best customers: cable operators and telco IPTV services like U-verse and Prism TV.

The concept was rejected out of hand Wednesday by Time Warner Cable chief operating officer Rob Marcus, who agreed with Comcast executive vice president Steve Burke’s contention that “over the top” video services that offer virtual cable television outside of their respective service areas lacked a compelling business model and would be difficult to monetize.

“At this point we don’t really aspire to delivering an over-the-top service,” Marcus said. “Our value proposition is delivering video via our facilities as opposed to being a retailer of somebody else’s video, which is a somewhat commoditized product.”

Neither cable executive mentioned the fact cable operators have also maintained an informal “wink and nod” agreement to steer clear of head-on competition with each other for decades.

Verizon: The next big supporter of Net Neutrality?

Verizon apparently wants to shake things up and sell online video without incurring the cost of expanding its fiber optic network FiOS to deliver it.

“They’ve had exploratory talks about how to become a virtual [multiple-system operator],” one person close to the conversations told the Post. “It’s a question of how to get there.”

Interestingly, Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam is worried about developing the service without Net Neutrality protection or some other form of government oversight of broadband. Verizon could spend millions to negotiate programming contracts only to find competitors with their own TV packages to protect outmaneuvering the venture. Without Net Neutrality, Verizon could find its service blocked by competitors or made untenable with the implementation of broadband usage caps or consumption billing that would make a subscription too costly to consider.

The company is now trying to figure out exactly which branch of government (or agency) controls broadband policy in the nation.

The FCC’s current Net Neutrality policy depends on a shaky regulatory framework now being challenged in federal court.

Verizon declined to comment.

Nine of the ten lowest ranked firms in America are cable and telephone companies, according to a new report from research firm Temkin Group.

A poll ranking customer service at 235 U.S. companies across 19 industries found cable companies dead last, quickly followed by Internet Service Providers (often those same cable operators).

Participants were asked to rate their satisfaction with different companies on a scale of “1” (very dissatisfied) to “7” (completely satisfied). Not very many participants gave high marks to their telecommunications service provider. Temkin’s resulting net satisfaction score found familiar names in the cable and telephone business scraping the bottom.

America’s worst provider? Charter Communications, which managed an embarrassing dead last 22 percent satisfaction score for television service. Time Warner Cable managed second worst for television at 25%, followed by Cox and Cablevision’s Optimum service (both 28%). Bottom rated Internet service came from Qwest (now CenturyLink), Verizon (presumably DSL), and Charter — all scoring just 31%.

Oddly, Temkin’s survey participants gave top marks to the long-irrelevant AOL for Internet service, which may mean those dial-up customers don’t know any better. Highest marks in television service went to Bright House Communications, which ironically depends on Time Warner Cable for most of its programming negotiations.

Most suspect the ratings show long-term customer dissatisfaction with endless rate increases, poor customer service and reliability, and lack of choice in an increasingly expensive television lineup.

The Temkin Group gathered its data from an online survey of 10,000 consumers in the U.S. during January 2013, all asked to rate their experiences with companies over the past 60 days.

Phillip “Every other 2008 spectrum bidder except U.S. Cellular has since sold its winnings to AT&T or Verizon Wireless or has never provided competitive service” Dampier

AT&T is unhappy with a proposal from a wireless competitor it originally tried to buy in 2011 that would offer smaller competitors a more realistic chance of winning favored 600MHz spectrum vacated by UHF television stations at a forthcoming FCC auction.

T-Mobile’s “Dynamic Market Rule” proposal would establish a cap on the amount of spectrum market leaders AT&T and Verizon Wireless, flush with financial resources for the auction, could win.

“Imposing modest constraints on excessive low-band spectrum aggregation will promote competition, increase consumer choice, encourage innovation, and accelerate broadband deployment,” T-Mobile offered in its proposal to the FCC.

Without some limits, wireless competitors Sprint and T-Mobile, among other smaller carriers, could find themselves outbid for the prime spectrum, well-suited for penetrating buildings and requiring a smaller network of cell towers to deliver blanket coverage.

In a public policy blog post today, AT&T argues T-Mobile is behind the times and its proposal is unfair and unworkable:

First, the purported advantage of low band spectrum – that it allows more coverage and better building penetration with fewer cell sites – has been overtaken by marketplace realities under which capacity not coverage drives network deployment.  Carriers deploying low band and high band spectrum alike must squeeze as many cell sites as they can into their networks to meet exploding demand for data services.  Second, to the extent this is less the case in rural areas, those areas are not spectrum-constrained and the lower cost of building out low band spectrum in such areas is offset by the higher cost of the spectrum itself.

[…] But this is not the only point that should concern policymakers.  Such caps will also suppress auction revenues, potentially to the point of auction failure, ultimately reducing the amount of spectrum freed up for mobile broadband use and undermining the auction’s ability to meet critical statutory goals.

[…] Even if T-Mobile’s proposal did not result in complete auction failure, its proposed caps would suppress auction revenues, reducing the amount of spectrum freed up for mobile broadband use as well as funds generated for FirstNet and to pay down the national debt.  That is because strict limits on participation by otherwise qualified bidders will make the auction less competitive and will yield less revenue.  Indeed, if T-Mobile’s proposed spectrum cap was strictly enforced, Verizon estimates it would be barred from bidding in 7 of the top 10 markets.  AT&T would face similar bidding limitations, as noted in our filing.

AT&T suggests the last major auction in 2008 attracted 214 qualified bidders and 101 bidders won licenses, including carriers of all sizes and new entrants.

But an analysis by Stop the Cap! shows the breakaway winners of the 2008 auction were none other than AT&T and Verizon Wireless, which paid a combined $16.3 billion of the total $19.592 billion raised. For that money, they acquired:

• Block A – Verizon Wireless and U.S. Cellular both bought 25 licenses each. In this block, Verizon targeted urban areas, while U.S. Cellular bought licenses primarily in the northern part of the U.S., where it provides regional cellular service. Cavalier Telephone and CenturyTel also bought 23 and 21 licenses, respectively. Cavalier Telephone is now wholly owned by Windstream, which does not provide cell service and was selling its 700MHz spectrum to none other than AT&T. So is CenturyLink (formerly CenturyTel).

• Block B – AT&T Mobility was the biggest buyer in the B block, with 227 licenses totaling $6.6 billion. U.S. Cellular and Verizon bought 127 and 77 licenses, respectively. AT&T Mobility and Verizon Wireless bought licenses around the country, while U.S. Cellular continued with its strategy to buy licenses in its home network northern regions.

• Block C – Of the 10 licenses in the C Block, Verizon Wireless bought the 7 that cover the contiguous 48 states (and Hawaii). Those seven licenses cost Verizon roughly $4.7 billion. Of the other three, Triad Communications — a wireless spectrum speculator — bought the two covering Alaska, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands through its Triad 700, LLC investor partnership, while Small Ventures USA, L.P. bought the one covering the Gulf of Mexico. Triad 700, LLC sold its spectrum last fall to AT&T while Small Ventures USA sold theirs to Verizon Wireless.

• Block E – EchoStar spent $711 million to buy 168 of the 176 available Block E licenses. This block, made up of unpaired spectrum, will likely be used to stream television shows. Qualcomm also bought 5 licenses. Neither company has used its spectrum to offer any services five years after the auction ended.

So much for improving the competitive landscape of wireless. Other than U.S. Cellular, which is rumored to be on AT&T and Verizon Wireless’ acquisitions wish list, every auction winner has either sold its spectrum to the wireless giants or has done nothing with it.

If “highest bidder wins”-rules apply at the forthcoming auction, expect more of the same.

AT&T and Verizon Wireless have significant financial resources to outbid Sprint, T-Mobile and smaller carriers and will likely win the bulk of the available spectrum whether they actually need it or not. Smaller victories may be won by smaller competitors, but only in rural areas and sections of the country disfavored by the largest two.

Prism is CenturyLink’s fiber to the neighborhood service, similar to AT&T U-verse.

Western Eagle County will be among the first areas in Colorado to get CenturyLink’s fiber-to-the-neighborhood service upgrade, dubbed Prism TV.

“Eagle County is joining the first 10 markets to get Prism TV,” said Abel Chavez, CenturyLink’s director of state and local government affairs.

The phone company plans to introduce the service gradually once franchise renewal agreements with the county are complete.

The upgrade is an important once for Eagle County, which will see improved service well before residents in larger Colorado cities like Denver.

“Since we already have a franchise here, this is an opportunity to do two things — upgrade it and test it in a rural market,” Chavez told the Eagle Valley Enterprise. “In this case, a small mountain community is going to have something that Denver doesn’t have yet and it’s all going in on our existing network. We’re not adding to our footprint.”

CenturyLink’s service area includes towns in the western half of the county, Eagle and Gypsum. Comcast is the dominant cable provider in Colorado and has the largest market share of customers in the eastern half of the county.

CenturyLink primarily markets Prism as a television service, although it also supports 25Mbps broadband, depending on line quality.

Much like AT&T U-verse, Prism provides a fiber broadband connection to a box positioned in the neighborhood. From that box, the customer’s current copper telephone line is used to bring an enhanced version of DSL inside the home that divides bandwidth for Internet access, telephone, and cable television service.

A typical triple-play, new customer Prism package in Las Vegas runs around $115 a month, price-locked for 24 months. The whole house DVR and HD channels add another $10-15 a month after the first three months.

Included in the package:

• 10Mbps broadband
• CenturyLink Home Phone with Unlimited Nationwide Calling
• Prism TV (120 channels)
• Free installation, first set-top box included ($8.99/mo each additional box), DVR with up to four concurrent recordings

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CenturyLink Prism Demo Summer 2013.flv[/flv]

CenturyLink produced this demonstration video of Prism TV’s capabilities. CenturyLink does not seem to emphasize improved broadband service as part of the Prism experience in its marketing. (2 minutes)

Frontier Communications Northwest, Inc., has won an end to rate regulation, arguing sufficient competition exists between telecom companies in Washington State to make the oversight unnecessary.

The Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission approved the request this week, adding it would allow more pricing flexibility for Frontier services in the state.

Although the majority of Washington is served by CenturyLink, which acquired the assets of Qwest, Frontier has 321,000 customers in Redmond, Kirkland, Everett, Bothell, Woodinville, and other smaller communities. Most of Frontier’s customers were acquired from Verizon Northwest in 2010 after the company exited the landline business in the state.

Frontier must still adhere to Washington’s consumer protection laws. Customers with unresolved problems with Frontier services, including its adopted FiOS fiber network, can call the Commission’s HelpLine at 1-888-333-9882.