The taxpayers of Ohio spent $13 million to fund a new 100 gigabit institutional fiber network average Ohio residents cannot access.

The upgraded Ohio Academic Resources Network (OARnet) delivers 10 times the speed of its immediate predecessor and is the first statewide network to achieve 100Gbps.

Gov. John Kasich was on hand to light the network, telling attendees at the ribbon-cutting ceremony it will provide research opportunities and help some of the state’s largest corporations manage manufacturing, data mining and analytics, alternative energy development, consumer products and medicine. He, among others, downplayed the fact the network offers little to average businesses and consumers in Ohio who helped pay for it. Large businesses can sign agreements with educational institutions around the state to gain access to the super-speed network.

While institutional broadband networks for education and research are important, and there is nothing inherently wrong with OARnet or its mission, it does very little to solve Ohio’s stubbornly poor broadband landscape, especially in rural areas.

Ohio ranked a dismal 39th in TechNet’s broadband rankings published this month. Ohio’s Republican-dominated state government has been willing to devote state’s resources to enhance institutional broadband, but relies almost entirely on the private sector for broadband expansion to small businesses and residential customers.

TechNet notes Ohio has a history of cutting deals with providers like AT&T, among others, for “alternative” regulatory arrangements to encourage broadband expansion in exchange for approval of telecom company mergers.

The results have been meager in rural areas of the state. Despite provider promises to do more, fewer than 2% of Ohio residents have access to fiber broadband, and many smaller communities are forced to use slow speed DSL from AT&T, if they can get the service at all. AT&T has some more bad news for rural Ohio. The company’s idea of improvement is to dismantle its rural wired network and force customers to use AT&T’s expensive, bottom-rated wireless service, complete with extremely low usage caps.

As part of that process, AT&T and their friends and partners are back with more promises.

This time, it comes from research-for-hire reports like, “Incentive to Invest in Ohio Broadband & The Carrier of Last Resort Obligation,” which argues if Ohio releases AT&T from its obligation to provide phone service, investors will magically pour money into the state on broadband improvements. Just like last time. Only it never really happened for wired broadband customers.

The “report” was paid for by “Technology for Ohio’s Tomorrow,” a non-profit organization that claims it “advocates for public policies that inspire and encourage innovation in technology while informing and educating technology consumers about legislative and regulatory issues that impact their lives.”

While those things may be true, even more insight can be gleaned from who actually operates the group.

Stop the Cap! learned:

• Technology for Ohio’s Tomorrow is the Ohio project of Midwest Consumers for Choice and Competition;
• Midwest Consumers for Choice and Competition is also related to Mobile Consumers for Choice and Competition;
• Mobile Consumers for Choice and Competition is a registered lobbying group in the state of Wisconsin, doing business as Wired Wisconsin;
• Wired Wisconsin’s chief partner and benefactor? AT&T It’s chief lobbyist and executive director? Thad Nation;
• Nation has run a whole assortment of “consumer” groups out of his lobbying firm Nation Consulting, including: Illinois Technology Partnership, TV4Us, and Technology for Ohio’s Tomorrow. His work coincides closely with AT&T’s corporate agenda. When AT&T wanted statewide franchising of U-verse, TV4Us arrived on scene advocating exactly that. When AT&T wants to promote deregulation of its wired and wireless efforts and win government assistance with no strings attached, Wired Wisconsin, the Illinois Technology Partnership and Technology for Ohio’s Tomorrow were ready to go to bat for AT&T.
• AT&T’s core involvement in all of these groups goes undisclosed.

Nation calls it an “advocacy agenda,” (we call it Astroturf backed by bought-and-paid for research) and Nation’s firm claims to specialize in it:

At Nation Consulting, Nation focuses on assisting corporate clients with strategic planning in government and public relations, and managing crisis communications.

Our team has worked on the “inside” of the offices of Governors, Congressional members, and state agencies. We’ve worked at every level of government, and we have the relationships necessary to help you navigate state and federal bureaucracies to accomplish your goals. We know how government works – and we know what government can do for you.

Getting government officials or bodies to do what you want isn’t easy. Government is inherently a slow, bureaucratic entity. When you want elected or appointed officials to change policy, you need a comprehensive plan – and the resources, relationships and quick-thinking to implement that plan.

We come to you with decades of experience in advocacy, moving legislators and engaging state agency leaders to action. Let us help you build and drive an aggressive advocacy agenda.

Regardless of your industry, the internet has a role to play in achieving your public relations goals – and we have the experience and the expertise to implement a plan suited to your needs. Whether you need to effectively use social networking sites, manage a blog, conduct email campaigns or use Web 2.0 tools, Nation Consulting can help you maximize your online presence in a way that is both cost-effective and beneficial to your business or organization.

When Republican FCC Commisioner Ajit Pai turned up last week at a telecom symposium to warn a more activist FCC could ruin broadband providers’ efforts to charge consumers more money for less service, he was speaking to a very friendly audience.

The conservative Phoenix Center, which ran the event, has been spewing out industry-friendly “research reports” for years that attempt to justify the country’s sky-high broadband pricing. It also promotes a “hands-off” mindset on industry oversight, calling it common sense and consumer-friendly.

Unfortunately for the group and its supporting authors, it has a serious credibility problem — exposed as an industry-funded “think tank” operating as a mercenary research arm for AT&T and other phone companies. In fact, the same group that today generates endless research condemning Net Neutrality had a very different position in 2004 when it published an Op-Ed entitled, “Net Neutrality: Now More Than Ever.”

What changed? Its benefactor. In 2004, AT&T was a competing long distance carrier fighting local phone companies. Today it –is– one of those phone companies. With its Baby Bell owners controlling AT&T’s purse-strings starting in 2006, the Phoenix Center dutifully flip-flopped to maintain continuity with the ‘new AT&T,’ strongly opposed to most forms of broadband regulation.

So it comes as no surprise the Phoenix Center continues pumping out cheerleading “research reports” that attempt to bolster credibility to forces opposing Net Neutrality and supporting an Internet Overcharging free-for-all with the help of usage billing and caps.

One particular bit of nonsense that completely ignores marketplace reality came in Phoenix Center Chief Economist Dr. George Ford’s report, “A Most Egregious Act? The Impact on Consumers of Usage-Based Pricing.”

For example, Ford argues:

A prohibition of differential pricing renders a single price that lies between the low price for the restricted service and the high price for the unrestricted service. Therefore, prohibitions against usage based pricing forces some consumers to pay more for services they do not want or use, while others are allowed to pay less for services they do. The prohibition, in effect, results in a transfer of wealth from one group of consumers to another, and profits are also reduced. Overall consumer welfare is diminished, even though some consumers are better off.

But Ford completely ignores the current conditions in today’s broadband market that have made it easy for providers to promulgate an unpopular end to flat rate, unlimited broadband in favor of a highly-flawed, usage-based billing policy:

1. Ford ignores the broadband market is essentially a duopoly for most consumers and effectively a monopoly in rural America. That gives providers what they call “pricing power,” the ability to increase prices at will and change pricing models because consumers are dependent on the service and have limited options to take their business elsewhere;
2. The only “transfer of wealth” involved here is from consumers to providers. While profits soar and costs drop, Ford complains that those using the service more are somehow subsidized by lighter users, when it fact providers enjoy a 90-95% gross margin on broadband. As Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt admitted, the most significant cost attributed on the cable company’s balance sheet for broadband comes from its backbone traffic costs, which are minuscule in contrast to the increasing prices the cable company charges for its broadband service;
3. Consumer welfare is reduced primarily from the high costs charged by providers, made possible by scant competition that would otherwise drive prices downwards, not from expenses associated with broadband traffic;
4. Ford is careful not to advocate for a true usage-based billing system that would be a revenue nightmare for his benefactors. In a strict usage-based pricing model, customers would pay a small fee for infrastructure, support, and equipment expenses and a variable charge based on actual usage. But no provider in the United States advocates for this system. Instead, providers force consumers into tiered broadband plans that include different usage allowances the vast majority of customers will either not exhaust or will exceed, which raises profits even higher with usage overlimit penalties. With no unused usage rollover, most customers are in the same position Ford claims will diminish consumer welfare: paying for service they do not want or use;
5. Most consumers favor unlimited, flat use plans even if they could save money with a usage-constrained pricing model. Since keeping customers happy with a more expensive unlimited plan they like instead of a lower priced plan they don’t want would seem to enhance provider profits. But Ford ignores this reality, perhaps understanding providers are actually laying the groundwork to broadly monetize Internet usage. Whether a provider adopts usage-based billing or a strict cap on usage, which is growing in most households, the inevitable result is still the same: more profits, less cost from constrained usage. Inevitably this will force customers into higher-priced, higher-profit upgrades that deliver a higher usage allowance, again something consumers simply do not want. This is already a reality in the wireless marketplace, and is well-acknowledged by both AT&T and Verizon Wireless.

Is FCC chairman Julius Genachowski spicing up his resumé for a future career with one of the companies he used to regulate or does Rupert Murdoch deserve an extra special Christmas gift this year?

Mr. Genachowski has breathed new life into an industry-friendly plan that would allow a handful of companies to own or control even more media outlets  — the same kind of knuckle-headed thinking that brought us companies like Clear Channel that own more than 800 radio stations you can’t tell apart and an integrated media and telecom empire growing at the expense of competition.

Whether Genachowski considers “diversity” a dirty word or whether he is nostalgic for the days of William Randolph Hearst, his sudden interest in a twice-rejected harebrained scheme to allow one company to own even more is a stupendously bad idea. This is particularly true when the guy ready to benefit the most is running a company that looked the other way when its reporters hacked ordinary citizens’ phones and then used what was heard as the basis for scandalous tabloid reporting.

Would you be comfortable allowing Rupert Murdoch to own and control virtually all of your local news?

Regardless of Murdoch’s personal politics, the concept of a small handful of companies or media moguls reinforcing their media oligopoly with even more consolidation hardly has a track record of success for consumers. One need only look at what the 1996 Telecommunications Act and subsequent deregulation foolishness did for local radio and television stations. Do you even listen to local radio any longer? If not, why not?

• Is it the fact the people on your “local” radio station strangely mispronounce streets and local towns because, in fact, they pre-record those messages from a city several hundred miles away?
• Does your local radio station even bother with news any longer, or is it simply easier to rely on a national radio newscast picked off a satellite for three minutes an hour?
• Do you have a trigger finger on the dial when the station stops playing music and starts playing endless ads?
• Do you get the feeling any DJ that plays something not on the focus-group tested and pre-analyzed 50 song playlist will automatically be electrocuted in his chair?
• Does your local television station run six hours a day of infomercials and practically no local programming?
• Do you mind that some of your local stations have slashed local news budgets and may have even handed over their newscast to a competing TV station (or doesn’t bother with one any longer?)

What the FCC used to demand from local stations to demonstrate “local commitment” has been relegated to the rubbish bin. Today, local stations are mere pawns to be bought, sold or traded by well-consolidated media groups. It’s all about the money, not so much about the programming.

Radio created its problems adopting cookie-cutter, ad-infested formats that deliver no diversity and little to no local flavor. You might as well create your own ad-free playlist with an iPod or smartphone and be done with it. That is exactly what many former listeners do.

Local television lost viewers after programming budgets were slashed and local news operations were cut or contracted out. The quest for fatter profits for the corporate parent come at the expense of appealing programming. Remember when your local station ran movies or syndicated entertainment shows overnight, in the afternoon or on weekends? No more. Thanks to deregulation and capitulation to basic cable, your local station now runs program length commercials for the Skin Tag Remover, mineral makeup that involved putting ground up rocks on your face, or the Lint Lizard. Compelling viewing this isn’t.

Now the FCC wants to bring this same “success story” in spades by allowing consolidation to accelerate. Only instead of one company owning a bunch of local radio and television stations, it now wants to permit that same company to own your local newspaper, too.

Happy days these are for the likes of media baron Murdoch, who already owns local media in cities like Los Angeles and Chicago, but now wants the local newspaper in both cities as well. It represents an expansion of Murdoch’s media echo chamber the free flow of information required in a democracy cannot afford.

But Murdoch isn’t the only one prepping the champagne. Companies like Comcast-NBC could end up owning your newspaper, two major local television stations, eight local radio stations, and of course also provide your overpriced Internet access, phone and cable-TV service.

Chinese Central Radio & Television in Beijing doesn’t get this level of control, but under the latest FCC plan, Fox, Disney, Viacom, Comcast, Time Warner, and Clear Channel each would.

Murdoch and his supporters argue that allowing greater media consolidation will lead to a rescue of the ailing newspaper industry which is losing readers and subscribers in the Internet age.

I would argue the fate of newspapers, like local radio and television, is at the hands of their corporate owners who have slashed budgets to maximize profits at the expense of readers. Murdoch’s ownership would not change this, but would allow him to further influence the media landscape for his own personal and professional agenda. Great Britain learned this first hand with Murdoch’s tabloid newspapers. The pervasive illegal phone hacking and other abuses under Murdoch’s watch became so bad, an independent report regarding the tawdry affair now advocates the need for an independent body to review media excesses and start bringing abusers to account.

Real competition used to manage that pretty well. Those days are dwindling back home in the United States.

For at least 20 years, journalism advocates have complained local newsrooms have been gutted in cost-cutting maneuvers to allow media groups to buy and sell newspapers like they were baseball cards. After every sale, more cost-cutting. First to go were local consumer reporters and investigative journalists who antagonized local advertisers with their accounts of abusive car dealers or incompetent repair companies. Many took their ad business elsewhere.

Reporters remaining on the payroll were given more stories to cover and little time to investigate. With looming deadlines, the result all-too-often is superficial reporting that relies on “he said, she said” coverage. Many newspapers also reduced local coverage in favor of cheaper wire service reports, often outdated by the time readers saw them.

Some editors counted the days until a popular columnist decided to retire. That’s one more person off the payroll. The local movie reviewer is an endangered species, now replaced with a national columnist who covers the same movies for a lot less money. In some newspapers, some local reporting comes courtesy of local bloggers that work for free or for a pittance.

With reporting like this, many newspapers are at risk of becoming irrelevant and are already a poor value for money. Those that have a chance have learned investing in local reporting can make the difference, especially if those reading the newspaper online are asked to help contribute to the cost of gathering and disseminating the news.

One thing we have learned watching 20 years of deregulation: the larger media companies get, the less innovative they become. The proof is available on your radio dial today, if you still even listen.

That isn’t just me saying it. Former FCC Commissioner Michael Copps said much the same thing:

“[America’s news and information ecosystem] has suffered the same kind of collapse as so much of America’s physical infrastructure—witness the sorry state of our bridges, highways, streets, public transportation, airports and public utilities. So, too, in media. Private sector consolidation led to the closing of hundreds of newsrooms and the firing of thousands of investigative reporters who should be combing the beats to hold the powerful accountable. Instead journalism has been hollowed out as badly as those rust-belt steel mills. Investigative journalism hangs by a slender thread, replaced by vapid infotainment, bloviating talking heads, and a dry well of facts and real-world analysis.

The public sector is at least equally culpable because government—especially the FCC where I served for more than a decade—blessed just about every media merger and acquisition that came before it. Then it proceeded, over the better part of a generation, to eviscerate almost all of the specific public interest guidelines that had been put in place over many years to ensure that the people’s airwaves actually serve the people.

[…] Instead of hurrying in the wrong direction, wouldn’t the Commission’s time be better utilized by considering (and actually voting on) some of the dozens of recommendations that have been put before it by civil rights and public interest groups to establish programs and incentives to encourage minority and female ownership? It is time for the FCC to take a deep breath, change direction, and get on with the huge challenge of encouraging a diverse media environment that serves all of our citizens and that nourishes a thriving civic dialogue.”

Readers can take action by clicking on the infographic above and sign the petition from Free Press to send a clear message to the FCC more is less. Demand media diversity and a return to local accountability from those occupying the public airwaves.

CEO Glenn Britt tells investors the company successfully pushed through modem fee as hidden “price increase”; Warns programmers unfettered rate hikes will result in networks being dropped, Disses Google Fiber as publicity stunt, and suggests more broadband rate hikes are in our future.

Time Warner Cable has announced its intention to broaden its consumption billing scheme offering $5 discounts to customers willing to keep their monthly usage under 5GB per month to every cable system it owns, with the exception of Oceanic Cable in Hawaii.

CEO Glenn Britt, speaking Monday to a UBS conference in New York, told investors that despite the fact the Internet Essentials program which caps monthly usage has attracted little interest from customers, the company was still going to take the program nationwide for symbolic reasons.

“At the moment what we have been trying to do is to get this idea into the marketplace,” Britt said. “It probably won’t surprise you that not very many people have taken the lower offer. That is fine. It hasn’t had much impact on [average revenue per customer]. But I think the idea is to have this consumption idea out there in addition to the unlimited.”

Britt’s attitude about consumption billing has evolved since its 2009 public relations disaster that forced the company to pull back on a plan to introduce consumption-based billing tiers for its Internet product. Protests erupted in test markets in New York, North Carolina, and Texas, several organized by Stop the Cap!, leading to proposed legislation to ban usage caps from one Rochester-area congressman and intervention from Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) who helped convince Britt to shelve the plan.

“I actually don’t like the idea of caps,” Britt has said consistently. “That is a negative connotation.”

Britt’s views have evolved over the years to argue that an unlimited service tier should always be available from Time Warner Cable for customers who want it. But encouraging customers to use more broadband under some type of consumption pricing offers a new source for revenue for the company and its shareholders.

“What we think is we should always offer unlimited service but that we should offer a choice of a lower price with a consumption dimension for people who don’t need unlimited, so that’s quite different than what other [broadband providers] have talked about.”

Time Warner Cable is in the middle between operators advocating monetizing broadband usage with compulsory usage limits and overlimit fees and those, like Cablevision, that oppose usage limits of any kind. But Britt is intent on getting customers to begin thinking about associating usage with cost, and stop believing in the traditional “all-you-can-eat” unlimited broadband model that has been around since the 1990s.

Britt characterized the company’s increasing emphasis on broadband as part of an evolution of the cable industry beyond the video services that defined it for decades. With its video business increasingly pressured by increased programming costs the company can no longer pass entirely onto its customers, broadband and phone service now deliver more gross profit margin than its video package.

Time Warner Cable Broadband Has a 95% Gross Profit Margin?

“The gross margin on broadband has got to be the highest gross margin of any product offered by any industry in the United States — like 95%,” noted one Wall Street audience member that quizzed Britt about future threats Time Warner’s broadband business could face with a margin like that.

“I think actually this gross margin thing is something that is a perception that maybe our company caused in our effort to be transparent,” Britt tried to explain.

Britt argued the 95% figure was misleading because the company’s accounting methods allocate all of their costs to the specific services the company offers.

“In the case of the video business because it’s all the programming costs, that’s a big number,” Britt explained, noting video profits are tempered by programming costs. “In the case of broadband it’s just the direct bandwidth costs from third parties. It’s a small number so it looks like the margin is really high.”

With a few accounting changes, the company’s gross profits could be split more evenly across the video, broadband, and telephone services. But Britt explained the expense of switching to cost accounting made it not worth the effort. But the exposure of the enormous profits and very low cost of delivering broadband service may have inadvertently created a political problem for the cable industry as consumer groups suggest the vast profits earned on broadband come at the same time the industry is hiking prices and in some cases limiting service.

Britt tried to temper enthusiasm.

“If you look at the complete picture — broadband is a great business but it is not quite as profitable as just that gross margin number might make you think,” Britt said.

The Gradual Evolution of Time Warner Cable Towards Broadband, With Rate Increases to Follow

Britt said the company continued to gradually switch off analog video channels to free up capacity for additional broadband bandwidth.

“I think if you look at our physical plants we still devote a disproportionate amount of capacity to analog video so we’re still running broadband on a relatively small part of the capacity, but as [demand] grows we will keep adding more to broadband and we’re gradually reclaiming the analog video channels,” Britt explained. “We have not seen the need to flash cut/get rid of the analog and go all-digital, but we’re doing it over time.”

Britt called cable broadband a growth industry, with new entrants getting online for the first time.

“Broadband is a great business. It is still not fully penetrated,” Britt said. “There are homes that don’t have broadband that aren’t even online yet. And the homes that have it keep using it more and more all the time. I think somewhere recently I saw a study that said the average use is now 50GB a month.”

With consumer demand for broadband at an all-time high, Britt said as usage and dependence on broadband continues to grow, the company will have more and more ability to raise prices. Britt noted the company implemented a modem rental fee in November he characterized as “essentially a price increase,” and called its implementation successful.

Britt acknowledged only about 3% of customers have elected to buy their own cable modems to date, and Britt said he believed most people will continue to rely on Time Warner’s rented modem, bringing lucrative new revenue to the company indefinitely.

The company’s gradual move to an all-IP network is an acknowledgment of the success of broadband, but also allows the company to become more nimble with its video offerings and services.

“We are talking about using IP standards and IP technology to enhance our video offering,” Britt said. “What we are trying to do is recognize that all consumer electronics are increasingly moving to IP standards. Writing software to IP standards allows you to create software that can be much more easily updated and iterated than traditional forms of software. We’re embracing that wholeheartedly.”

The company is currently testing a cloud-based program guide and set top box interface in 190,000 homes in upstate New York with positive results, according to Britt.

“We are going to have the second version of that next year and roll it our more broadly,” Britt said. “We have not been as noisy about that as some others. Again, the beauty of this is that it resides centrally, not on everyone’s set top box, and you can change the software little bits and pieces once a week or every two weeks. You don’t have to have these giant software releases.”

Other initiatives:

• Getting streaming video on every device capable of displaying it in a customer’s home;
• Introducing local broadcast station video on the company’s streaming product. “We now have the ability to encode 1,000 broadcast signals from around the country,” said Britt. “Here in New York City, the broadcasters are in the package now;”
• Will shortly introduce video-on-demand streaming through its device apps;
• Its Wi-Fi network in Los Angeles is on track to offer 10,000 hotspots. The company’s next expansion priority is more Wi-Fi for New York City.

Britt Downplays the Competition: ‘AT&T U-verse is bandwidth constrained, FiOS is mostly finished expanding, and Google Fiber is a publicity stunt.’

Britt recognized AT&T planned to restart expansion of its fiber to the neighborhood U-verse service, which actually competes with Time Warner Cable in more communities than Verizon’s FiOS fiber optic network.

“U-verse overlaps about 25 percent of our footprint today,” Britt said. “Presumably it will add a little more when they’re done with this. I would remind you that U-verse is more bandwidth constrained than our plant. We have a route to faster speeds, so we’re confident with our ability to compete with that.”

Britt said Time Warner Cable has gained experience predicting what happens when new competition arrives in town, and continued to downplay its impact on cable’s dominant market position.

“There is a phenomenon in consumer behavior that when a new competitor comes to town a certain number of people move just because they want to try the new thing,” Britt said. “After you are there for awhile that part ends and you are just into a normal marketing game. I think leaving aside the AT&T announcement, that is true generally of the two phone companies who have built what they said they would build initially.”

The one city where competition has turned into building-to-building combat is New York City, where Verizon FiOS continues to only gradually expand into new buildings. When FiOS becomes available, marketing begins to get customers to consider switching, kicking Time Warner’s customer retention efforts into high gear.

The cable operator has traditionally offered aggressive retention and new customer deals to attract and hold cable customers, and in some cases it has thrown in high value prepaid credit card rebate offers. Currently, Time Warner Cable pitches new and returning customers its triple play package for $89-99 in New York, often giving existing customers the same deal when they complain.

In Kansas City, Time Warner Cable now faces competition from both AT&T U-verse and Google Fiber, but Britt claims the company is not as worried as some might think.

“I guess I would remind everybody [Google] in the past announced they were doing things like this,” Britt said. “I think they were going to build Wi-Fi over San Francisco and they built a couple of blocks. Obviously I’m not inside their company — I can’t exactly know their motivation, but certainly if it is like the past, their motivation is to demonstrate what technology can do and try to prod the government and other players to go bigger, faster, whatever.”

Britt doubts Google will take the project much farther than Kansas City, and even if it does, the cable industry will have decades to prepare.

“I would remind you it took the cable industry which built the second wire into the home — the phone being the first — four decades or more to build across the country and many billions of dollars,” said Britt. “Even if Google builds, we’re not going to wake up and see Google instantly building out the whole country.”

Britt took a swipe at Google’s white-collar business focus and wondered exactly who needs the service Google has started to offer.

“This is not like their other businesses; it is very physical, it is blue collar workers, it is process, it is a very different thing,” Britt said. “I think what they’re doing is trying to demonstrate the wonders of 1Gbps. The problem with that is even if you build the last mile access plant to do that, there is neither the applications that require that nor a broader Internet backbone and servers delivering at that speed. It ends up being more about publicity and bragging. There has been a whole series of articles in the paper about ‘I’m a little startup business and boy it is really great I can get this’ and my reaction is we already have plant there that can deliver whatever it is they are talking about in those articles, which is usually not stuff that requires that high speed. So we’ll see.”

But Britt acknowledged the company will have a challenge competing with at least one Google Fiber service.

“They are giving one level of broadband away for free with an upfront installation,” Britt noted. “It’s hard to compete with free, although it is hard to make money at free also.”

The Cord-Cutting “Myth”: It’s the economy, stupid.

Britt continued to downplay and dismiss the popular media meme that cord-cutting is taking a toll on cable television subscriptions. Britt argued with television sets left on in most homes an average of eight hours a day, and pay television services reaching 90 percent of those homes, parting with cable TV is not that easy for a product with that level of consumer acceptance.

“Is there some cord cutting typically among young people — maybe they were cable-nevers? Yes, but it appears to be fairly minor at the moment,” Britt said. “I think the bigger issue for the industry is a combination of price and the economy.”

“These packages keep getting more and more expensive. Programming gets more and more expensive,” Britt added. “I hope the economy gets better but at the moment there are still an awful lot of people who have been unemployed a long time and this stuff is starting to cost too much and I never miss the chance to get on my bully pulpit about it. If we, as a broader industry, want to keep this going, we need to figure out some way to have packages and prices that are lower for people who just cant afford it. That is a bigger factor right now than cord-cutting.”

Britt was lukewarm about his company’s own efforts to deliver a discounted cable television package which pares down the basic package to a few dozen channels with some notable gaps, especially for sports fans.

“We have a package called TV Essentials and whether it is the ideal configuration of programming and price — it is probably not — it is what we’re able to do,” Britt said. “It does have some uptake but not enormous. I think we need as an industry to work on that. We all know the big package works for the content companies and the little packages don’t. At some point this whole thing has to be responsive to the people who ultimately pay the bills and that is the consumer.”

Throwing Down the Gauntlet: ‘We’re going to start dropping little-watched channels at contract renewal time if prices don’t come down.’

“I think the trend has been pretty constant over the last several years: Since 2008, our programming costs per customer have gone up about 30 percent while the Consumer Price Index is up about 10%, so clearly those two things are out of whack,” Britt said. “Our video pricing has gone up about 15% so we are able to close that gap a little bit but not completely. I don’t have any magic bullet about this except clearly these trends can’t continue forever.”

Britt warned programmers have become too comfortable with the status quo for cable packages and pricing that some have gotten lazy about the quality of their programming, dependent on the subscriber fees they earn whether customers watch their channels or not.

“Content companies will all gloat and chortle about how wonderful the structure is and they can charge whatever they want,” Britt complained. “We’ve accumulated networks that hardly anybody watches. If you speak to the people who run those networks or own them they almost feel it’s a birthright — I have this network that has distribution to 70-80 million homes, and I’m getting paid every month for ads — maybe this year I wasn’t able to get a big audience but you know next year I am going to work harder and I am going to spend more money on programming and it’s going to be good.”

Britt noted some of the channels Time Warner added have transformed into entirely different channels the company would have never signed up for had they known.

“Sometimes people even change the entire content of the network and our company has been pretty aggressive in not letting that happen since we’re selling a whole package that appeals to different people,” Britt said. “It’s not a birthright, it’s not a carte blanche.”

“I think what we’re saying because the consumer is telling us they can’t afford these prices anymore, where we can we’re going to have to start cutting things off,” Britt warned. “So if you have a network that gets hash mark ratings and no real sign it’s going to get any better, and your contract is up, we’re going to have a different kind of conversation than we might have had five, six or ten years ago.”

Britt said some networks will be dropped altogether, others will be invited to remain, but only on an added-cost tier for subscribers willing to pay more.

“We can’t keep carrying these giant packages of things with the services that don’t carry their own weight,” Britt said.

But Britt understands the perspective of the entertainment companies as well, having formerly been with Time Warner, Inc., the entertainment-oriented company that owns several cable networks.

“A-la carte just doesn’t work for those companies,” Britt noted. “If you think about the existing package, it’s a wonderful mechanism to mitigate risk in a business that I would argue is one of the riskiest businesses on the planet.”

Britt compared a-la-carte economics with that of a typical Broadway theater show, where a small group of individuals risk substantial sums of money on the success of a production that either makes it or it doesn’t, and most don’t. The only revenue stream is from consumers willing to pay ticket prices for admission.

Today’s cable package offers niche and general interest channels in the same package, with assured subscription revenue regardless of ratings, combined with ad revenue which can be meager or substantial depending on the ratings. With guaranteed revenue, cable channels invest in programming production or acquisition — purchases that would not be likely if reliant on an uncertain a-la-carte business model.

Therefore, in Britt’s view, a-la-carte per channel or per program changes the dynamics of the cable business away from a stable one that obtains programming on the basis of predicted revenue to one closer to a Broadway production, where risks of failure are very high, especially for niche programming.

Britt believes in today’s bundled cable package, but not in its current size or monthly price.

“I think aside from that there is a lot of value in the package if you think about cost avoidance,” Britt said. “In reality we as distributors do the marketing, the billing, the customer relationship and although somebody from a network might rail at us for not being great marketers, the reality is if each network had to separately market and bill itself and deal with consumers separately, you would introduce a whole lot of cost in the system that is not there today. This actually works quite well for consumers today and it’s a relatively good value. I think the problem is the trajectory of it and if you are in the content business you are trying to seek eyeballs so you are competing with each other and the only way people seem to know how to do that is to spend even more for programming and that is what sort of killed you with consumer behavior.”

Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt took questions for an hour from Wall Street investors and analysts at the UBS Conference in New York. (December 3, 2012) (55 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Frontier Communications has forced a West Virginia broadband improvement council to temporarily suspend plans to distribute $4 million in funding to independent ISPs planning to expand service in rural areas after a company official objected that the funding would duplicate broadband service Frontier already provides itself or through its satellite broadband partner.

The West Virginia Broadband Deployment Council ended up postponing its broadband awards program after Frontier Communications executive Dana Waldo, who serves on the Council, objected to the money being distributed.

Waldo noted state code prohibits the board from awarding grants for projects in areas already provided service.

That state code, passed by the West Virginia legislature in 2008, came courtesy of a coalition of phone, cable, and broadband equipment companies like Cisco working with then-Gov. Joe Manchin to push the broadband bill into law. Verizon was the most influential supporter, serving as West Virginia’s largest telecommunications company before selling its landline network to Frontier.

The code Waldo refers to:

The council shall exercise its powers and authority to bring broadband service to those areas without broadband service. The council may not duplicate or displace broadband service in areas already served or where private industry feasibly can be expected to offer services in the reasonably foreseeable future. In no event may projects or actions undertaken pursuant to this article be used to finance or support broadband or other services in competition with private industry.

The Council relied on broadband map data provided by Frontier Communications to help score and rank projects that appeared to be outside of Frontier’s broadband service area. When the project rankings were first announced in September, Frontier executives immediately claimed their map data was outdated and subsequently updated map data voluntarily supplied by Frontier, not independently verified, showed many of the high-ranking independent projects would compete with Frontier’s DSL service, disqualifying them from further consideration.

Waldo declared he was not comfortable with the broadband awards because “many of those areas are currently served or can be reasonably served by Frontier.”

State officials were hopeful a new list of qualifying projects could be developed in accordance with the latest Frontier map data and were scheduled to be announced on Dec. 12.

But Waldo noted that Frontier could end up unhappy with many of those projects as well.

He noted Frontier technically already offers every household in West Virginia broadband access through its new partnership with a satellite Internet Service Provider. Frontier began offering rural customers satellite Internet service earlier this year.

“If our mission is to increase broadband access, we need to consider satellite,” he told the Council. “We have hundreds of [satellite] customers.”

While Frontier considers satellite broadband a solution in the most rural areas where it is unlikely to provide service anytime soon, it could prove even more valuable as a weapon against potential competition in a state that prohibits public funding of competing services.

The biggest losers should Frontier prove its case are rural Wireless Internet Service Providers, who have requested $3.1 million in grants to build antenna towers. An additional $923,000 was expected to fund programs that promote the benefits of signing up for high speed service. Frontier has ties to four of those projects, and has stated no objections to them.

Frontier has also not objected to the much larger $126 million federal grant to construct an institutional statewide fiber broadband network. Frontier is the primary vendor that will sell access on that network.