Verizon today announced the 100th franchise agreement in the state of Massachusetts for FiOS TV. The Easton Board of Selectmen on Monday granted a cable franchise to Verizon to begin wiring the town of 23,000 with fiber optic service. Residents will receive visits from Verizon employees to explain and market the service, which will compete directly with incumbent cable provider Comcast.

Verizon’s growth in the state has already put them in second place behind Comcast as the largest provider of wired television and broadband service.  That position was formerly held by RCN, a cable overbuilder providing service in the Boston area.

Verizon celebrated the 100th franchise agreement by donating $1,000 to the Easton Area Public Library to purchase 100 new books.

“As a result of this new franchise, consumers in Easton will be able to choose their cable provider as easily as they choose their phone company,” said Cupelo. “Competition drives innovation, value and service quality, and it puts the consumer in control.”

Verizon research indicates 87 percent of Massachusetts residents favor more competition and choice for video services.  Independent studies suggest competition in the video market can bring reduced prices, better packages and improved service, although experiences in many communities indicate providers are more apt to compete on services and packaging, and not as much on price.

Verizon’s license agreement with the city of Easton is for 10 years.  The agreement contains provisions for the network’s future growth; financial support and capacity for educational and government access channels; cable service to government buildings; and other important benefits to the city, including insurance, indemnification and enforcement protections.

“Verizon will compete aggressively for subscribers in Easton with our FiOS services, which are fueled by our lightning-fast fiber-optic network,” Cupelo said. Verizon soon will begin its door-to-door sales campaign in Easton, explaining the many advantages of FiOS TV to local consumers.

For some local residents, the competition can’t arrive soon enough.

Comcast has alienated many Easton residents by not carrying all of the HD signals from Boston area television stations.  Easton, although essentially halfway between Boston and Providence, Rhode Island, has been defined by the Federal Communications Commission as being in the “Providence DMA” (an area of significant influence.)  That’s because parts of Bristol County have towns that are considered suburbs of Providence.  Easton’s allegiance, in the minds of many who live there, is to Boston, and residents are upset that the majority of HD broadcast stations on Comcast Cable are from Providence.

The town is actually part of a regional effort to redefine their part of Bristol County to be in the “Boston DMA” so they can petition the FCC to make a change.

The Easton Cable Commission has gotten an earful from annoyed residents, who have faced an intransigent Comcast.  They have even prepared an FAQ for residents on the matter:

Why can’t I get some Boston based HD channels on Comcast?
This is an important issue to many Easton cable subscribers. We want to take some time to explain the relevant issues just so you understand why most believe Easton residents are not getting the channels they want and the channels that they believe serve them best.

The starting point is the DMA that Easton is in.  What is a DMA?  Well, that is our problem.  DMA is short for Neilsen Media Research Designated Television Market Area. DMA’s are generally split up according to county.  Easton is in Bristol County.  A good part of Bristol County is actually considered part of suburban Providence.  Therefore, Easton, although not a suburb of Providence, is in the Providence DMA.  All cable providers must carry the primary channels that serve a DMA.   At present, Comcast must carry Providence DMA stations.  There is an effort underway to move towns inside of Route 495 into the Boston DMA.  We will petition the FCC for this change.

Oakes Ames Memorial Hall and Ames Free Library (North Easton, MA)

But the greater issue here is whether Comcast chose to eliminate Boston channels in High Definition or whether they had no choice.  For the most part, this is a Comcast choice.  The Town of Easton and our Cable Committee, unfortunately, cannot force Comcast to provide Boston channels in High Definition.  Along with the concept of DMA, there is also the concept of “Significantly Viewed” channels in an area.  This is another FCC concept which relates to stations not in the local DMA which may be referred to as “distant signals”.  A “distant signal” is one that originates outside of a satellite (or cable) subscriber’s local television market, the DMA. In addition to stations in their DMA, satellite (cable) subscribers who receive local-into-local service may, under certain circumstances, receive individual stations from markets outside their DMA that are deemed “significantly viewed” in their community. It is up to the satellite carrier whether or not to offer significantly viewed stations and a subscriber must be subscribing to local-into-local service in his or her DMA to be eligible to receive significantly viewed stations. The determination of whether or not a station is significantly viewed in a community depends on several statutory factors.  The FCC has posted the list of stations that are eligible for carriage as significantly viewed signals and the communities in which they are significantly viewed.
The following is the list for Bristol County:

Bristol
WLNE-TV, 6, Providence, RI (formerly WTEV)
WJAR, 10, Providence, RI
WPRI-TV, 12, Providence, RI
+WNAC-TV, 64, Providence, RI
WBZ-TV, 4, Boston, MA
WCVB-TV, 5, Boston, MA (formerly WHDH)
WHDH-TV, 7, Boston, MA (formerly WNAC)
WSBK-TV, 38, Boston, MA
WLVI-TV, 56, Cambridge, MA (formerly WKBG)

So, Comcast has every right to provide the above channels (which include 4,5, and 7) in High Definition.  It is their choice not to do so.  You may ask why Channel 25 is not on the above list and that is a great question.  But the answer is that the determinations for this list were made a long time ago when Channel 25 was owned by religious broadcasters.  That is how outdated all of these rules are.  It is also the reason that Comcast is forced to black out FOX 25 network programming.

There may be an alternative to Comcast in Easton by the end of the year.  We are going through a licensing process with Verizon.  They want to offer Fios tv, internet, and phone in Easton by December.  It is all of our hopes that Verizon will provide the channels that you are looking for and that competition will benefit all cable tv subscribers in Easton.

For further information please contact the Comcast Customer Care line at 1-800-COMCAST (1-800-266-2278).

In Massachusetts, FiOS TV is available in Abington, Acton, Andover, Arlington, Ashland, Bedford, Bellingham, Belmont, Boxborough, Boxford, Braintree, Burlington, Canton, Danvers, Dedham, Dover, Dunstable, Framingham, Franklin, Georgetown, Grafton, Groton, Hamilton, Hanover, Hingham, Holliston, Hopkinton, Hudson, Hull, Ipswich, Kingston, Lakeville, Lawrence, Leominster, Lexington, Lincoln, Littleton, Lynn, Lynnfield, Malden, Mansfield, Marion, Marlborough, Marblehead, Marshfield, Mattapoisett, Maynard, Medfield, Medway, Melrose, Mendon, Methuen, Middleborough, Middleton, Millbury, Nahant, Natick, Needham, Newton, Norfolk, North Andover, North Reading, Northborough, Norwood, Norwell, Plymouth, Reading, Rochester, Rockland, Rowley, Sherborn, Southborough, Stoneham, Stoughton, Stow, Sudbury, Sutton, Swampscott, Taunton, Tewksbury, Topsfield, Tyngsborough, Wakefield, Walpole, Waltham, Wareham, Wayland, Wellesley, Wenham, West Newbury, Westborough, Weston, Westwood,  Wilmington, Winchester, Wrentham and Woburn, and will soon be available in Chelmsford, Easton and North Attleborough.

Shaw Communications has fired back against accusations by Novus Entertainment that it is engaged in predatory pricing by filing a defamation suit in the British Columbia Supreme Court.

Shaw president Peter Bissonnette said Novus is intentionally spreading misinformation about Shaw’s competitive promotion in the Vancouver area, which he said charged $29.85 a month for a comprehensive package including digital HD cable, high-speed broadband, and telephone service that includes free long distance calling across North America.

Novus fired the first legal shot in July, accusing Shaw Cable of engaging in predatory pricing by offering cable, broadband, and telephone service “below cost” only to residents in the high rise buildings where Novus currently offers service in the city of Vancouver.  Novus, a fiber optic-based competitor, offers service in 225 residential high rise buildings in downtown Vancouver, at prices that have traditionally been lower than those offered by Shaw, western Canada’s largest cable operator, based in Calgary, Alberta.  Novus announced it was filing a predatory pricing case with the Competition Bureau of Canada and the BC Supreme Court.

Shaw officials counter that many of those high rise buildings are owned by Concord Pacific, which also has a major ownership interest in Novus Entertainment.  Bissonnette dismisses Novus’ accusations of anti-competitive behavior, accusing Concord Pacific of blocking access to Shaw, preventing the company from wiring the buildings during their construction, which would have reduced costs significantly.

“Those buildings up until recently have never had access to our services,” he said.

Novus’ disdain for Shaw began this past February, when Concord Pacific employees noticed Shaw was promoting special discount offers targeting their buildings’ residents with special discounts for new Shaw customer signups.  The special offers expired at the end of February, and the two companies stopped specifically targeting each other in greater Vancouver until July.

Novus co-president Doug Holman told the CBC that was when things really began to heat up.

The cable provider resumed its efforts in July with a more aggressive deal, which it promoted by slipping flyers under doors and with “street teams” that would stand in front of buildings and ask people entering and exiting whether they were Novus customers. If they were, they would get the $9.95 offer, he said.

The $9.95 offer Holman mentions was an even more aggressive promotion than the one Shaw offered in February. The July promotion offered each component of Shaw’s package — television, broadband, and phone — for $9.95 a month each, with two free months thrown in, as the promotional flyer obtained by Stop the Cap! illustrates (shown on the left).

Who exactly could obtain this promotional pricing became a point of contention between the two companies.  Shaw president Peter Bissonnette claims the promotion is not just available to existing Novus customers, but to any resident of West Vancouver, which he called “highly competitive” for cable and broadband service.  Novus claims the promotion is targeted specifically at their customers, and is not widely known or available outside of its own customer base.

Vancouver residents sharing their experiences with Stop the Cap! report that Novus’ version is probably closer to the truth.  When the skirmish went public with Novus’ PR and Twitter outreach campaign, many Shaw customers in Vancouver had no idea such an aggressive promotion existed.  Neither did Telus customers (British Columbia’s telephone provider).  Some Shaw customers called Shaw to complain about the wide disparity between the rates they were paying and those Novus customers enjoyed.  Some Telus customers also called Shaw in late July to inquire whether they could sign up for the promotion.  Existing Shaw customers were disqualified from the promotion because they were existing customers, and the Telus customers who shared their experiences with Stop the Cap! were told the “offer was not available in your area” by Shaw customer service representatives.

Indeed, other online forums reported some similar experiences, noting the offer was limited to a tight geographical area, notably right in the heart of Novus’ primary service areas — those high rise residential buildings.

One reader of Digitalhome.ca, one of Canada’s largest home entertainment forums, said Shaw would offer this promotion to him if he “moved downtown.”  He also noted some friends who do live downtown are trying to shovel through a blizzard of promotional mailers from Shaw received day after day, as well as personal visits from Shaw sales employees knocking on the doors of residents known to live in buildings wired for Novus, despite posted signs “clearly marked ‘No Canvassing’.”

On the CBC website, one Vancouver resident has received dozens of promotional mailers and plans to return them to Shaw at some point: “It’s insane; some friends and I are saving them up to dump on Shaw’s doorstep at some future point.”

Over on Broadband Reports, one resident looking for service outside of Vancouver was told the promotion was not available:

“I phoned up Shaw asking them to give me this offer at my residential house that is not located in Vancouver. They would not.  The closest deal that the Shaw customer service representative would give me is $70/month for six months and then $110/month after that – Citing at first that they could only offer this promotion to buildings with Novus/Telus/Bell. When I asked why I could not get the promotion at my house because I have Telus available, the CSR backtracked and told me that it was only available in multi-dwelling buildings. Eventually the CSR backed down and told me that Shaw was only offering the promotion to buildings with Novus.”

Another reader who did live in the right neighborhood and ostensibly should have qualified was told he did not:

“I called 15 minutes ago and spoke to a CSR about setting it up in my Kits apartment (moving on Aug 15, do not have an account with Shaw currently) and he came right out and told me it’s only for Novus customers. I said I understood it to be an offer to multi-dwelling buildings and that Telus was offered in my apartment as well, but he said that I don’t qualify because I’m not in a Novus building.”

One possible clue about who this promotion was intended for could be found on a signboard placed just outside the entrance of one Vancouver building heavily promoting the Shaw offer (see photo on right).

Meanwhile, both companies continue their war of words:

“They’ve publicly stated in the past that they’re going to become the bane of the life of Shaw,” Shaw’s Bissonnette said. “True to their word, they’ve embarked on this defamation campaign.”

Counters Novus’ Holman: “That number [$9.95] is way below our cost. We don’t know what Shaw’s cost is, but it’s hard to believe it could be that low and that their cost savings could be that much better than ours,” Holman said. “If we price matched on that, we’d be losing buckets of money.”

Vancouver residents have mixed reactions to the war of words (and pricing.)

Some are eager to take advantage of the competitive price war, and are dropping Novus for a year’s worth of service from Shaw at a fraction of the regular price, citing the savings during the current economic climate.

Others defend Shaw’s aggressive pricing as competition, brutal as it might appear, doing its job in reducing prices for consumers.  Some have suggested the aggressive rate cutting exposes the enormous profit margins enjoyed by the cable industry, particularly pointing to Shaw’s comments that they are not losing money, even at the low prices they are charging in certain areas of Vancouver, as clear evidence of the gouging that goes on elsewhere in cable pricing.

But some Vancouver residents are defending “the little guy,” upset that Shaw may be using its market power and presence across western Canada to put an upstart like Novus out of business.

One CBC reader summed up the views of Novus defenders:

I’m increasingly annoyed by how heavy-handed Shaw is being in this price war. I qualify for Shaw’s anti-competitive price, but have no intention of switching to get it. If I leave Novus now then I’d be playing right into Shaw’s dream of a city-wide monopoly.

And that’s before I even start to mention the aggression of Shaw’s sales tactics. Green-shirted employees on every street corner downtown, bugging me multiple times as I walk from point A to point B on a weekly basis. Two or three pieces of junk mail a week that get around the red dot I have in my mailbox that indicates I Do Not Want Junk Mail, because they’re addressed to Current Occupant.

I’m all for healthy competition, but this ain’t it.

A few Novus customers have found a happy middle ground while the war plays out in the courtroom.  They contacted Novus and asked them to match Shaw’s prices:

Novus customers who are tempted to switch should contact Novus, as they will match the deal. That is what I did, and I am now paying $10 bucks a month for 20Mbps (23.79 according to Speedtest.net) download speed. My total Internet bill over the next year will be $120 for a service that is equivalent to Shaw’s “High Speed Warp” package, a service that costs $94 a month! That’s the apples to apples comparison, and it works out to be a $1000 savings for Novus customers.

I felt really guilty asking Novus to match, since I am extremely happy with their service and was paying a very reasonable $30 a month. But it’s hard to pass up a deal like that, and I will do my best to spread the gospel about how much better value Novus is over Shaw, and especially Telus and Bell. Healthy competition is great, but I do hope the CRTC steps in to ensure Novus isn’t bullied out of the market.

Telus hasn’t gotten involved because they are more concerned with selling the worst service at the highest price, while Bell is busy pitching you on how fast their service is to your face, and then throttling your speed behind the scenes to the point where Google has come out against them. I haven’t had any bad experiences with Shaw myself, but Novus is a real gem.

So those of you who live in downtown Vancouver should do the logical thing, and stick with Novus. You have access to a service that most people across North America, let alone Canada, drool over.

In just the second quarter of 2009, Comcast doled out nearly $3.3 million dollars of their subscribers’ money lobbying elected officials on a myriad of issues, covering everything from executive compensation to sports channels to unionizing efforts.

Forbes reported last week the nation’s largest cable company has lobbied on:

• the Excessive Pay Capped Deduction Act of 2009, a bill that would stop tax deductions on excessive compensation given to any employee. Excessive pay is defined as any amount above 100 times the average employee’s compensation at the company;
• the Income Equity Act of 2009, which curbs executive pay by limiting tax deductions on pay greater than 25 times that of the lowest paid employee, or $500,000, whichever is greater;
• the Shareholder Bill of Rights Act of 2009, which gives shareholders the right to approve or reject executive compensation packages.  Shareholders have long been in contention with Comcast over the near $25 million annual salary paid to CEO Brian Roberts;
• the right to carry regional sports channels on terms favorable to the cable operator, both in terms of channel/package placement and pricing;
• the nation’s Broadband Stimulus program — how the funds would be allocated, on what terms, and for what types of projects;
• the issue of unionization activity at Comcast;
• limits on Comcast’s ability to increase ownership of additional cable-related assets and systems.

Meanwhile, Brian Dickerson, a columnist at the Detroit Free Press has also been noticing that AT&T, promising to bring competition to Comcast in cities like Detroit, came at the price of a trojan horse called “statewide franchising,” an issue we’ve covered at length on Stop the Cap!

Deregulating the cable TV business in Michigan was supposed to be good news for metro Detroit cable subscribers and bad news for Comcast, long the dominant cable provider in our region.

At least, that’s how area legislators justified a 2006 law that streamlined the franchising process for rival cable operators such as AT&T and stripped pesky local governments of their authority to stand up for aggrieved cable customers.

Dickerson recites a familiar tune to our readers about how AT&T came to the Michigan state legislature in 2006 promising to bring hardcore competition to Comcast, the state’s most prominent cable provider, if only they would permit AT&T to obtain one statewide franchise agreement, allowing them the flexibility to launch U-verse in cities throughout the state without negotiating with each local government first.

The astroturfers turned up right behind AT&T’s open checkbook (the company spent at least $672,000 in 2006 in Michigan on lobbying and political contributions), touting the benefits of AT&T’s “creative solution” to cable competition.  FreedomWorks even invaded one meeting of the Michigan Municipal League and Michigan Townships Association in the spring of that year “to set the record straight.”  That really meant representing AT&T’s position, and offering plenty of empty promises to Michigan communities seeking competition and lower prices for their residents.

FreedomWorks rapidly also devolved the debate into a partisan “conservative” vs. “liberal” sideshow, hoping to pick up conservatives that would reflexively adopt a pro-AT&T position if it meant doing battle with “liberals.”  And in a two-for-one win for AT&T, the conservative action group also helped jettison Net Neutrality protections.

FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe was quoted in a December 2006 press release: “To the very end, liberal special interests held out for additional regulatory mandates misleadingly labeled “neutral.” On behalf of more than 12,000 citizen activists in Michigan, I applaud the franchise reforms adopted this week while warning against new efforts in the 94th Legislature to deny basic property rights under the banner of “net neutrality.” We are prepared to defend consumer interests and property rights through relentless grassroots education and advocacy.”

FreedomWorks Michigan Director Randall Thompson concluded, “The issue of franchise reform is evidence that the Freedom Movement is deeply rooted in Michigan. Regular citizens made their voices heard, leading free market think tanks and scholars weighed in on the issue and as a result, public officials adopted good policy.”

Freedom Isn’t Free: Prices escalate across Michigan despite “competition.”

Now, three years after AT&T’s champions in the Legislature crowed that Comcast’s reign as the 800-pound. guerrilla of Michigan cable service was over, Comcast remains the state’s dominant provider, maintains a de facto wire-line monopoly in most its franchise areas, charges higher rates for basic cable service, and has far fewer legal obligations to the subscribers and communities it serves.

Indeed, the story is even worse for Michigan consumers, who in effect paid, as part of their monthly cable bills, for the lobbying and astroturf campaign battle launched against their own best interests and wallets.

The promised competition has arrived in some parts of Michigan, but often at pricing even higher than that charged by the dominant cable company in the area.  Many customers enjoy temporary savings as part of promotional new customer offers, that once expired, leave the customer stuck with everyday high pricing.  As seen in Tennessee, AT&T U-verse packages compete more on numbers of channels offered, not on the pricing of monthly basic service.  A-la-carte channel choice remains unavailable.

In fact, the second biggest winner of the Lobbying Money Party from AT&T ironically turned out to be Comcast.  After all, if AT&T was to be granted special provisions for statewide franchising and other deregulatory benefits, why can’t Comcast receive those benefits as well?

It seemed only fair that if legislators were prepared to relieve AT&T of any obligation to negotiate with local governments, Comcast and other cable providers should enjoy the same privilege. But what about the franchise agreements Comcast had already struck in places where AT&T had no immediate plans to compete?

Some legislators suggested that Comcast be required to live up to existing franchise agreements until competitors were offering service to at least 5% of the community’s residents. But when Sen. Nancy Cassis, R-Novi, proposed such a rule, she was defeated by a voice vote — the anonymous roar of Comcast’s many beneficiaries on both sides of the aisle.

As is the case in Tennessee, should a local franchise agreement not be renewed on favorable terms, there is always the possibility of securing that statewide franchise, bypassing local officials, reneging on hard fought agreements on things like:

• Guarantees that cable service would be made available to all residents, from the poorest to richest neighborhoods;
• Cable operators would agree to customer service benchmarks from call answer time to repair call timeframes;
• Provision and funding of local Public, Educational, and Government (PEG) access channels on the basic tier.

And so, three years after the blizzard of cash was long since pocketed, and astroturfers like FreedomWorks moved on to other industry-sponsored causes célèbre, where are the consumers after the “good public policy” applauded by FreedomWorks was adopted?

Absolutely in the exact same place they were before, only worse.

The Michigan Chapter of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors says Comcast celebrated the first anniversary of cable deregulation by raising the price of its cheapest cable package by 25% in many communities; rates for other service tiers jumped between 9%-25%.

Brian Brown, spokesman for a consortium of Michigan cable providers led by Comcast, says the price increases reflect the cost of enhanced services subscribers are demanding. “That’s what the market wants,” he says.

Meanwhile, Comcast has shuttered many of the local service locations it was obligated to maintain under franchise agreements, and is waging a federal court fight to move public access programming off the basic cable line-up.

That’s right.  The market wants higher prices, no local service locations, and a parade of formerly analog cable channels being moved into digital tiers, necessitating additional consumer expense to rent digital converter equipment for every cable-connected television in the home.

Those are the same consumers whose interests have routinely been ignored by the politicians and the providers, and distorted by their bought and paid for political astroturf groups that hoodwink consumers into believing this is a “right-left issue.”

As the battle for Net Neutrality protections begins again this summer, and as we vigilantly maintain watch and prepare for opposition to any reintroduction of Internet Overcharging schemes, just remember the tale of Michigan and Tennessee and the real agenda of the astroturf groups sure to raise their well-financed opposition to pro-consumer legislation and activism yet again.

AT&T launched its U-verse service in parts of the Memphis area Monday, promising competition for Comcast, the dominant cable company in southwest Tennessee.  But some area residents expected much more to come from last year’s controversial industry-friendly statewide franchising law that promoters promised would bring lower prices for service across the state.

AT&T plans to offer U-verse within the next two years to subscribers in Arlington, Bartlett, Collierville, Covington, Dyersburg, Germantown, Lakeland, Memphis, Piperton and Ripley.  Monday’s launch only covers a portion of Memphis, and doesn’t cover large portions of downtown.

[flv width=”552″ height=”294″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/U-verse overview.flv[/flv]

An Overview of AT&T U-verse television service

Unlike traditional cable services, AT&T’s U-verse is typically delivered on a copper wire and fiber optic based Internet Protocol network.  Not as advanced as Verizon FiOS, which provides a fiber optic connection straight into the home, AT&T’s system still relies in part on traditional copper phone wire that runs from the pole to your home.  AT&T uses this approach to save money — company officials claim 100% fiber networks are too costly to build, and Wall Street investors balk at the up front costs.

AT&T uses its fiber network from the phone company office to individual neighborhoods to reduce the distance between the homeowner and the company’s equipment, which delivers a digital signal across the customer’s existing phone line.  Just like DSL, the shorter the distance between the customer and the telephone company equipment, the faster the speeds.  AT&T U-verse requires fast speeds to handle the video channels, digital phone, and broadband components that are part of the U-verse product line.

AT&T’s U-verse pricing ranges from $49 a month for an enhanced basic service package of 130 channels to $109 for 390 channels.  Premium channels are extra.  Plans include one AT&T set top box.  AT&T’s system will require a set top box for each television, at a monthly rental of $7 for each additional set, which can increase costs significantly for houses with several televisions.  An HD package runs $10 per month.  AT&T specials often include discounted or free installation, which takes between four to seven hours to complete and is only done on weekdays.  No contracts are required and customers can cancel at any time.

AT&T claims that 70% of their customers choose a bundled package that includes television, broadband, and/or telephone service.

Company officials credited the passage of the Competitive Cable and Video Services Act, which became effective in July 2008, for paving the way for AT&T U-verse in the city.  AT&T’s praise also included crediting elected officials by name who supported the company’s lobbying efforts towards passage of that bill, which stripped cable franchising authority from local communities and adopted a statewide franchise system.

“We are thrilled to offer this innovative video choice to customers in the Memphis metropolitan area. As we celebrate this Memphis launch, I want to remember the contributions of the Tennessee General Assembly to open Tennessee’s video services marketplace to competition which is truly benefiting consumers. I would like to again thank Memphis area legislators including Speaker Emeritus Jimmy Naifeh, Senator Mark Norris, House Speaker Pro Tem Lois DeBerry, Chairman Ulysses Jones and the many others who supported competition and choice for consumers,” said Gregg Morton, president, AT&T Tennessee.

In turn, elected officials were quoted in AT&T’s press release:

“As Tennessee policymakers, our goal was to increase investment throughout the state and give consumers more choices and innovative new services,” said Senator Norris. “AT&T has been a great community citizen and the launch of AT&T U-verse also supports economic growth in Memphis.”

“We are excited that AT&T has brought their 100 percent Internet Protocol-based television service to Memphis,” said Chairman Jones. “Consumers in Memphis have asked for this and today, AT&T has delivered.”

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>AT&T Group President for Operations Support John Stankey discusses the company’s fiber strategy and provides an update on its progress in deploying its groundbreaking IPTV service, AT&T U-verse TV. (11 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

The Municipal Technical Advisory Service, in association with the Tennessee Municipal League, noted that the lobbying effort to pass the Act was among the most expensive lobbying campaigns in state history.

This legislation is part of the national trend to diminish or eliminate the franchising authority of cities by granting cable companies the right to provide services without negotiating agreements with local governments.

In recent years, several cable companies operating in Tennessee permitted local franchise agreements to expire and refused to negotiate contracts with cities in anticipation that legislation would be adopted that would give cable companies great advantages in negotiating new agreements.

This tactic has paid off, as this law essentially grants a statewide franchise to these companies. Current franchise holders may now terminate their local agreements and seek a state franchise. A city that has previously negotiated a franchise agreement with one cable provider may be forced to permit other cable companies to serve its area under the same terms and conditions of the existing agreement

Such legislation has traditionally been advocated by telephone companies like AT&T and Verizon who are introducing video services in a bid to remain competitive with cable, which now offers its own telephone service.  Seen as a shortcut to negotiating with each individual municipality, the statewide franchise advocates claims it reduces the time and expense of bring needed competition to communities.

In addition to an expensive lobbying campaign, astroturfer FreedomWorks coincidentally showed up to promote their “Choose Your Cable” campaign, which in fact mirrors AT&T’s public policy advocacy of statewide franchising.

FreedomWorks Chairman Dick Armey commented, “FreedomWorks and our thousands of Tennessee members were proud to take part in the grassroots battle in Tennessee that finally saw this ground-breaking legislation through. We salute the Tennessee state legislature for its leadership in giving Tennessee consumers the advantages of increased competition in the video services market. The Competitive Cable and Video Services Act will offer cable consumers more choices and more innovation. And when businesses are forced to compete for customers, the customers win.”

Incumbent cable operators have had mixed reactions to such proposals, generally opposing them in areas where they would likely face the entry of AT&T or Verizon into their markets, and taking a more favorable approach in areas where they are unlikely to face a strong telephone company competitor.

In Tennessee, with AT&T itching to bring U-verse to state residents, cable operators launched a major opposition effort.

Local municipalities and many consumer advocates strongly oppose statewide franchising legislation, noting such laws remove local oversight over operators that do not perform responsibly and reasonably in their communities.  Additionally, in many states where statewide franchise bills have become law, local communities find franchise fees paid into state bodies that do not always pass on the full amount of that revenue to towns and cities.

Other common problems include:

• Threatened loss of local Public, Educational, and Governmental (PEG) local access channels;
• Reduced control over zoning regulations prohibiting digging and construction without permits;
• Loss of “free service” provisions that deliver cable programming to public schools, community centers, and town, police and fire halls at no charge;
• Loss of authority to help manage customer complaints.

In Tennessee, those opposing the legislation managed to get rid of statewide franchise fee administration, retained control over their existing PEG channels, and kept existing “free service” provisions, as well as reasonable zoning requirements.  However, the telecommunications industry did manage to include language banning municipally owned broadband networks in any area where an incumbent provider exists:

Memphis, Tennessee

Broadband joint venture authority.

The law creates the “Tennessee broadband deployment fund” to be used to promote the deployment of broadband service to rural areas. Guidelines will be developed to govern use of the funds, and grants will be available to local governments, cable companies, and telecommunications companies.

Cities now have the authority to enter into joint ventures with one or more third parties to provide broadband services. Joint ventures will be authorized only in areas that are historically unserved. City electric companies and electric cooperatives that participate in these joint ventures must still comply with other applicable statutes, and no revenues from utility operations may be used to subsidize the joint venture.

Cable operators also managed some concessions, and after the bill was signed into law, the state cable television association said they could live with the result.

Stacey Briggs, executive director of Tennessee Cable Telecommunications Association:

“This has been a good process – not easy, but good – and Speaker Naifeh should be commended for managing this outcome on a highly complex policy.

The cable industry, including Comcast and Charter, stood firm to make sure that our members were treated fairly and that AT&T and other companies were not granted advantages in the law. And, most important for consumers, Tennessee’s cable companies will continue making substantial and meaningful investment in Tennessee. Cable companies will continue to be the leader in bringing the most advanced products, services and newest technologies to consumers across the state.

AT&T and other companies have had the right to compete under local franchising rules for more than a dozen years. This new policy streamlines the franchise process, but it remains to be seen whether new entrants will compete in Tennessee.”

After all of the lobbying was done, the bill was signed into law, and the competition FreedomWorks was touting did arrive, the only thing missing from the consumer perspective was lower pricing.

Comcast, the local cable operator serving Memphis, seemed unfazed by AT&T’s entry into the area.

“We have competed successfully against satellite TV and other competitors for many years,” said Trevor Yant, vice president and general manager of Comcast of Memphis. “AT&T will become another player in the market with the services they choose to offer.”

One of the possible reasons for Comcast’s apparent lack of concern may stem from the reaction of many Memphis residents, who note AT&T’s prices are often higher than those charged by Comcast.

Among the mostly unimpressed reactions on local message boards:

mrhmeisme:
“$109.00 for 390 channels doesn’t sound like a very competitive price for a yet untested product. That’s some 20 percent higher than my current package that has all the channels that interest me. I suppose the proof will be in the pudding.”

Not_Chicken_Little:
“The website for U-verse presents the packages very poorly, and the prices don’t seem to be any bargain. But I am glad to see some competition, even though I don’t think they’ll make much headway. They need to show what they’ve got in a more attractive and understandable way, and cut prices – they don’t make me even think of switching with the lame sales pitch they have now.”

dmat7777:
“I just did a comparison of cost between my current Comcast and the U-verse. For comparable services, U-verse would be about $15 more per month for me. Some of the packaging/options might look better. For example, the Flickr photo being included, but I’m more concerned about how much $$$ per month. I don’t see AT&T taking this seriously. They seem to be doing the typical huge corporate thing, and not addressing the customers real concerns. No surprise there.”

ChickPea:
“$49 a month is too rich for my blood. When someone offers a decent package available for $25-$30 a month, I’ll be in.”

Oddly, the most common requests and complaints among Memphis area residents continue to be unanswered by Tennessee officials who were eager to support the Competitive Cable and Video Services Act, but left out a few things:

umbluegray:
“I want a plan where I can pick and choose the channels I want. I hate paying money to some of the basic channels like MTV, etc.”

ladydonald:
“I would be a big fan of a-la carte programming if it were ever enacted.

A-la carte channels are a niche that all of the providers are totally ignoring. Just think what would or could happen if those options were available.”

Hogs2009:
“It would be nice if you could pick out what cable channels you want and skip the rest. 90% of cable channels I do not want but am charged for. I mainly have cable for sports broadcasting channels, like ESPN, ESPN2, and ESPN Classic. I also like having local on cable because it is more clear, again because some games are on local channels. A-la carte is a great idea!”

Many residents were also suspicious of just how good a local competitor AT&T will be against Comcast, which itself took over providing cable service formerly provided by Time Warner Cable:

DanWesson:.
“Since Comcast bought out service from Time Warner locally, our service has been sub-par. I have had technicians out the house multiple times due to inexplicably losing certain HD channels and internet service that continually drops or can be agonizingly slow, on par with dial-up some days (particularly the hot ones, which is very strange). Their technicians on the phone and who come to the house have been polite and friendly, but they aren’t exactly going out of their way to fix the problem.

Comcast also charges me more than Time Warner did in addition to charging a “modem-rental” fee when the cable modem was free from Time Warner and I haven’t exchanged it since the change.

All that said, I’m not sure AT&T is the way to go as their corporate practices are the worst in the Telecom industry. Customer service has always been non-existent as the customer is merely a cash-cow. I’m all for competition in the marketplace, though. If Direct TV didn’t require a contract that might would be the route I went, but I’d still be reliant on one of these other worthless companies for internet.”

Not_Chicken_Little:
“On the website trying to check availability, U-verse tells me it cannot find my address! It suggests I try again using my AT&T phone number instead and directs me to continue to another screen. That screen, however, has no option to enter a phone number – only the address.

So I already see the level of competence I would have to endure if I choose U-verse. And like dmat7777, I see that the price for comparable service would be considerably higher than what I have now.”

apollo1377:
“AT&T can’t handle phone service. Do you think they can take on more? I think NOT.”

ima_cracker:
“If AT&T could deliver a more reliable package some would pay more to get it.

Instead they are mortgaging the company’s reputation for wireline services, which they continually deride, to try and emulate the cable companies financial model, which has produced a reputation for reliability that is the envy of nobody.

If instead of trying to destroy the value in wireline AT&T decided to pursue a higher quality, more reliable service for cable, they could at some point expect to capture a substantial amount of market share. But they assume the consumer is too stupid to make the distinction between one service and another.”

ChickPea:
“AT&T websites are a perennial problem. Ever since BellSouth was taken over by AT&T, getting any information on local service online has been a struggle. A site map would probably look like a birds nest.
That said, I’m loving my AT&T DSL lite! Cheap and plenty fast for a non-gamer.”

Frontier vs. Time Warner. Frontier vs. Comcast. Frontier vs. NPG Cable. Across 24 states, passing nearly 3,000,000 households, some in America’s smallest towns and others in large cities, Frontier Communications is engaged in a battle of survival in an increasingly competitive American telecommunications marketplace.

In this series examining Frontier Communications, today’s report investigates the competitive realities of a hotly competitive telecommunications industry, becoming more concentrated by the day.    How does Frontier intend to survive and grow, and is it realistic to assume it can in an environment that demands major investments in the delivery of high quality video, low-priced telephone service, and reliable broadband that may be beyond its reach?   Yesterday, we saw how Frontier is attempting to control expenses with the plan to implement a 5GB usage cap on its broadband customers.   Today, we take a look at how Frontier attempts to maintain its market share and deal with customer defections.   Tomorrow, we take a closer look at how quickly Frontier’s telephone line business is losing ground to its competitors.

Frontier’s Background At A Glance

Frontier Communications, formerly Citizens Communications, primarily runs originally independent telephone companies in rural and exurban areas bypassed by the former Bell System. The company’s most significant presence is in the 585 area code, home to Rochester, New York. But from Elk Grove, California and Bullhead City, Arizona eastward to the AuSable Valley in central New York to Bluefield, West Virginia, a significant number of Frontier customers are also in some of America’s  small towns and cities.

The size of a community where Frontier operates is often indicative of how much competition the company faces.  Some of Frontier’s most difficult challenges can be found in the  Rochester, N.Y. metropolitan area, numbering nearly 1,000,000 people, where a well entrenched Time Warner has made deep inroads into Frontier’s telephone access line business, eats Frontier for breakfast in the video delivery business, and has been a dominant player in the broadband marketplace since Road Runner arrived  in 1998.

In more rural communities, Frontier often has it much easier,  free from  cable competition  in some  areas, or  competing with a small independent cable company that may be relying on its own aging infrastructure and cannot afford to engage in price and service wars. Where Frontier stands as the lone player or only faces token competition from a small cable company, consumers will likely find  lower speed broadband at higher-than-average prices.

The Threat From Big Cable

The cable television industry’s entry into telephone service  is among the biggest threats Frontier faces in maintaining their traditional primary revenue source: residential and business wired telephone lines.

Deploying  voice over IP technology, Comcast and Time Warner, the nation’s largest cable operators, have made significant inroads into Frontier’s telephone business where they compete.   Now, even smaller players in the cable industry are prepared to offer voice over IP service to customers.

Joining cable at the table are  mobile telephone companies like Verizon Wireless, Sprint, and AT&T which are also eroding Frontier’s  phone line business  as more people in America  rely exclusively on their mobile phone for telephone service.

How Cable Companies Pick Off Frontier’s Customers

Product Bundling & Discounting: The most important component of cable’s strategy against Frontier is cable’s product bundle, combining a voice over IP telephone line, a cable television package, and a high speed data product. Usually marketed as a “triple play” or “all the best” package, consumers are offered discounts based on the number of components of a package they combine. The more components, the greater the discount.

The product bundle offered by the cable industry has a competitive advantage because cable companies almost always have a more advanced network to deliver these products. Throughout the 1990s, most cable systems spent millions rebuilding their systems to accommodate increasing bandwidth requirements.   The result is a considerably larger pipeline used to deliver data, video, and telephone services.

Frontier’s network is considerably more dated, largely dependent on copper wire strung on telephone poles. While the company has made significant investments in their own  network, including some fiber optics,  in the end, they still rely on the same copper wire infrastructure the industry has used for nearly 100 years to connect to your home or office.

Although this copper network is suitable for traditional telephone service, and can usually deliver a respectable data service over DSL, the video component has been sorely lacking. While AT&T is testing its U-verse video-over-copper technology in limited markets, Frontier is stuck  reselling Dish Network, the  smaller player in the satellite television marketplace.

Many consumers are resistant to satellite dishes of any size attached to their homes, and the cable industry’s response to Frontier has been the same as to DirecTV and Dish Network themselves: ugly satellite  dishes that suffer from rain/snow fade, require expensive service calls and maintenance, and a limitation on the number of TV sets you can hook up.   Also, no local channels in many areas.   In the end, most people who were even slightly uncomfortable with satellite-delivered TV elected to just stick with what they already had: cable television.

Results of the Dish Network partnership continue to be underwhelming. Sources tell Stop the Cap! the satellite service only succeeds in areas where there is no cable competitor, the customer was already a Dish Network subscriber independent of Frontier, or the incumbent cable company is hampered by a limited channel lineup, no HD channels, or exceptionally bad service. In Rochester, Frontier is actually losing more Dish Network customers than it is adding, and growth is  anemic in many other Frontier regions as well.

Frontier’s inability to provide a comparable quality television service is a critical defect in their competition with cable.

Claiming Inferior Product Quality:  The cable industry wasted no time attacking Frontier’s DSL product, accusing it of not performing consistently. Uneven telephone line quality, distance from the telephone company central office, and signal ingress (when interference or crosstalk gets into wiring and degrades the signal) can all dramatically slow a DSL customer’s  broadband speeds. The cable industry’s marketing often pillories DSL service because of its inability to offer anything close to a speed guarantee, and the fact  it is often slower than cable’s competing product no matter how good your line is.

In areas where a large cable competitor exists, traditionally  that cable operator will have the fastest speed broadband package to sell to customers in that market. This forces Frontier to compete on price.   In return for a significant discount, Frontier  usually locks customers into multi-year service agreements which discourage its customers from  switching to a competitor.   Unfortunately, the company’s inferior product bundle and  long term contract commitments have made it difficult to convince cable customers to switch to Frontier,  particularly if it means taking their video package from Dish Network.

Lampooning Questionable Marketing Practices: In Rochester, Time Warner’s marketing people have had no trouble finding new ways to attack Frontier in its advertising.   While Frontier may be able to pull off some of their hidden extra charges, long term contracts, and restrictive service policies in more rural communities, most of those practices meet strong criticism in Time Warner’s advertising.

Among the more common refrains in Time Warner ads  dismissing Frontier’s DSL  product include:

• Charging a “modem rental fee” as part of Frontier’s DSL service, even if you can supply your own DSL modem.

• Locking customers into a term commitment contract (often lasting several years) for DSL service that offers lower speeds than Time Warner’s Road Runner service and charging a substantial early termination fee for those dissatisfied with their broadband experience.

• Charging for ancillary support services like Frontier’s “Peace of Mind” that Time Warner claims to offer at no charge.

The latest decision to impose a 5GB usage cap on customers is marketing gold for the cable companies competing with Frontier, perhaps only tempered  by the fact they are also studying whether to apply their own usage caps.

Relentless Marketing: One of the fringe benefits of owning your own video distribution network is the ability to pepper your existing customers with near-constant advertising promoting your own products while denigrating the competition. Cable customers can see an average of three product promotion spots every hour from their cable company trying to convince them to upgrade, attempting to bolster customer loyalty, or simply slashing and burning whatever the telephone company or satellite dish company is offering. Frontier has  a limited ability to counter this.

In areas of significant competition, the battle usually rages in your mailbox, with  a relentless flood of  promotional postcards and mailers, as well as ad buys on local television/radio stations and local newspapers. But cable retains an important advantage because of their ability to insert advertising into basic cable channels, usually at no cost to them.   Frontier doesn’t own their video distribution network – they are reselling someone else’s.

Frontier’s Battle Plan

Frontier’s plan to compete with cable includes  their own marketing by mailbox, and sponsoring local community events and charities to leverage free media and consumer exposure to the company brand to nurture positive feelings  about the company.

The company also places a high priority on attempting to position themselves as “local” players in the market – a company made up of local employees who customers supposedly will interact with on a daily basis. Unfortunately for them, most customers will likely only interact with one of their customer care call centers such as the one  in DeLand, Florida which is localism IF you live, work and play in DeLand.

Frontier also maintains call centers in Henrietta, New York and Burnsville, Minnesota which are designed to replace what used to be local customer service call centers in more than a dozen  Frontier areas.   Some 500 people were hired to answer phones in DeLand for Frontier.   This begs the question how many people lost those jobs in the various local communities where Frontier operates.

Call center employees are on Frontier’s competitive front line, trying to  maintain customer loyalty, convince customers to upgrade their service packages, and above all, remain with Frontier and don’t cancel anything.

They need to maintain the battle, because cable competitors continue to erode their residential business. The company’s deactivations of high speed data services and the ongoing loss of telephone lines are considerably above the company’s own estimates.

One significant bright spot Frontier has maintained is delivering commercial broadband to businesses.

Frontier has a significant advantage in many offices, business parks, and other industrial areas bypassed by their cable competitors. Installation costs to wire a building with coaxial cable often run into the tens of thousands of dollars, an expense borne by the company, the landlord, or a combination of the two. But every business has telephone service, which usually guarantees potential access to DSL service from Frontier. Small and medium sized businesses have become loyal Frontier commercial customers because of low installation costs and a reasonable pricing plan that is typically far more cost effective than what cable is offering. Cable modem commercial access pricing models are usually tailored to a range of product speeds at prices that, when compared with what Frontier can offer, are not competitive.

Frontier’s ability to effectively compete against cable will, in the end, come down to the company’s ability to invest in their network and be able to match what is on offer from the cable operator, and new competitors yet to emerge.    Some former Baby Bell telephone companies like AT&T are investing enormous sums to leverage their existing network (their U-verse product) or starting over from scratch (Verizon’s fiber optic cable to the home FIOS project).

To date, Frontier’s status as a smaller player has meant their investments in these efforts pale in comparison to their larger brethren.   They include experimenting with deploying fiber optic cable to new housing developments and selected mass density buildings (apartments, offices) in Rochester, building community wi-fi networks to create a new market for wireless Internet access, and other investments in their network distribution system.   If they cannot invest enough, fast enough, to keep up, they will become ripe for a merger with a larger player in the market or get wiped out by the competition.

In the meantime,  to quote company chairwoman and CEO Maggie Wilderotter, Frontier intends to “stay the course” for the rest of the year.

We’ll have to wait and see if that’s good enough.