Sinclair Broadcasting is threatening to pull 33 television stations in 21 cities from Time Warner Cable customers on January 1st if the cable company doesn’t agree to demands to pay around 20-25 cents per month per subscriber for each of the stations, primarily Fox and MyNetworkTV affiliates.

It’s just the latest in a series of retransmission rights battles underway between broadcasters and cable companies over cable carriage agreements.

Sinclair is a major group owner of television stations, and the impact on viewers in places like western New York, Dayton, Ohio, Greensboro, N.C., San Antonio, Tex., and Pittsburgh, Pa., won’t be missed because these markets have multiple Sinclair-owned or programmed stations involved in the dispute.

As always, the dispute is about money.  This week, viewers of affected stations, including our readers Lance and Andrew, started being annoyed with repeated warnings scrolled at the bottom of screens about the potential loss of their “favorite stations.”  In the case of WUHF, viewers might have thought a serious weather warning was being issued as text crawled against a distinctive red background.

So far, the dispute has not infected Sinclair’s local newscasts, which have often been used as a sounding board for the company’s past retransmission consent fights.  But then, many Sinclair stations have abandoned producing local news themselves over the past few years as a cost-savings measure.  However, many of the stations involved have put the dispute high on their home pages, as a too-cute-by-half link: “Learn About Time Warner Cable’s Plans to Drop Carriage Of This Station.”  Sinclair leaves no doubt about who they blame for the debacle.

Stations Impacted

• AL  Birmingham — WTTO (CW)
• AL  Birmingham — WABM (MyNetworkTV)
• FL  Pensacola — WEAR (ABC)
• FL  Tallahassee — WTWC (NBC)
• FL  Tampa — WTTA (MyNetworkTV)
• KY  Lexington — WDKY (Fox)
• ME  Portland — WGME (CBS)
• MO  Girardeau — KBSI (Fox)
• NC  Greensboro — WXLV (ABC)
• NC  Greensboro — WMYV (MyNetworkTV)
• NC  Raleigh — WLFL (CW)
• NC  Raleigh — WRDC (MyNetworkTV)
• NY  Buffalo — WUTV (Fox)
• NY  Buffalo — WNYO (MyNetworkTV)
• NY  Rochester — WUHF (Fox)
• NY  Syracuse — WSYT (Fox)
• NY  Syracuse — WNYS (MyNetworkTV)
• OH  Cincinnati — WSTR (MyNetworkTV)
• OH  Columbus — WSYX (ABC)
• OH  Columbus — WTTE (Fox)
• OH  Dayton — WKEF (ABC)
• OH  Dayton — WRGT (Fox)
• SC  Charleston — WTAT (Fox)
• SC  Charleston — WMMP (MyNetworkTV)
• PA  Pittsburgh — WPGH (Fox)
• PA  Pittsburgh — WPMY (MyNetworkTV)
• TX  San Antonio  —  KABB (Fox)
• TX  San Antonio — KMYS (MyNetworkTV)
• VA  Norfolk — WTVZ (MyNetworkTV)
• WI  Milwaukee — WVTV (CW)
• WI  Milwaukee — WCGV (MyNetworkTV)
• WV  Charleston — WCHS (ABC)
• WV  Charleston — WVAH (Fox)

Sinclair’s website warns viewers negotiations with Time Warner Cable are not promising:

Sinclair (or in some cases the licensees of the television stations not owned by Sinclair) and Time Warner are in the process of negotiating a renewal of the current agreement between Sinclair and Time Warner Cable which is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2010. Without a renewal, Time Warner Cable will no longer have the right to carry the broadcast of the television stations covered by this expiring agreement. Unfortunately, based on the status of the negotiations Sinclair does not believe we are going to be able to reach agreement on an extension of the deal. As a result, Time Warner would no longer be carrying the stations covered by the agreement with Sinclair beginning on January 1, 2011. Although some might try and characterize this as a dispute, in the end it represents nothing more than the failure of two companies to reach a business agreement, something that happens in the business world thousands of times a day.

Taking a cue from News Corp., Sinclair claims Time Warner Cable is stalling, hoping the Obama Administration will intervene and prohibit signal blackouts while negotiations are still underway.  Despite the claim the cable company is the one with the plan to drop stations, Sinclair informs viewers it is giving them early warning to help them make arrangements with alternative providers like Verizon FiOS, AT&T U-verse, or satellite companies to “avoid interruptions” in programming.

Time Warner Cable recognized the seriousness of the Sinclair dispute and has given it top billing on their Roll Over or Get Tough website.  So far, the cable company has rolled over in every dispute, eventually caving to programmer demands.  But the cable company would claim it has at least reduced the rates being demanded, or won concessions that allow subscribers to catch shows on-demand as part of its TV Everywhere project.

Because the cable industry has so far been dealt the weaker hand in these disputes, they are spending an increasing amount on lobbying the issue in Washington, right down to creating a front group that claims to represent viewers.  The s0-called “American Television Alliance,” has a mission statement that, on the surface, doesn’t wade too deep into actual solutions:

The ATVA’s mission is a simple one – to give consumers a voice and ask lawmakers to protect consumers by reforming outdated rules that do not reflect today’s marketplace.  We are united in our determination to achieve our goal: ensure the best viewing experience at an affordable price, without fear of television signals being cut off or public threats of blackouts intended to scare and confuse viewers.

The overwhelming majority of the interests represented by the ATVA are giant cable and phone companies (and two groups willing to play along when sharing common interests: Public Knowledge and the New America Foundation.)

The group filed comments petitioning the Federal Communications Commission to modify retransmission consent policy to give cable and phone companies additional tools to battle with intransigent broadcasters.  The most important, and one we agree with, is an end to the ban on importing distant network signals from nearby cities to replace those from local stations who simply dump “take it or leave it” offers on operators who then raise rates to cover ever-inflating programming costs.

As it stands now, cable systems cannot grab network stations from other cities to at least restore network programming, because FCC rules prohibit it, even if the nearby station doesn’t mind.  While that might not help Time Warner viewers in cities like Rochester, where the nearby Fox affiliates in both Buffalo and Syracuse are also owned by Sinclair, the cable operator’s extended reach made possible serving all three major upstate cities might still deliver relief by grabbing further distant Fox stations like WYDC in Corning, WFXV in Utica, or WFXP in Erie, Pa and distributing them across all three affected cities.

Unfortunately, the Fox TV network has also made it clear stations could risk their affiliation deals with the network if they were to grant retransmission consent to providers that effectively undercut other Fox affiliates.

The ATVA also wants providers to retain the right to continue carrying disputed signals so long as good faith negotiations are ongoing, and has also suggested binding arbitration as another alternative reform.  Broadcasters have rejected both.

Some of the ATVA’s proposals are worthy of merit to benefit consumer interests, but consumer groups might do better creating their own group to fight this issue, if only to keep broadcasters from dismissing the group as heavily stacked with cable and phone companies with a biased, vested interest in the outcome.

Just reviewing the FCC petition left a bad taste when they quoted everyone’s favorite “dollar-a-holler” group — the League of United Latin American Citizens, which continues to amaze with its omnipresent Zelig-performance in just about every telecommunications policy debate involving LULAC’s benefactors.

More than a few politicians are likely to accept broadcaster arguments, which would ultimately weaken the effectiveness of any reform effort.

A telecom industry mouthpiece claims candidates lost at the ballot box because of Net Neutrality.

Scott Cleland, a paid mouthpiece for the nation’s Big Telecom companies, claimed last week’s election results were a national referendum on Net Neutrality broadband reform, and Americans ran to the polls to defeat it.

“So the best available national proxy vote gauging political support for [that] vision of net neutrality lost unanimously 95-0,” Cleland said, referring to 95 Democratic candidates who pledged to “protect network neutrality,” all of whom lost.

Cleland, who chairs the cable and phone company-financed “Netcompetition.org” website, thinks Americans hurried to polls to deliver a message against broadband reform policies at a time when the country continues to face nearly 10 percent unemployment, tight credit, poor housing values, concerns about government spending, and a continued sour outlook things will improve anytime soon.

The Net Neutrality pledge came from the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), a liberal group trying to elect like-minded legislators to office in a year that saw major losses for Democrats, especially in the House.  The 95 signers were mostly candidates challenging open or Republican seats, often in conservative districts.

Take Ann Kuster, who sought office in New Hampshire’s conservative 2nd district.  Won by Democrat Paul Hodes in the Democratic “wave election” of 2006, Hodes relinquished the long-standing Republican seat to run for Senate (and lost).  His immediate predecessor, Charlie Bass, a “Republican Revolution” victor swept into office in 1994, held the seat for a dozen years.  Bass ran to reclaim his old seat against newcomer Kuster, who faced considerable criticism in the Democratic primary for her lobbyist ties to Big Pharma.  Despite Kuster’s alienation of the Democratic party base because of her prior career lobbying against drug pricing reform, she lost the election last week by just a single point.

One issue definitely not in contention in the 2010 election in New Hampshire’s Second District was… Net Neutrality.  In fact, the last time the issue flared up in a significant way in western New Hampshire was in 2006, when Bass was criticized for his pro-telecom industry views opposing the broadband reform policy.

Charlie Bass recaptures his seat in Congress

Bass did not even make Net Neutrality an issue this year.  Even Kuster gave short shrift to the issue on her campaign website, putting her telecommunications policy views at the bottom of a list that emphasized jobs, the economy, foreign policy, and health care.

PCCC co-founder Adam Green noted Cleland’s political allies, including Bass, kept their mouths shut about the issue during this year’s elections.

“The only significant thing about Net Neutrality in 2010 is that 95 Democratic challengers felt confident enough to actively tell voters they support this pro-consumer position,” Green observed.  “Zero candidates across the country felt confident enough to actively tell voters they opposed Net Neutrality for the obvious reason that opposing the free and open Internet would be a ridiculously stupid political move.”

Net Neutrality is still an obscure topic for many broadband users, unaware of its meaning or the implications of having net protections swept away by broadband providers intent on boosting profits.

One thing is certain — as a result of last week’s elections, Republicans in the House and Senate, who have almost universally opposed against Net Neutrality, will almost certainly be able to block legislative efforts to enact such reforms into law for the next two years.

Telecom-focused Heavyweight Faces Surprising Loss

Boucher

In the House, the surprising loss of Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) in last week’s election will have a major impact on telecommunications policies.  Boucher, first elected in 1982, is a veteran of battles between consumer groups and big cable and phone companies.  Boucher championed home satellite dish-owner rights at a time when major cable companies were attempting to lock down competition from 10-12 foot backyard satellite dishes. Boucher also fought for net privacy regulations, rural telecommunications services, and supported broadband expansion.  His loss means uncertainty for telecommunications policy, as he gives up his leadership of the House Communications, Technology and the Internet Subcommittee.

“I was saddened to learn of the electoral loss of Representative Rick Boucher in the House,” Federal Communications Commission member Michael Copps said in a statement praising Boucher for nearly three decades of public service. “He has been an extraordinary public servant and a great leader across the whole gamut of telecommunications issues.  His dedication to broadband, his leadership to reform Universal Service to make sure the wonders of advanced telecommunications are available to all our citizens, and his uncommon ability to bring contesting parties to the table to forge workable compromises are the stuff of legend.”

Virginia's largely rural 9th District encompasses the western third of the state

Boucher’s loss could have dramatically negative results on rural Americans with respect to telecommunications services.  Boucher advocated heavily for the telecommunications challenges faced in rural areas like his own 9th District, located in western Virginia bordered by West Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Tennessee.  Inside his district, broadband service has been challenging to provide in many areas.  The city of Bristol decided to build its own broadband service, a fiber to the home network constructed by Bristol Virginia Utilities.  The network has been so successful, the southern half of the city — actually located in Tennessee — is following Virginia’s lead.  Boucher was a strong advocate for such community networks.

Boucher’s replacement is expected to be either Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) or Ed Markey (D-Mass.), both of whom serve more urban districts.

But did Boucher go down because of his strong advocacy of Net Neutrality?  Not even close.  The Bristol Herald Courier reports just one issue was almost certainly responsible for Boucher’s loss: Cap and Trade, legislation that would regulate carbon dioxide by capping total emissions and allowing polluters to trade credits among themselves.  Boucher favored the policy, his opponent opposed it.

Back to the Future Under GOP Leadership

Republican tech policy, potentially under the leadership of congressmen like Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Florida), is expected to be “Back to the Future,” a return to a more hands-off policy advocated under the former Bush Administration.

The result will be a tech agenda legislatively frozen in place.  Republicans will be unable to pass deregulation bills or block any surprise moves by the FCC to flex its regulatory muscles, thanks to Democrats in the White House and Senate.  Democrats will be unable to enact any broadband reform policies because of “majority-rules”-roadblocks in the Republican-controlled House.  The FCC, already frightened by Congressional dissent, may be less willing than ever to declare a firm position… on anything.  That’s particularly likely with issues considered “hot buttons” on Capitol Hill.

Republicans may even seek to end spending on broadband expansion and other publicly funded projects, assuming there are any funds yet to be allocated.  It is much easier to block annual re-authorizations than to cancel funding already appropriated.

New Consumer Champion Emerging in Senate from Connecticut?

Richard Blumenthal: New consumer champion?

One potential piece of good news for pro-consumer forces is the election of Sen. Richard Blumenthal, the former state attorney general.  Blumenthal’s highly aggressive investigations into wrongdoing by technology firms are likely to continue in his new role as Connecticut’s newest Democratic senator.  Blumenthal has taken aim at privacy violations at Google and prostitution advertising on Craigslist in the past, and his interest in telecommunications consumer protection could be a big help.

For issues like Net Neutrality, all eyes are turning back to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, perhaps the only man in Washington with the power to deliver a free and open Internet for at least the next two years.  Will he act?

A Cablevision ad against Fox

Cablevision and Fox finally settled their two week programming dispute Saturday when two local Fox-owned broadcasters and an assortment of cable channels returned to suburban New York area-television screens.  Cablevision ultimately capitulated to Fox’s increased programming fees and grumbled it was stuck paying an “unfair price” for the programming.

“In the absence of any meaningful action from the FCC, Cablevision has agreed to pay Fox an unfair price for multiple channels of its programming including many in which our customers have little or no interest,” Cablevision said, adding that it “conceded because it does not think its customers should any longer be denied the Fox programs they wish to see.”

But in reality, Cablevision subscribers who suffered through the two week outage will ultimately pay the price for Fox-owned programming in the next round of cable company rate increases.

While Cablevision subscribers can now watch the remaining games of the World Series from home, the cable-broadband industry post-game wrap-up show is now underway, surveying the winners and losers.

Let’s take a look:

WINNER: Fox Networks

Fox got everything it wanted, and then some, from Cablevision.  Consumers never take the side of the cable companies that have overcharged them for years. All most know is that when their favorite channels are not on the cable system that charges them more than $50 a month for service, it’s the cable company’s fault. While the terms of the final deal were not disclosed, it’s a safe bet Cablevision is paying rates even higher than those charged to New York’s other cable company Time Warner Cable.  The cave-in by Cablevision means Time Warner and other cable systems will likely also see higher rates for Fox programming now set as a precedent by Cablevision.  So will telco and satellite TV providers.  That’s money Fox will take to the bank.

LOSER: Cablevision

Not only did they alienate their customers, at one point telling them to watch Fox programming on third party websites, they are now facing a $450 million class action lawsuit from subscribers (filed by an attorney with prior connections to Fox parent company News Corporation.)  It is difficult to feel sympathy for a cable company deprived of Fox programming that still charged subscribers full price for channels they could not watch.  One industry executive praised Cablevision for “taking one for the team,” a phrase consumers have heard before to defend corporate pickpocketing.

Cablevision was actively promoting ivi last week through their customer service representatives

WINNER: ivi Networks

Stop the Cap! reported on upstart ivi several weeks back.  The service carries all of metropolitan New York’s broadcast stations and Cablevision ended up recommending its blacked-out subscribers buy an ivi subscription to watch Fox-owned broadcast channels no longer on the cable lineup.  The new online cable system, which started in September, added New York subscribers in droves, annoying Fox to the point of sending a cease-and-desist letter to Cablevision CEO James Dolan to get cable company representatives to stop recommending the service, which Fox claims is “illegal, and perhaps criminal.”

WINNER: Verizon & Satellite Dish Companies

Many subscribers fleeing Cablevision for competitors have probably left for good, especially if they scored substantial discounts and promotions during their first year or two of service.  Verizon FiOS always faced resistance from customers not wanting to devote the time needed to install the service, and when customers have been with a cable company for 20 or more years, change does not come easy.  But die-hard sports fans already inconvenienced by earlier channel interruptions pulled the trigger just to get away from the endless programming disputes.

Verizon scored new customers over the dispute.

LOSER: Comcast-NBC Merger

Lawmakers set to either applaud or introduce roadblocks to the proposed merger between Comcast and NBC saw first hand what can happen when big media companies duel it out over money — millions of customers can be left in the middle with nothing to show for it.  Bloomberg reports the dispute could force significant concessions to prevent or limit such disputes in the future.  U.S. Representative Maxine Waters, a California Democrat, said the Fox-Cablevision spat made her “increasingly concerned with the potential harm” if a dispute arose between an enlarged Comcast and competing video provider. In a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski last week, she called for “substantive and enforceable conditions” to preserve competition.

WINNER: NFL Networks – Where is Our Binding Arbitration?

Cablevision’s demands for binding arbitration to settle their disputes with Fox rang hollow, if not hypocritical, for NFL Network officials, who have been calling on Cablevision for the same binding arbitration the cable operator demanded of Fox.  The NY Post quoted an unnamed executive at the cable network: “Cablevision has been urging Fox to agree to binding arbitration — the same strategy we’ve been offering Cablevision — but we continue to get sacked.”

LOSER: The Federal Communications Commission

Despite demands from most consumer groups and Cablevision to intervene in the programming disputes, the FCC delivered a rebuke telling all sides to stop with the stunts and start with serious negotiations.  Beyond that, the agency did what it has done best under the Obama Administration: sit on its hands.

THE BIGGEST LOSER: You

With the grandstanding by both sides finally over Saturday — the shouting and expensive publicity campaigns wrapped up and put away for next time (KeepFoxOn.com now renders a blank page) — the person left standing with the bill in hand was you.  Fox wrapped the costs of its expensive publicity campaign into the rate increase Cablevision finally conceded to paying.  The bags of money to be handed from the Dolan family that owns Cablevision over to Rupert Murdoch will be filled from your pockets.  And there is no end in sight to future disputes raising programming costs even higher than ever.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Cablevision Fox Dispute 11-1-10.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News delivers three reports detailing the impact of increased programming costs on cable bills, inaction by the FCC, and whether Americans are fleeing cable TV for online video instead.  (10 minutes)

Recently, the FCC issued a report claiming Americans are often only getting half the broadband speeds they are promised by providers.  KTVX-TV, the ABC station in Salt Lake City, recently investigated whether that held true for local residents.

The results?  Most Salt Lake City Internet users don’t always get a good deal from providers that often deliver inconsistent speeds, even on premium priced plans that can cost up to $130.

Ookla, which has been compiling speed test data as well, reports the United States was in 11th place globally when it comes to being honest about what broadband speeds providers actually deliver.  Don’t get too excited — we score 30th on the download speed index.  More than two dozen nations deliver faster service.

Which nation scores at the very top of the honesty chart?  The Republic of Moldova, a largely-Romanian speaking former Soviet Republic.  In fact, ISPs in Chişinău, the capital city, are too modest, claiming speeds lower than they actually provide customers.  The rest of the top-10 honesty ranking contains a number of countries in eastern Europe — countries that blow the United States out of the water when it comes to telling the truth about broadband speed:

1. Republic of Moldova, 109.21%
2. Russia, 98.65%
3. Slovakia, 98.64%
4. Lithuania, 97.97%
5. Ukraine, 97.58%
6. Hungary, 96.80%
7. Switzerland, 96.72%
8. Bulgaria, 95.96%
9. Latvia, 94.83%
10. Norway, 93.97%

Five states manage to score high marks on the honesty chart, most of which are served by Verizon.  We suspect FiOS may be a major factor in why these states lead the others:

1. Delaware, 100.85%
2. Massachusetts, 100.07%
3. Maryland, 99.56%
4. Rhode Island, 98.83 %
5. Virginia, 98.36 %

KTVX found that the area’s incumbent cable company Comcast did manage to deliver promised broadband speeds, often when most customers are not using the service.  Speeds were far lower in the evening — prime-time usage hours — sometimes as low as 3Mbps.

“Qwest’s DSL is best forgotten,” says Stop the Cap! reader Sangi, who writes from the city of Roy.  “It’s so bad a lot of us think of it as dial-up on caffeine.”

Sangi used to receive DSL service from the phone company, which is planning to merge with CenturyLink.

“When we moved closer to town, cable was an option and that made Qwest something we could live without,” Sangi says.  “They never came close to the speeds they marketed and when we complained, they claimed we wouldn’t notice the difference when browsing web pages and checking e-mail.”

“Apparently Qwest considers the Internet good for little else, at least how they deliver it,” he added.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KTVX Salt Lake City You Are Getting Half Your Promised Broadband Speed 10-22-10.flv[/flv]

KTVX-TV in Salt Lake City investigates broadband speed claims and finds residents don’t always get what they pay for.  (3 minutes)

The Washington Post editorial page yesterday published a self-serving piece that openly advocated the approval of a merger between NBC-Universal and Comcast, creating one of America’s largest and most concentrated media companies.  But considering who owns the Post, the editorial might as well have been written by Comcast CEO John Roberts.

Containing only a non-specific disclosure that the newspaper “has interests in broadcast and cable television,” the editorial laments interference from “advocacy groups” that oppose the merger, claiming they are “poor prognosticators of the effects of large media mergers.”  The newspaper found no problems with media concentration in the United States, which itself should be an indictable offense, until one realizes the company that publishes the newspaper is, itself, a concentrated media company.

The Washington Post and Cable One are both owned by the same company.

The newspaper owns Cable One, a particularly nasty, low-rated cable operator that spied on its broadband customers and overcharges them for broadband service through a complicated Internet Overcharging scheme.  In fact, Cable One is the cable company that brought America the “$10/GB overlimit fee,” a low blow for the company’s customers on the so-called “economy tier,” which delivers pathetic 1.5Mbps service with a maximum limit of just 1GB!  This is the kind of cable company that proves sometimes dial-up service -is- better.

As far as the Post is concerned, the FCC will keep America safe from any uncompetitive market-power-enabled-abuses from a Comcast-NBC behemoth, itself a stunning statement from a newspaper that claims to know what is really going on in Washington.

Even our readers know complaining to the FCC about anything is like talking into a black hole.

When it comes to the Washington Post editorial page, profits come first, and Cable One can generate them with its own abusive pricing practices.

For the rest of the country, the irony of a dead-tree-format newspaper finger-pointing at advocacy groups (that don’t own cable companies), accusing them of getting the future wrong is a mighty rich irony.

The reality-based America I live in thinks media is already too-consolidated, too shallow, and increasingly abusive and too expensive.  The Post‘s advocacy of a mega-merger like Comcast-NBC only points to just how out of touch the newspaper is getting these days.  As Americans clamor for more media diversity, more competition, and more choices at lower prices, the Washington Post is just fine with the exact opposite.  But then you’d expect that from a company whose business plan depends on it.