Phillip Dampier

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski recorded a YouTube video to talk to Americans about the development of a national broadband plan for the United States.

In optimistic, flowery language, Genachowski invited Americans to submit their ideas and suggestions not only regarding broadband, but also the priorities Americans think the FCC should have in the future.

The most important part of the five minute video comes right in the beginning when Genachowski called broadband critical to the nation:

“Broadband is our generation’s major infrastructure challenge. It’s for us what railroads, highways and electricity were to past generations.”

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Genachowski would do well to remember America’s experience with all three of these important history lessons.  The broadband plan Genachowski envisions is subject to the same type of intrusive, anti-consumer tactics that wreaked havoc on past generations of consumers.

The railroad industry’s cartel of ownership and control is a familiar tale.  The Rise of Monopolies tells the story:

The need for all of these industries to stay successful was worrisome for railroad owners. To avoid the loss of production in any of these areas, large corporations attempted to stabilize their situations by pooling markets and centralizing management. By combining all of the fields into one conglomeration, the railroads had a new power, as they acquired control of many facets of the new economy. This body now had the ability to “squeeze out competitors, force down prices paid for labor and raw materials, charge customers more and get special favors and treatments from National and State government” (Chalmers). The railroads had all the power, because they controlled all the prices. Since the new residents of the West could not survive without the use of the railroads, they were forced to pay whatever rates the railroad companies set.

With these huge stores of capital, the railroad companies were able to finance political campaigns through whatever and whomever was needed in government. With this control in Washington, there was no way to stop the overwhelming control of this industry over society. The entire nation was subject to the whims of this monopoly.

It took direct government intervention to break up the railroad monopoly and protect consumers and businesses from the abusive practices of a transportation industry that can make or break you based on pricing and service, with little competition.

Public highways became an important asset that still pays off today.  The Eisenhower Administration’s deployment of the interstate highway system, at the size and scope required, would not have been accomplished by the private sector on its own.  Today’s federal highway system is largely self sustaining through the collection of gasoline taxes paid by drivers.

As Americans struggle with several incumbent providers that refuse to provide 21st century broadband technology, with little competition to drive that infrastructure investment, an uneven variety of broadband networks have emerged, from fiber to the home in some areas to an indefinite reliance on aging DSL slow speed technology for millions of rural Americans, or worse, inadequate satellite broadband.

It may be time to consider the same kind of national approach with a publicly owned fiber network private providers of all kinds can use to serve customers with a uniformly high speed, high quality user experience.

Electricity and the development of rural America is another very familiar tale to any rural broadband user.  From TVA: Electricity for All:

Although nearly 90 percent of urban dwellers had electricity by the 1930s, only ten percent of rural dwellers did. Private utility companies, who supplied electric power to most of the nation’s consumers, argued that it was too expensive to string electric lines to isolated rural farmsteads. Anyway, they said, most farmers, were too poor to be able to afford electricity.

The Roosevelt Administration believed that if private enterprise could not supply electric power to the people, then it was the duty of the government to do so. Most of the court cases involving TVA during the 1930s concerned the government’s involvement in the public utilities industry.

In 1935 the Rural Electric Administration (REA) was created to bring electricity to rural areas like the Tennessee Valley.

Many groups opposed the federal government’s involvement in developing and distributing electric power, especially utility companies, who believed that the government was unfairly competing with private enterprise. Some members of Congress who didn’t think the government should interfere with the economy, believed that TVA was a dangerous program that would bring the nation a step closer to socialism. Other people thought that farmers simply did not have the skills needed to manage local electric companies.

Any community wrestling with a municipal broadband project to provide service the private market refused to offer is already acquainted with this familiar story.  So are many rural consumers who are waiting, and waiting, and waiting, for the private market to bring broadband to their communities.  Unfortunately for them, the private market has already written them off as “not profitable enough” to provide service.

The electrification of America did not lead to a socialist takeover of America.  It led to the development and sustainability of rural communities and their local economies.  Agriculture remains one of America’s most important success stories, and without widespread electrification, this story might not have been written.

Scare tactics and horror stories have come whenever a private monopoly or cartel faces the threat of competition, regulation, or a municipal option to provide needed services communities are denied by the private sector.

The fear mongering was there when the railroad monopolies faced investigation and regulation, the “socialism” scare was heard when government attempted to undertake public infrastructure projects of many kinds from highways to utility service, and the same kinds of rhetoric is heard today about “socialist takeovers of the Internet” and “municipal broadband unfairly competes with private providers,” and the logical opposite “the government can’t do anything right.”

Unfortunately, the FCC has a long history of cozy relations with lobbyists who understand how to work within the agency’s nearly-impenetrable bureaucracy.  A review of the broadband plan submissions to the FCC reveals a large  number of them come from lobbying groups and the providers themselves.  Most consumers were left typing comments into a box on the web submission form, with every indication those remarks will be deemed “not serious” by FCC staff.

This time, Chairman Genachowski has to show more than a YouTube video inviting consumers to share their input.  We’d like actual evidence the consumer point of view is actually being taken seriously for a change, and is not simply one tiny noise drowned out in a loud crowd of special interests with profit agendas to protect and public policy to influence.  The FCC already knows what consumers want: widely available, fast, reasonably priced broadband free from Internet Overcharging schemes protected with robust Net Neutrality policies enforced by law.

If the existing providers want to erect roadblocks to competition, oversight, and hell-or-high-water-broadband-deployment, it’s time to break them up and get them out of the way.  That’s broadband we can believe in.

AT&T’s Definition of Broadband Suitable for Online Gaming

AT&T’s advocacy of a federal standard for lowest common denominator broadband has struck a nerve in the online gaming industry.  Stop the Cap! reader Lance noted in a news tip that the gaming industry is unimpressed.

Upset with AT&T’s suggestion that the Federal Communications Commission should accept a definition of broadband service that is merely suitable for basic web browsing and e-mail service, the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), a trade group for the gaming industry, fired off a letter last week opposing AT&T’s bare bones approach to broadband speed and service:

AT&T argued that the baseline definition of broadband should not include what it characterized as “aspirational broadband services” and “myriad sophisticated applications:’ including streaming video, real-time voice, and “real-time, two-way gaming.” It urged the Agency to focus on more “meaningful” services, such as email, web surfing, interacting with Internet-based government services, and online education and training. According to AT&T, these are more pressing concerns for those who do not have terrestrial broadband access currently.

ESA agrees that such services are important. We disagree that the definition should stop there. Americans deserve a higher benchmark. Online video games are a meaningful part of our participative culture. They remove geographic barriers, connecting people from across the country and around the world. They teach cooperation, cultivate leadership skills, and empower users to express their creatiVity. Increasingly, games are used for training purposes and to educate students about complex social issues. If you are starting your gaming journey, get qwertybro gamer gear to have a good gaming experience. Entertaining does not mean trivial.

What AT&T describes as aspirational services are no less important to the future of the Internet than email and web browsing were to the past and are today. Whatever definition of broadband the FCC adopts, it should use a benchmark that opens the potential of the Internet to all Americans. Ultimately, consumers should determine what applications and services they find to be of value.

The ESA has a lot to learn when it comes to the broadband industry allowing consumers to determine what they want from their broadband service.  This is an industry that has several players that do not listen to their customers.  Instead, it engages in PR and astroturf lobbying campaigns to try and convince customers to accept the industry’s own agenda — higher pricing, less “abuse” of their networks, no government oversight or regulation, limited competition, and control of as much content (and the wires that content travels across) as feasible.

The type of gaming consumers expect from their broadband connection.

The ESA should not be surprised by AT&T’s desire to define broadband at the barest of minimum speeds.  AT&T still owns an enormous network of copper telephone wiring.  In rural areas, broadband service definitions based on the lowest speeds are tailor-made for the older phone system capable of delivering only slow speed DSL to consumers.  To define broadband at higher speeds would force AT&T to invest in upgrading its current infrastructure, particularly in rural communities.

Ars Technica ponders the question of whether online gaming is in fact “necessary” to consider when defining a broadband standard, and delves into a discussion about gaming and its value to society.  That misses more important points to consider:

1. With a broadband industry trying to design a broadband standard that is only capable of reasonably serving web pages, e-mail, and other low bandwidth applications commonplace a decade ago, will embracing mediocre broadband speeds help or hurt the United States and the increasingly important digital economy?  How many jobs have been created in new business start-ups that depend on leveraging a robust broadband platform in the United States?  What impact does a “go slow” approach have on American competitiveness and standing in an increasingly wired world?
2. What impact will this industry’s increased noise about Internet Overcharging schemes have on the online gaming landscape?  While many current games such as wager free casinos don’t use much data transmitting game moves back and forth during play, the software and its add-ons and updates can easily contribute to a bigger broadband bill when users update. If you love casino games, mpo888 stands out as a leading platform for online gambling, offering endless hours of entertainment. Even more relevant are the trials for the next generation online gaming services like OnLive, which consume considerable amounts of bandwidth from the moment game play begins.  The ESA would do well not to only consider the implications of slow, mediocre broadband service.  It should also consider the very real threat a heavily usage capped or overpriced consumption billing scheme would have on their future.  Will consumers play games that bring them ever closer to a monthly usage cap, or start a billing meter running the moment play begins?

I usually don’t spend a whole lot of time debunking the more crazy conspiracy theories about Net Neutrality because I presume most online users are smart enough not to be suckered into sideshow distractions, usually paid for by providers trying to wave shiny keys at consumers to get them to support things exactly opposite their own best interests.  Unfortunately, there are a few shills out there who insist on trying to conjure up bizarre conspiracy theories about Net Neutrality representing some sort of Obama Administration/left wing takeover of the Internet.

When Newsbusters, a conservative media watchdog group, bought into this (and also sprang for the deluxe undercoatings, fabric protection, and deluxe floor mats), it was time to fire up the Debunk-o-matic once again and set the record straight.

What is particularly insulting is the ongoing effort to try and co-opt conservatives into this corporate protection circus, when truth be told, conservatives should absolutely be in favor of Net Neutrality for the same reasons any other person, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum, should be — it protects their rights to be able to speak out on the issues that concern them the most, judged on the quality of their content, not on how much money they can pay to be sure those views can travel unimpeded to interested readers across the country and beyond.

Put on the rubber boots, because we’re going to splash through some inch deep puddles:

Enter the similarly-misnamed ‘net neutrality’ movement, which advocates total government control of Internet browsing. Net neutrality would forbid Internet service providers from regulating traffic on their networks, and would place that regulatory control in the hands of the FCC.

While the left bemoans restrictions by private companies on their subscribers’ use of the Internet, progressives have few qualms with allowing the federal government a say in what we can or cannot see, do, or say on the Internet.

The centralized control of Internet use by the federal government would provide a powerful tool for the censorship of websites deemed politically unfavorable. The current administration’s labeling of right-wing fringe groups as ‘extremists’ and potentially national security threats, and the labeling of town hall protestors as ‘political terrorists’ suggests that the realm of impermissible internet use could conceivably include groups that espouse intense opposition to federal policies.

I think author Lachlan Markay has been stuck in a parallel universe, like in that Star Trek episode, because he defined Net Neutrality the exact opposite of its reality.

The FCC can’t even get rational limits on cable system ownership to survive court review.  How Markay believes a naked attempt by the FCC to regulate political content on the Internet will pass muster requires something more than simply writing alarmist claims it will happen because he says it will.

The feeble effort to link town hall protesters and Obama conspiracy theories to the issue of Net Neutrality is a transparent effort to co-opt conservatives into a cause that means standing with the providers waiting to throttle their broadband speeds and charge their favorite websites more money.  I don’t believe for a second conservatives trust the local cable or phone company to do the right thing by them, as they continue to be stuck with ever-increasing bills for channels they don’t watch and certainly don’t want to pay for and phone features they don’t want or use, but end up paying for anyway.

Though no elected net neutrality advocate would ever suggest that the movement intends to regulate content, pundits on the left have been far more forthcoming. In March, a blogger at the Huffington Post lauding net neutrality wrote, “We have a very rare opportunity right now to lock in a progressive advantage in Internet communications, information sharing, and Netroots mobilizing.”

Markay attempts to bolster his argument by linking to a Huffington Post blogger that supposedly lets it all hang out in public — conspiracy revealed, case closed.  He assumes his readers won’t bother to click on the link, because if they do, they’ll discover Markay’s source didn’t have to be linked via HuffPost, he could have just turned around to the guy figuratively sitting at the desk behind him and quoted him directly.  Yes folks, he linked to a “Contributing Editor for NewsBusters.org,” the very site Markay writes for.

Seton Motley isn’t the go-to-guy for the quality expose either.  Indeed, Motley himself quoted from Joseph A. Palermo, another HuffPost blogger who penned a piece that proved he didn’t really understand Net Neutrality either.

Palermo instead advocated that progressive causes use broadband to bypass the “media filter” and talk to audiences directly.  Motley saw the words “Net Neutrality” in the headline and figured he’d done his job for the day.

Not so much. Not one of these people appears to understand what Net Neutrality is all about.

Net Neutrality is completely above the partisan divide because it insists, regardless of content, if it’s legal it should not be impeded by a broadband provider and should be allowed to travel unfettered across their wires.  Indeed, it also demands that the Internet be a true democracy of ideas, not one of entrenched interests with lots of money that can buy their way onto the fast lane while others make due with a potentially slower “free lane” that some providers proposed.

There you have it, straight from the horse’s mouth. The left is seeking net neutrality as a means of consolidating control over the Internet, the same way it sought consolidated control over the airwaves with the Fairness Doctrine, and the same way it is now seeking that same objective in the guise of ‘diversity’ and ‘localism.’ Those on the center-right should not be fooled into thinking that ‘localism’ or ‘net neutrality’ promote free enterprise or free speech.

Yes, three people who completely misunderstand the basic premise of Net Neutrality have weighed in and passed judgment on Net Neutrality. Palermo wasn’t writing about Net Neutrality and it should have not been in his headline.  Motley went along for the ride and assumed Palermo knew what Net Neutrality was, and then reflexively attacked just because Palermo plays for the blue team and Motley plays for the red.  Markay just provided the frosting for this big cake of wrong and added even more rhetorical sprinkles on top.  All that’s missing from this recipe for disaster is a provider to come on by and overcharge everyone for a piece.

The true risk of consolidation of control of the Internet isn’t coming from the federal government, it is coming from the providers themselves.  Where Markay has no concrete examples of actual government abuse, I do have real world examples of what happens when Net Neutrality protection is not guaranteed by law.  Providers in Canada, where Net Neutrality does not exist, uniformly throttle the speeds of certain content, and at least one provider directly blocked access to a website because of a political/business dispute the site had with that provider.

What should really scare conservatives is not having Net Neutrality.  These policies guarantee the right for all Americans to speak their minds and share their views, even those polar opposites Glenn Beck and Janeane Garofalo.  Let the best ideas win.

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.”

Easton (in dark red), part of Bristol County, Massachusetts

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.

A federal appeals court in Washington has struck down, for a second time, a rulemaking by the Federal Communications Commission to limit the size of the nation’s largest cable operators to 30% of the nation’s pay television marketplace, calling the rule “arbitrary and capricious.”

Judge Douglas Howard Ginsburg

The 30% rule, designed to keep no single company from controlling more than 30% of the nation’s pay-TV subscribers, was originally written in 1993 by the FCC because the agency feared a concentrated cable television marketplace would stifle innovation, lock out potential new independent programmers, and discourage new forms of competition.  The cable industry immediately called the cap an overreach, and in 2001, found a friendly reception in court, with a ruling demanding the FCC reconsider the rule in light of competition from satellite television.

The FCC determined satellite competition was inadequate alone to justify reversing the 30% ownership limit, and essentially kept the limit in place, mostly at the urging of FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, who regularly tangled with the cable industry during the Bush Administration.

The decision striking down the 30% rule came in a harshly worded ruling from Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg.

“In light of the changed marketplace, the government’s justification for the 30 percent cap is even weaker now than in 2001 when we held the 30 percent cap unconstitutional,” Judge Ginsburg wrote for a three-member panel of the court.

Ginsburg wrote the FCC was egregiously derelict in its revised rulemaking because it failed to heed the court’s direction, requiring the court to vacate the rule.

The ruling is a “significant gain for cable and apparent big victory for Comcast,” said Andrew Lipman, a Washington- based partner in the media, telecommunications and technology practice at Bingham McCutchen LLP.

The Philadelphia Inquirer noted some Wall Street analysts were pleased with the court’s decision:

Wall Street analyst Craig Moffett called the decision a “moral” victory for Comcast, which contended that the market-cap rule was politically motivated by the Federal Communications Commission and wouldn’t overcome a court challenge. The rule was passed under former FCC Chairman Kevin Martin.

Speculation about what companies Comcast could likely snap up began immediately, ranging from a conceptual merger with Time Warner Cable, the nation’s second largest cable company, to quick buyouts of smaller players like Cablevision or now-bankrupt Charter Cable.

Consumer groups were alarmed by the court ruling.

“This is not the end of the fight,” Andrew Jay Schwartzmann, president and chief executive officer of the Media Access Project, a nonprofit policy advocacy group, said in a statement. “Big cable’s anti-competitive ownership structure has increased prices and limited choices for the American public. Therefore, we will consult with the FCC on whether Supreme Court review is feasible. If not, we’ll be asking Congress to pass new legislation to ensure more choice and lower prices for cable TV service.”

Ben Scott, policy director for Free Press, noted that the intent of the original 1992 Cable Act was to promote competition and consumer choice.  Yet in most cities, consumers face a cable cartel.

“Today consumers experience perpetual price hikes by large operators that already have market dominating purchasing power to decide the fate of new channels. The promises of lower prices through competition from satellite and telecom companies in the video business have never been realized. We encourage the FCC not only to revisit cable ownership limits, but to examine a variety of policy proposals to achieve Congress’s goal to bring consumers more competition and more choice in the cable industry.”

ABC News reported that while Comcast won this legal battle, it has a way to go in the court of public opinion.

Cable providers Comcast, Time Warner and Charter draw low marks on the American Customer Satisfaction Index, tracked by the University of Michigan. On a scale of 0 to 100, Comcast and Time Warner each scored 59 this year. The satellite provider DirectTV ranked first at 71, with Cox Communications cable at 66 and DISH Network at 64.