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.

Yet another telecom industry-backed front group claiming to represent the interests of small businesses managed to get its very-predictable opposition to Net Neutrality published in this morning’s Washington Post.  That is a small achievement considering the newspaper’s editorial page that increasingly promotes Big Telecom’s agenda.

This time it was the AT&T-sponsored “Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council,” which the Post claims is a “nonpartisan advocacy and research organization dedicated to protecting small business and promoting entrepreneurship.”  Hardly.  More on that later.

Karen Kerrigan is president, chief executive — and head regurgitator of the same false talking points AT&T and others have used to oppose Net Neutrality from the start:

The Federal Communications Commission is poised to impose new rules on the Internet using an outdated regulatory regime originally designed for the monopoly telephone system of the 1930s.

[…]Essentially, government regulations and bureaucrats would now direct how traffic over the broadband Internet flows rather than privately managed networks — they would also dictate what type of speeds, services and prices consumers should have (one size fits all) rather than let the market and innovators determine those things.

[…]Net neutrality rules would give the FCC new powers to micromanage the operations and pricing and service levels of the privately owned and financed broadband networks that are the physical heart of the Internet. This is a strategy for chasing away the billions of dollars that broadband network operators (principally the telecom and cable companies) plan to invest in broadband infrastructure and new technology.

Kerrigan

Of course, the “outdated regulatory regime” we’ve heard about from AT&T repeatedly is not coming along for the ride in broadband reform… only the authority to provide an effective checks-and-balances system for the marketplace duopoly most Americans find when shopping for Internet access.  Nothing about Net Neutrality dictates speeds and prices consumers pay for broadband.  Considering the United States continues to lose ground in broadband rankings, all of the innovation the SBE claims would be lost was never here to lose.  It has been in South Korea, Japan, and increasingly eastern Europe.

Net Neutrality does not micromanage operations, pricing, or service levels.  In fact, it is the most simple, easy to understand government proposal around.  It states simply that broadband providers will treat all websites equally, will not run toll booths to extract extortion payments from content producers to guarantee their material won’t be artificially slowed down or blocked, and guarantees no provider censorship.  The industry’s claims that Net Neutrality will harm investment is phoney-baloney from the phone and cable companies.  They’ve earned fat profits in a Net Neutral-world for a decade.  But now decreasing interest in landlines and cable TV service means they’re trolling for more revenue, and they think they’ve found an untapped goldmine setting up toll booths on the Internet.

In Kerrigan’s world view, not allowing AT&T and Verizon to install paywalls, speed throttles, and establish paid special relationships with big businesses harms small businesses.  To prove her case, Kerrigan quotes Evelyn Nicely, president of Springfield-based Nicely Done Kitchens:

“Small businesses such as ours depend on every tool we can use to succeed. Undoubtedly, our strongest ally in terms of client communication, marketing, and product specifications comes from the use of broadband and the Internet. It has given us the ability to compete with anyone, even the larger and better-funded players in our industry, through our Web site and its innovative tools, which enable us to effectively market our services to the public.”

Of course, nothing in Nicely’s comments opposes Net Neutrality.  In fact, such important broadband reform preserves the strongest ally her business has — a free and open Internet that lets her compete with far larger players on an equal, level playing field.  The biggest threat to that level playing field is not passing Net Neutrality.  It would allow companies like Lowes or Home Depot to become paid, preferred content partners with broadband providers who could direct Ms. Nicely’s potential customers not to her website, but to them.  Large companies who can afford the price will find their ads splashed on broadband provider-home page portals that deliver customized web searches, preferred partner online ads and error redirection pages that can send customers who may mistype Nicely’s business name to her direct competitors.

How Nicely could ultimately manage to keep her business open in a broadband world where special favors can be bought and delivered should be a major concern for her and every other small business.

Kerrigan's Small Business Survival Committee was dedicated to serving the interests of Big Tobacco companies like Philip Morris.

It’s no concern of the SBE, whose corporate backers keep this front group up and running.  But then it’s not the friend of small business it claims to be, and it’s hardly a “council.”

Before discovering the money that can be made parroting talking points for big cable and phone companies, Kerrigan was shilling for Big Tobacco, getting substantial contributions for her Small Business Survival Committee (a/k/a Small Business Survival Foundation) which received more than $100k from Philip Morris, hardly a small business at the time.

The SBE knows how to attract media attention through catnip-like “scorecards” that rank elected officials based on just how friendly they are to SBE’s benefactors.  The group and its leaders are darlings of conservative political media.  Their views see Communism anywhere individuals collaborate on their own in a way that costs big business profits.  Its chief economist even saw Borg-socialism in the concept of “open source” software:

“In the software universe, something similar to the Borg from ‘Star Trek’ seems to be at work,” declared SBE’s Raymond J. Keating. “It’s called open source software distributed under an agreement known as General Public License (GPL). If you recall, the Borg are ‘Star Trek’ bad guys. They’re basically evil bureaucrats with skin problems, who assimilate every species they come in contact with throughout the universe. Societies are wiped out. Individual thought and creativity are extinguished as individuals are absorbed into a collective. Something similar could be said of GPL-based open source software.”

An impartial, fair observer of telecommunications policy for small business the SBE is not.

Unfortunately, the Washington Post, whose parent company owns cable operator Cable One, has little incentive to see through the SBE’s haze of telecom industry-inspired talking points.

The Free UTOPIA website reports that a provider-backed front group is once again trying to pack meetings with their members to oppose UTOPIA – Utah’s municipal broadband network.

Several UTOPIA member cities are gearing up to start taking votes on the new Utah Infrastructure Agency designed to help fund new construction of the network. The Utah Taxpayers Association is trying to get people to show up at these meetings to protest the UIA and try and kill it. In their effort to do so, they continue to distort, twist, and outright lie in their efforts to rile people up.

First off, the UIA bonds are not an unconditional loan. They are funds that will be secured by payments from subscribers. If there aren’t enough subscribers to secure repayment, the money doesn’t get touched. You would think that such an arrangement would be acceptable to an organization that purports to represent taxpayers as it clearly shifts the burden from the taxpayers as a whole to the subscribers. Attempting to characterize the UIA as a big grab-bag is a big lie.

UTA claims UTOPIA is currently running a $20 million deficit, but Free UTOPIA points out part of that “deficit” may include the original seed money required to construct the network, which came in the form of bonds.  Like any start-up venture, UTOPIA’s initial infrastructure costs create operating losses until those costs are paid back.  A financial feasibility study prepared by Design Nine and released last week projects UTOPIA could report positive net income by 2018, with revenue increasing dramatically going forward.

UTA receives financial support from both Comcast and Qwest.

As fiber advocates have noted, start-up costs and the time it takes to pay them off are one reason why so few commercial providers want to invest in fiber.  Commercial providers often demand a return on investment within five years, while many municipal projects consider fiber a longer-term investment that can pay additional dividends for communities that may not always appear on a balance sheet.  Dividends like high technology start-ups, better paying jobs, better health care and education, and eventually additional revenue for the community that stays in the community.

The UTA has repeatedly claimed the UTOPIA project is veiled in secrecy, yet the project’s feasibility study is published on UTA’s own website.  What is secret is exactly how much money Comcast and Qwest pay UTA and its president Howard Stephenson.  Neither company will disclose exactly how much they have spent on UTA beyond contributions directed to Stephenson himself, documented here.

Provider-backed front groups like UTA routinely misinform their members about the benefits of municipal broadband, often to the point of demagoguery not supported by the facts.  Free UTOPIA reports broadband evangelism can make dramatic inroads among opponents of such public works projects:

The Utah “Taxpayers” Association thought it would get an upper hand with a BBQ in Orem just before the city council voted on a new construction bond. Unfortunately for them, the plan backfired when UTOPIA made a surprise appearance at the event with their “mobile command center” and started actually talking directly with the meeting attendees, many of whom had no opinion of UTOPIA yet and came to get more information. According to my sources, about half of the 250 or so attendees ended up registering their interest in UTOPIA services, a major coup for the network that upstaged their most vocal opponent.

Apparently what convinced a lot of the undecideds was the UTA’s refusal to disclose who pays their bills. That lack of transparency translated directly into looking like they have something to hide (hint: it’s Qwest and Comcast dollars) and left many looking at their fantastic claims skeptically. I’d like to say that there were some talking points to address, but an eyewitness account called it so much kool-aid drinking, a series of incomprehensible rants filled with insinuation, innuendo, insults, and no concrete addressable facts. In contrast, UTOPIA discussed their new business plan with individual residents and offered demonstrations of how well the service can work. Truth has power and it wasn’t on the UTA’s side.

Judging from comments left on UTOPIA’s website, the most controversy seems to be why it takes so long to extend service to more neighborhoods:

“Please finish laying fiber in Orem! We live virtually a quarter mile from the cutoff. We are stuck with Comcast’s horrible routing, and inconsistent speeds, Qwest’s DSL which doesn’t work due to damaged lines they are unwilling to repair, or wireless that never works. Please save us. I have been waiting for years.”

Utah fiber advocates are strongly encouraged by Free UTOPIA to repeat earlier successes and attend upcoming town meetings to present a more informed view about the benefits of fiber networks.

Centerville meets tonight (October 19) at 7PM, Orem is October 26 at 6PM, and Payson is October 27 at 6PM.

All meetings are at the city halls of each respective community.

With continued inaction at the Federal Communications Commission, some stakeholders in the Net Neutrality debate continue to file comments with the Commission trying to find a “third way” to bring about guarantees for online free speech and access while softening opposition to “network management” technology that allows providers to manipulate broadband traffic.

Among such filers is the Communications Workers of America, which seeks a “middle-ground approach” to protecting a free and open Internet.

The CWA has always maintained its feet in two camps — with consumers looking for improved broadband and with the communications companies that employee large numbers of the union’s members, who will build out those networks and provide service.

The union shares our annoyance with FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski for his complete inaction on broadband policy thus far.  In short, the Commission keeps stalling from taking direct action to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service, restoring its ability to oversee broadband policy lost in a federal appeals court decision earlier this year.

The CWA used a piece by David Honig from the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council (MMTC) to echo its own position:

MMTC isn’t alone in being frustrated with the FCC’s disappointing attitude toward real action this past year. In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski expressed impatience with the glacial pace of policymaking at his Commission. Although he mentioned that the FCC, under his direction, has implemented some notable reforms, he conceded that “there is still a lot to do.”

Unfortunately, regardless of how earnest the Chairman is in his desire to move forward with the business of policymaking, his actions speak much louder than his words. Indeed, his yearlong pursuit of network neutrality rules — first via a traditional rulemaking proceeding and, most recently, via an effort to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service — has cast a long and almost suffocating pall over many of the items that the Chairman wishes to act upon. His inaction on civil rights issues — especially EEO enforcement — is just one example of how paralyzed the agency has become.

Recent news that Congress will not move forward to address the regulatory questions that currently vex the Commission (e.g., whether the FCC has authority to regulate broadband service providers) could embolden the Chairman to adopt the sweeping regulatory changes for broadband that he proposed earlier this year. Doing so in the absence of Congressional action would only invite immediate legal challenges that would mire the FCC in litigation, appeals, and remands for years to come.

To put it plainly, the FCC is stuck. Although it recently adopted some promising orders related to broadband (e.g., new rules for accessing new portions of wireless spectrum called “white spaces” and for enhancing access in schools and libraries), the Commission has failed to move forward with implementing core provisions of its monumental National Broadband Plan.

The union last week also submitted its latest round of comments requested by the Commission, this time to broaden its position on a proposed compromise.  We’ve delineated which of the proposals we believe are primarily pro-consumer (in green), pro-provider (red), and which fall straight down the middle (blue):

• First, wireline broadband Internet access providers (“broadband providers”) should not block lawful content, applications, or services, or prohibit the use of non-harmful devices on the Internet.
• Second, wireline and wireless broadband providers should be transparent regarding price, performance (including reporting actual speed) and network management practices.
• Third wireline broadband providers should not engage in unjust or unreasonable discrimination in transmitting lawful traffic.
• Fourth, broadband providers must be able to reasonably manage their networks through appropriate and tailored mechanisms, recognizing the technical and operational characteristics of the broadband Internet access platform.
• Fifth, the Commission should take a case-by-case adjudication approach to protect an open Internet rather than promulgating detailed, prescriptive rules.

The first and third principles are strongly pro-consumer, although as we’ve seen, providers have a tendency to want to define for themselves what is “harmful,” “unjust,” or “unreasonable” and impose it on their customers.  We’ve seen provider-backed front groups argue that the concept of Net Neutrality itself is all three of these things.  Any rules must be clearly defined by the Commission, not left to open interpretation by providers.

The second principle cuts right down the middle.  Consumers deserve an honest representation of broadband speeds marketed by providers (not the usual over-optimistic speeds promised in marketing materials), and transparency in price — especially with gotchas like term contracts, early cancellation penalties, overlimit fees, etc.  But providers can also go to town with abusive network management they’ll market as advantageous and fair, even when it is neither.  Just ask customers of Clear who recently found their “unlimited” wireless broadband service, marketed as having no speed throttles, reduced in speed to barely above dial-up when they used the service “too much.”  Clear says the speed throttles are good news and represent fairness.  Customers think otherwise, and disclosure has been lacking.

The fourth and fifth principles benefit providers enormously.  Network management itself is neither benevolent or malicious.  The people who set the parameters for that management are a different story.  A traffic-agnostic engineer might use such technology to improve the quality of services like streamed video and Voice Over IP by helping to keep the packets carrying such traffic running smoothly, without noticeably reducing speeds and quality of service for other users on that network.  There is nothing wrong with these kinds of practices. There is also nothing wrong with providing on-demand speed boosts on a pay-per-use basis, so long as the network is not oversubscribed.

But since providers are spending less to upgrade their networks, providers may seek to exploit these technologies in a more malicious way — too stall needed upgrades and save money by delivering a throttled broadband experience for some or all of their customers.  If customers can be effectively punished for using high bandwidth applications, they’ll reduce their usage of them as well.  That’s good for providers but not for customers who are paying increasing broadband bills for a declining level of service.

Some examples:

• Customers using high bandwidth peer-to-peer applications can have their speeds throttled, sometimes dramatically, when using those applications;
• Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps, overlimit fees, and “fair access” policies can discourage consumers from using services like online video, file transfer services, and new multimedia-rich online gaming platforms like OnLive, which can consume considerable bandwidth;
• Preferred content can be “network managed” to arrive at the fastest possible speeds, at the cost of other traffic which consequently must be reduced in speed, meaning your non-preferred traffic travels on the slow lane;
• Providers can redefine levels of broadband service based on intended use, relegating existing packages to “web browsing and e-mail” while marketing new, extra-cost add-ons for services that take the speed controls off services like file transfer and online video, or changes usage limits.

The CWA runs the Speed Matters website, promoting broadband improvements.

It is remarkable the CWA seeks to allow today’s indecisive Commission to individually adjudicate specific disputes, instead of simply laying down some clear principles that would not leave a host of loopholes open for providers to exploit.

Big players like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon have plenty of money at their disposal to attract and influence friends in high places.  If the Commission thought Big Telecom’s friends in Congress were breathing down its neck about telecom policy now, imagine the load it will be forced to carry when these companies seek to test the Commission’s resolve.

Opponents of Net Neutrality claim broadband reclassification will leave providers saddled with Ma Bell-era regulation.  But in truth, the FCC can make their rules plain and simple.  Here are a few of our own proposals:

1. Network management must be content-agnostic.  “Preferred partner” content must travel with the same priority as “non-preferred content;”
2. Providers can use network management to ensure best possible results for customers, but not at the expense of other users with speed throttles and other overcharging schemes;
3. Providers can market and develop new products that deliver enhanced speed services on-demand, but not if those products require a reduction in the level of service provided to other customers;
4. Customers should have the right to opt out of network management or at least participate in deciding what traffic they choose to prioritize;
5. Providers may not block or impede legal content of any kind;

In short, nobody objects to providers developing innovative new applications and services, but they must be willing to commit to necessary upgrades to broaden the pipeline on which they wish to deliver these services.  Otherwise, providers will simply make room for these enhanced revenue services at your expense, by forcing a reduction in your usage or reducing the speed and quality of service to make room for their premium offerings.

The industry itself illustrates this can be done using today’s technology.

The cable industry managed to accomplish benevolent network management with products like “Speed Boost” which delivers enhanced, short bursts of speed to broadband customers based on the current demand on the network.  Those speed enhancements depend entirely on network capacity and do not harm other users’ speeds.

Groups like the CWA need to remember that compromise only works if the terms and conditions are laid out as specifically as possible.  Otherwise, the player with the deepest pockets and closest relationships in Washington will be able to define the terms of the compromise as they see fit.

And that’s no compromise at all.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CWA Larry Cohen on the Open Internet Jobs and the Digital Divide 9-14-10.flv[/flv]

Communications Workers of America president Larry Cohen outlined the union’s position on Net Neutrality before the Congressional Black Caucus Institute on Sept. 14, 2010.  (2 minutes)

EPB’s new 1Gbps municipal broadband service is causing some serious embarrassment to the telecom industry.  Since last week’s unveiling, several “dollar-a-holler” telecom-funded front groups and trade publications friendly to the industry have come forward to dismiss the service as “too expensive,” delivering speeds nobody wants, and out of touch with the market.

The “Information Technology and Innovation Federation,” which has historically supported the agenda of big telecom companies, has been particularly noisy in its condescending dismissal of the mega-speed service delivered in Chattanooga, Tenn.

Robert Atkinson, president of ITIF, undermines the very “innovation” their group is supposed to celebrate.  Because it doesn’t come from AT&T or Verizon, it’s not their kind of “innovation” at all.

“I can’t imagine a for-profit company doing what they are doing in Chattanooga, because it’s so far ahead of where the market is,” Atkinson told the New York Times.

“Chattanooga definitely is ahead of the curve,” Atkinson told the Times Free Press. “It’s like they are building a 16-lane highway when there is a demand for only four at this point. The private companies probably can’t afford to get that far ahead of the market.”

Bernie Arnason, formerly with Verizon and a cable industry trade association also dismissed EPB’s new service in his current role as managing editor for Telecompetitor, a telecom industry trade website:

Does anyone need that speed today? Will they in the next few years? The short answer is no. It’s kind of akin to people in the U.S. that buy a Ferrari or Lamborghini – all that power and speed, and nowhere to really use it. A more apropos question, is how many people can afford it – especially in a city the size of Chattanooga?

[…]Will there be a time when 1 Gb/s is an offer that is truly in demand? More than likely, although I still find it hard to imagine it being really necessary in a residential setting – I mean how many 3D movies can you watch at one time? Maybe a service that bursts to 1 Gb/s in times of need, but an always on symmetrical 1 Gb/s connection? Truth be told, no one really knows what the future holds, especially from a bandwidth demand perspective.

Arnason admits he doesn’t know what the future holds, but he and his industry friends have already made up their minds about what level of service and pricing is good enough for “a city the size of Chattanooga.”

Comcast’s Business Class broadband alternative is priced at around $370 a month and only provides 100/15Mbps service in some areas.  Atkinson and Arnason have no problems with that kind of innovation… the one that charges more and delivers less.

For groups like the ITIF, it’s hardly a surprise to see them mount a “nobody wants it or needs it”-dismissive posture towards fiber, because they represent the commercial providers who don’t have it.

Fiber Embargo

The Fiber-to-the-Home Council, perhaps the biggest promoter of fiber broadband delivered straight to customer homes, currently has 277 service provider members. With the exception of TDS Telecom, which owns and operates small phone companies serving a total of 1.1 million customers in 30 states, the FTTH Council’s American provider members are almost entirely family-run, independent, co-op, or municipally-owned.

Companies like American Samoa Telecommunications Authority, Hiawatha Broadband Communications, KanOkla Telephone Association Inc., and the Palmetto Rural Telephone Cooperative all belong.  AT&T, CenturyLink, Frontier, Verizon, and Windstream do not.  Neither do any large cable operators.

While not every member of the Council has deployed fiber to the home to its customers, many appreciate their future, and that of their communities, relies on a high-fiber diet.

EPB’s announcement of 1Gbps service was made possible because it operates its service over an entirely fiber optic network.  Company officials, when asked why they were introducing such a fast service in Chattanooga, answered simply, “because we can.”

The same question should have been directed to the city’s other providers, Comcast and AT&T.  Their answer would be “because we can’t… and won’t.”

Among large providers, only Verizon has the potential to deliver that level of service to its residential customers because it invested in fiber.  It was also punished by Wall Street for those investments, repeatedly criticized for spending too much money chasing longer term revenue.  Wall Street may have ultimately won that argument, because Verizon indefinitely suspended its FiOS expansion plans earlier this year, despite overwhelmingly positive reviews of the service.

So among these players, who are the real innovators?

The Phone Company: Holding On to Alexander Graham Bell for Dear Life

Last week, Frontier Communications told customers in western New York they don’t need FiOS-like broadband speeds delivered over fiber connections, so they’re not going to get them.  For Frontier, yesterday’s ADSL technology providing 1-3Mbps service in rural areas and somewhat faster speeds in urban ones is ‘more than enough.’

That “good enough for you” attitude is pervasive among many providers, especially large independent phone companies that are riding out their legacy copper wire networks as long as they’ll last.

What makes them different from locally-owned phone companies and co-ops that believe in fiber-t0-the-home?  Simply put, their business plans.

Companies like Frontier, FairPoint, Windstream, and CenturyLink all share one thing in common — their dependence on propping up their stock values with high dividend payouts and limited investments in network upgrades (capital expenditures):

Perhaps the most important metric for judging dividend sustainability, the payout compares how much money a company pays out in dividends to how much money it generates. A ratio that’s too high, say, above 80% of earnings, indicates the company may be stretching to make payouts it can’t afford.

Frontier’s payout ratio is 233%, which means the company pays out more than $2 in dividends for every $1 of earnings! But this ignores Frontier’s huge deferred tax benefit and the fact that depreciation and amortization exceed capital expenditures — the company’s actual free cash flow payout ratio is a much more manageable 73%. Dividend investors should ensure that benefit and Frontier’s cash-generating ability are sustainable.

In other words, Frontier’s balance sheet benefits from the ability to write off the declining value of much of its aging copper-wire network and from creative tax benefits that might be eliminated through legislative reform.

The nightmare scenario at Frontier is heavily investing in widespread network upgrades and improvements beyond DSL.  The company recently was forced to cut its $1 dividend payout to $0.75 to fund the recent acquisition of some Verizon landlines and for limited investment in DSL broadband expansion.

Frontier won’t seek to deploy fiber in a big way because it would be forced to take on more debt and potentially cut that dividend payout even further.  That’s something the company won’t risk, even if it means earning back customers who fled to cable competitors.  Long term investments in future proof fiber are not on the menu.  “That would be then and this is now,” demand shareholders insistent on short term results.

The broadband expansion Frontier has designed increases the amount of revenue it earns per customer while spending as little as possible to achieve it.  Slow speed, expensive DSL fits the bill nicely.

The story is largely the same among the other players.  One, FairPoint Communications, ended up in bankruptcy when it tried to integrate Verizon’s operations in northern New England and found it didn’t have the resources to pull it off, and delivered high speed broken promises, not broadband.

Meanwhile, many municipal providers, including EPB, are constructing fiber networks that deliver for their customers instead of focusing on dividend checks for shareholders.

Which is more innovative — mailing checks to shareholders or delivering world class broadband that doesn’t cost taxpayers a cent?

Cable: “People Don’t Realize the Days of Cable Company Upgrades are Basically Over”

While municipal providers like EPB appear in major national newspapers and on cable news breaking speed records and delivering service not seen elsewhere in the United States, the cable industry has a different story to share.

Kent

Suddenlink president and CEO Jerry Kent let the cat out of the bag when he told investors on CNBC that the days of cable companies spending capital on system upgrades are basically over.

“I think one of the things people don’t realize [relates to] the question of capital intensity and having to keep spending to keep up with capacity,” Kent said. “Those days are basically over, and you are seeing significant free cash flow generated from the cable operators as our capital expenditures continue to come down.”

Both cable and phone companies have called a technology truce in the broadband speed war.  Where phone companies rely on traditional DSL service to provide broadband, most cable companies raise their speeds one level higher and then vilify the competition with ads promoting cable’s speed advantages.  Phone companies blast cable for high priced broadband service they’re willing to sell for less, if you don’t need the fastest possible speeds.  But with the pervasiveness of service bundling, where consumers pay one price for phone, Internet, and television service, many customers don’t shop for individual services any longer.

With the advent of DOCSIS 3, the latest standard for cable broadband networks, many in the cable industry believe the days of investing in new infrastructure are over.  They believe their hybrid fiber-coaxial cable systems deliver everything broadband consumers will want and don’t see a need for fiber to the home service.

Their balance sheets prove it, as many of the nation’s largest cable companies reduce capital expenses and investments in system expansion.  Coming at the same time Internet usage is growing, the disparity between investment and demand on broadband network capacity sets the perfect stage for rate increases and other revenue enhancers like Internet Overcharging schemes.

Unfortunately for the cable industry, without a mass-conversion of cable-TV lineups to digital, which greatly increases available bandwidth for other services, their existing network infrastructure does not excuse required network upgrades.

EPB’s fiber optic system delivers significantly more capacity than any cable system, and with advances in laser technology, the expansion possibilities are almost endless.  EPB is also not constrained with the asynchronous broadband cable delivers — reasonably fast downstream speeds coupled with paltry upstream rates.  EPB delivers the same speed coming and going.  In fact, the biggest bottlenecks EPB customers are likely to face are those on the websites they visit.

EPB also delivered significant free speed upgrades to its customers earlier this year… and no broadband rate hike or usage limits.  In fact, EPB cut its price for 100Mbps service from $175 to $140.  Many cable companies are increasing broadband pricing, while major speed upgrades come to those who agree to pay plenty more to get them.

Which company has the kind of innovation you want — the one that delivers faster speeds for free or the one that experiments with usage limits and higher prices for what you already have?

No wonder Big Telecom is embarrassed.  They should be.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/EPB Interviews 9-20-10.flv[/flv]

EPB and Chattanooga city officials appeared in interviews on Bloomberg News and the Fox Business Channel.  CNET News also covered EPB’s 1Gbps service, introduced last week.  (12 minutes)