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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Broadband Reports this morning revisited Cogeco, the Canadian cable company that engages in Internet Overcharging, but relies on a usage-measurement gauge that customers say can be off from dozens to hundreds of megabytes every day.  Stop the Cap! also reported on this issue in June, with customers outraged that their monthly bill’s accuracy depends on a tool that is very good at making the company extra money, but not so good at fairly measuring actual usage.  The problems continue.

It’s ironic that the electric meter outside of Cogeco headquarters is subject to verification, the gas pump dispensing fuel to Cogeco’s service trucks is audited by Measurement Canada, which also verifies the accuracy of the scale used by the grocery store deli to weigh the meat for the submarine sandwiches purchased by some of their employees.  What isn’t audited, much less independently verified, is Cogeco’s usage measurement tool.

Cogeco customers have resorted to installing their own third party monitoring tools, from built-in traffic measurement in some routers to software applications that they run on their computers.  Thus far, reports of serious discrepancies have caused an indefinite delay before Cogeco actually begins billing overlimit fees and penalties, but many customers are asking why they have to resort to checking up on Cogeco in the first place.

One Toronto resident can’t understand it:  “Since when do customers in this country have to validate a business billing system?   Customers should be assured of fair and accurate billing under the law in Canada. I see a lot of legal challenges coming for this.”

Cogeco customers note the discrepancies will add up — to Internet Overcharges:

“Ever since I slapped Tomato [third party firmware] onto my router and started monitoring my [usage], Cogeco has constantly been anywhere from 20mb to 700mb off every day,” complains one user. “Any discrepancy is unacceptable with their outrageous overage charges,” the user adds. “Twenty five to thirty gigabytes is the difference between paying fifty dollars a month for your Internet or eighty dollars a month,” says another, adding that the problems are “unacceptable.”

As Karl Bode notes in his story, whether the meter works right or not, the customer will still be expected to pay in the end.

Joshua Gans, an economics professor at Melbourne Business School, has a question.

Why are Australians still stuck with usage caps, which Gans notes are virtually non-existent around the rest of the world.

Writing for The Age, Gans notes that had the United States forced users into consumption limits and other usage-based broadband plans, online video sites like YouTube would likely have never started.  Gans called out Australian providers for usage pricing that has to be seen to be believed:

To an outsider, the Australian system seems very strange. Telstra boasts a basic package on its BigPond Cable Extreme network that, for $39.95 a month, gives 200 megabytes in usage. At Telstra’s boasted 30MB a second speeds, that amounts to a minute of high-quality video downloads. After that you pay 15¢ a megabyte. It is hard to imagine that being an option for consumers.

But even its Liberty plan, which costs $69.95 and offers 12GB a month – after which the extreme speed is slowed to the speeds of last century – only allows you 20 hours of video watching a month, provided you do nothing else. That’s about 45 minutes a night.

Gans also zeroes in on another theory why usage caps prevail — to protect incumbent cable and satellite providers’ video business models.  Australia’s largest Internet provider, Telstra, is also the majority stakeholder in Foxtel, Australia’s largest cable/satellite television provider.  Telstra is the equivalent of Bell in Canada or AT&T, before the 1980s “breakup.”  It dominates Australia’s television, mobile phone, wired phone, and broadband needs. It was privatized by the government under former Prime Minister John Howard.

Telstra is well positioned to control much of the Australian playing field competition is expected to compete on.  Competing broadband providers, particularly those using DSL, are confronted with installing their equipment in Telstra-owned phone exchanges, at Telstra pricing.  Telstra’s giant stake in Australia’s broadband also means they play a crucial role in Internet connectivity outside of the country, using undersea fiber cables to connect Australians with the rest of the global Internet.

With these types of ground rules, it’s no surprise Australia’s broadband experience is universally usage capped.  The limitations are so egregious, the Australian government launched a national broadband plan to vastly improve capacity and get the country higher in global broadband rankings.  It will take nearly eight years to complete the project.

For Gans, that’s not good enough.

We are told that the new management of Telstra is more open and ready to meet the challenges brought about by the national broadband network. The NBN will have the capacity to break through usage caps. But why wait eight years?

There is an opportunity for Telstra to demonstrate its new responsiveness and get rid of this anachronism. It could lift its Liberty plan to 100GB and likely face few additional costs if it charged 15¢ a gigabyte. It would send a strong signal to markets.

For North Americans, it’s another illustration that Re-education efforts from domestic providers pointing to Australia as a justification for Internet Overcharging is based on the false premise that customers don’t mind usage caps.  Even in the land down under, consumers want out from under Internet Overcharging’s high prices and limited service.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>
A Telstra customer rants about Telstra’s inaccurate “usage meter” that resulted in $2,500 monthly broadband bills for this particular customer, and how the broadband provider holds all of the cards when they measure and bill for usage, all while attempting to hold customers to a two year contract. Viewer Warning: Strong profanity.

DirecTV wants people out of reach of its satellite service to enjoy unlimited viewing of NFL football games, and today announced it would test providing them over broadband connections.  For $100 more a year than subscribers pay now for the satellite-delivered football game coverage, DirecTV will will offer New York City viewers as many NFL games they can watch over their broadband connection for $349 a year.

DirecTV claims it will sell the service only to those who cannot obtain satellite service from the company, which presumably will limit the broadband content to apartment dwellers and other urban residents who can’t mount a satellite dish.  But in a city like New York, that can easily mean tens of thousands of potential new customers, all watching video content delivered by Cablevision, Time Warner Cable, RCN, or Verizon’s broadband services.  USA Today covered the story this morning:

DirecTV has few customers [in New York City] because skyscrapers block signals coming from satellites orbiting the equator. Also, many landlords and co-op boards don’t allow residents to get a satellite service.

“A lot of the buildings (that can’t get DirecTV) we already have in databases because they’ve got exclusive contracts with cable guys,” says Derek Chang, executive vice president for content strategy and development.

To see the games, broadband customers will download a special video player and punch in a code. Users can install the software on multiple computers, but only one will be able to stream the games at any particular time.

Games with New York’s Jets and Giants, which air on broadcast TV, will be available only when the customer’s computer is outside the New York area.

Cable operators won’t just play defense in the battle for football fans. Comcast will announce today that it will offer the NFL Red Zone Channel to customers of its Sports Entertainment Package. On Sundays, the channel will display football statistics with audio from Sirius XM Radio‘s program “Around the League” — and go live to certain games when the ball is within 20 yards of the goal.

While Cablevision, RCN, and perhaps even Verizon may not express concern about the prospect of carrying NFL games across their networks without “compensation,” Time Warner Cable, which continues to express an interest in Internet Overcharging schemes, may not be so tolerant, especially if the test is successful.  ISPs who support Internet Overcharging routinely use online video growth as a justification for usage caps and consumption pricing.  Will the NFL become part of the Re-education of their customers?

Another question to ponder – would such a service even launch in a broadband marketplace infested with usage caps and limits?

While researching some stories this afternoon, I spoke with an executive at one of the major broadband providers serving consumers with Internet service who told me the company was simply tearing its proverbial hair out over how much online video services like Hulu were costing them — at least $1-2 per gigabyte.  He also said it was putting serious strain on their broadband network.  He didn’t agree to go “on record” putting his name with his views because he was not authorized by company officials to do so, but he was well armed with talking points that said online video is such a problem, Canada, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand couldn’t take it any longer and they adopted usage allowances to limit customers watching Hulu and other online video services “like from the BBC.”

These Amateur Hour talking points written at company headquarters will work with a bobblehead-like nodding reporter at a local station getting a 10 second unchallenged sound bite, but they don’t work here.

My industry friend didn’t agree to be on the record, so he’ll remain anonymous, but the points raised are on the record so here we go:

Myth: Hulu is costing broadband providers a ton of money – at least $1-2 per gigabyte.

Truth: Hulu, and other online video services like it, do generate a considerable amount of broadband traffic in the United States.  That online video has posed a potential threat to my provider friend, who faces the prospect of some consumers deciding to disconnect their cable TV service and stick solely with broadband for online video.  However, my friend ignores the fact his company has a way to solve this traffic issue by considering upgrades to DOCSIS 3 technology.  After all, his bosses are actively seeking a way into the online video marketplace themselves.

Dave Burstein, DSL Prime

His employer is testing an online video delivery platform that could easily dwarf Hulu.  Of course, they don’t happen to own or control Hulu, open to any American.  The establishment of an industry-controlled service, available exclusively only to “authenticated” subscribers, really blows the talking point about online video straining their broadband network out of the water.  If Hulu is threatening to do them in, what do they think will happen when their even bigger endeavor launches for millions of users?  Then again, as I told him, such online video drives new subscriptions and they could always take some of that money and invest it in network expansion.

Dave Burstein, a well regarded expert on broadband networks, who writes DSL Prime, obliterates the cost estimate inflation for online video in a short piece titled, HD Video Delivered: 5-8 U.S. cents per hour (SD – 2-4 cents):

Microsoft, Cachelogic and I demo’ed full 6 megabit HD video over the net at Web Video Summit, and the stars are now aligned for HD to become first practical and then common – unless the carriers succeed in taxing the net outrageously. That’s cheap enough that even HD TV over the net can be supported by ads, and it becomes a no-brainer for any movie service that charges to offer true HD.

Dan Rayburn, the guru of the streaming media world, reports “The lowest price I saw in Q1 was two and a half cents per GB delivered for over 500TB of traffic a month. When I questioned many of the major CDNs about this price, nearly all of them told me they don’t price delivery that low, but the contracts say otherwise. That price is not the norm as 500TB a month in delivery is a very large customer.” Repeat: This is not a typical price, even at that large volume. Dan reports more normal prices are 2-4 times this level. So U.S. cents 15-25 is more typical for full HD.

Hulu doesn’t even specialize in HD video programming, so the $1-2 per gigabyte estimate on that talking points handout apparently mistakes a dollar sign for a cents sign.

Myth: Online video is such a problem, Canada, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand adopted usage allowances to limit customers watching Hulu and other online video services “like from the BBC.”

Truth: My industry friend is apparently unaware Hulu restricts access to the majority of its content outside of the United States.  If you are watching from Canada, Australia, or South Africa, you’re more likely to encounter an error message telling you this content is not licensed for your area.  I’m not sure how that is supposed to impact on overseas ISPs.  The BBC’s iPlayer not only doesn’t provide broadband video content outside of pre-authorized UK-based Internet Service Providers, it offers lower quality streams outside of the UK for what content is available.  It’s a very common complaint heard by the BBC, but they do not have the resources to offer high bandwidth streaming to the entire world.

Most broadband providers won’t use the word “limit” when it comes to controlling subscribers’ access, because that puts them right in the line of fire.  It’s always been our contention that this is about protecting business models and less about “costs.”

There are tremendous differences between online video content services in the United States versus Canada or other usage-capped countries.  In New Zealand, online video services have been shut down because of usage limits.  In Canada, Australia, and South Africa, they’ve never truly gotten off the ground because “bit caps” make them unsustainable.

South Africa this week celebrated the opening of a new underseas cable to bring additional global connectivity to the continent of Africa.  Broadband service in South Africa today has very little video content at all – usage caps are punishingly low across the region because unlike in the USA, international connectivity has traditionally been obscenely expensive.  Many South African ISPs distinguish themselves by placing heavier limits on sites hosted outside of the country than on those hosted domestically, a nod to the connectivity reality.

The truth is that some ISPs in the United States are looking for arguments to justify Internet Overcharging to maintain high profits and keep demand in check.  Consumers are not buying these industry talking points at any price.