Cablevision Caught Blatantly Lying To Customers About Digital TV Switch

from the don't-blame-us,-blame-the-fcc dept

As you probably have heard, in early 2009, over-the-air TV stations will no longer be broadcasting analog signals to those who receive television over-the-air (with an antenna). This is part of a necessary effort to reclaim valuable wireless spectrum that the broadcasters have held (for free) for many years, and put it to much better use. This change only impacts those who watch TV over-the-air. That means it has no impact whatsoever on anyone who receives their television via cable or satellite TV (representing the majority of TV viewers out there). Yet, this apparently didn't stop at least one cable company from claiming otherwise.

Consumerist has caught Cablevision telling customers that they need to upgrade to a digital cable box by order of the FCC. This is simply untrue. Cablevision is upgrading many of its channels to digital format from analog, and those channels will no longer be available to customers who don't have a digital cable box. But, that's entirely a business decision made by Cablevision, and has absolutely nothing to do with the the FCC-mandated switch for over-the-air broadcasts. It's just that Cablevision timed this deal to coincide with all the stories about the over-the-air switch, and is using that to make people think that it's the FCC's fault. Cablevision responded to Consumerist admitting that the change has nothing to do with the FCC's mandated change -- but refused to explain why every customer support person Consumerist spoke to gave the FCC as the reason, even after they specifically went to check their training notes. It's a rather sneaky (and likely illegal) move to claim that people need to upgrade due to the FCC when the FCC has nothing to do with it.

Filed Under: analog tv, cable, digital tv, fcc, spectrum
Companies: cablevision, fcc

And Of Course, FCC Sides With Verizon In Argument With Cable Cos.

from the no-surprise-there dept

Last month we pointed out that the cable companies had filed a complaint with the FCC accusing Verizon of some shady practices in trying to get customers to stay, even after they'd already agreed to switch to cable. Since most customers want to keep their home phone number, the cable companies needed to contact Verizon to make the switch. At that point, Verizon would immediately contact those customers to prevent them from switching. As the cable companies pointed out, this gave the telcos an unfair advantage. They were using information they learned from elsewhere (the group in charge of managing number portability) to steal customers back from the cable companies. Of course, given how today's FCC tends to think that telcos are always right and cable co's are always wrong, it will surprise probably none of you, that the FCC has no problem with Verizon's practices. Perhaps the cable companies should have waited until a new FCC commish was sworn in before making this complaint.

Filed Under: cable, fcc, number portability, telcos
Companies: comcast, fcc, time warner, verizon

FCC Caps Cable Growth, Slightly Relaxes Media Ownership Rules

from the yawn dept

As expected, the FCC agreed today to ever so barely relax media ownership rules. While we rarely find FCC Chair Kevin Martin's arguments convincing, on this one he's correct -- and we still can't figure out why people are so up in arms. The details show that it's an incredibly minor change to the rules. In the top 20 media markets, newspapers can merge with a single radio or TV station -- but not if that TV station is one of the top 4 stations in that market. In other words, newspapers who are struggling to get beyond just being newspapers can finally expand into other media areas. I can't understand why people are freaked out about this. At best, a newspaper can now own a tiny radio or TV station. The fear of only one point of view getting through is totally laughable for a variety of reasons. First, there are more sources of media than ever before in history -- by a long shot. To think that a single TV station or newspaper can dominate the conversation is laughable. Second, since it can't involve a top 4 TV station, it's hard to believe that this new entity will have all that much dominance in the market. There seems to be nothing wrong with this proposal. Of course, don't expect this to go anywhere. Thanks to misleading hysteria over the issue, the Senate quickly stepped in to block the FCC's ruling, at least for the time being.

However, in another decision that doesn't make much sense at all, the FCC did vote to cap cable growth. As we've pointed out in the past, the rationale for this makes almost no sense, and will likely decrease choice of providers in many regions. With media ownership, you're talking about a highly competitive market. With things like cable, you are not -- so it makes very little sense for the FCC to cap cable's growth -- except as a favor to Kevin Martin's friends in the telcos.

Filed Under: cable, fcc, media ownership, regulations
Companies: fcc

Congress Looks To Close Kevin Martin's Loophole For Regulating Cable

from the not-so-fast,-kiddo dept

Last month we noted how amusing it was that supposedly "anti-regulation" FCC chair Kevin Martin suddenly turned "pro-regulation" when it came to cable companies -- the arch enemies of Martin's buddies in the telcos. For years, Martin has hoped that he could force cable companies to offer a la carte programming, which was really a move to help push "family friendly" programming. Of course, the problem was that the FCC doesn't have regulatory control over cable systems. It was designed to regulate the public airwaves, not the private cable lines. However, there was a loophole found in the 1934 Communications Act, that would give the FCC the right to regulate cable if two conditions were met: it was available to 70% of the population, and 70% of those who had it available subscribed. Martin has used that loophole to push for regulations -- but there's plenty of disagreement as to whether or not the numbers really pass the 70/70 rule. For example, the FCC's own numbers pin the number at only 54%. Martin chose someone else's numbers to get his necessary 70%. Either way, though, he still hasn't given a good reason for why the FCC should regulate cable.

While the debate on this issue continues, some folks in Congress are looking to make the whole thing meaningless anyway, by taking away Martin's loophole. They want to amend the Communications Act to remove the 70/70 provision. This seems reasonable, as it appears that Martin is only looking to regulate for political reasons. What's not clear from the article is whether or not the support is there to pass this change to the Act. Tragically, it may depend on who politicians are more in bed with: the telcos or the cable cos.

Filed Under: cable, fcc, kevin martin, marsha blackburn, regulations

Can Someone Explain The Rationale For Capping Cable Growth?

from the capping-cable dept

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is looking to reinstate a national cap on cable ownership, which would bar any one firm from serving more than 30 percent of the U.S. subscriber base. (A similar rule was thrown out by the courts back in 2001.)

The rationale for a national cap has always been a bit opaque to me. Because cable is geographically constrained, from a consumer perspective, all that matters is the market power my provider can exercise locally. If I've got three regional cable providers to choose from, it makes no difference whether two of them each hold a 40 percent national share. If I've got only one serving my area, the fact that it only controls 3 percent of the national market is similarly irrelevant. And if I'm in the latter boat, declaring that the largest firms with the most resources are forbidden to expand their operations into my neighborhood scarcely seems calculated to increase my access to alternatives. The FCC cites regional consolidation as a motive for the cap, but if cable providers are gunning for such regional monopolies, then won't they divest first in the regions where they do face competition, and hold on to the areas where they're the lone option?

It also seems a little perverse to introduce such limits just as consumers are finally starting to experience more robust choice in premium video. According to The Wall Street Journal, satellite now holds 30 percent of the pay-TV market. And despite some rocky first steps, phone companies are ramping up to aggressively expand IPTV over the next few years. Racing in to rescue viewers from monopoly now is, if not technically "ironic," then at least close enough to meet the Alanis Morissette definition.

Filed Under: cable, fcc, growth, monopolies

Why A La Carte Cable Will Probably Cost You More

from the read-it-and-weep dept

Every time we write about the push for "a la carte" cable, where subscribers could pick and choose which channels they want, we make sure to point out that studies have shown most consumers would end up paying more for such a system. However, every time we write about it, comments fill up with people ignoring the study and insisting that if they only had to pay for the five channels they like, then obviously it would cost less than the 100 they pay for today. That, of course, ignores how the economics of the business would change if a la carte was being offered. Thankfully, someone over at the NY Times gives a nice straightforward explanation for why your bill would likely go up if we switched to a la carte. And, it doesn't even get into the increased overhead in the infrastructure necessary to offer a la carte, along with the more complicated billing and maintenance required.

Filed Under: a la carte, cable

Funny How Anti-Regulation Telco Buddy Kevin Martin Is Pro-Regulation When It Comes To Cable

from the should-have-sang-happy-birthday-louder dept

December's almost here, and with it, comes FCC chair Kevin Martin's birthday (December 14th, for those who care). This might not seem like a big deal to many, but it was just a couple years ago that a bunch of telco execs got together to sing Martin happy birthday just as he announced a bunch of policy positions that seemed to support the telcos' every wish. What's most amazing is that whenever he's pushed on telco issues, Martin likes to claim that he's against regulations -- but when it comes to companies that the telcos compete with, he's suddenly much more open to regulations. So, it should come as no surprise that the cable companies (who apparently forgot to send Martin a birthday cake) are about to wake up to a different world order, as Martin plans to make use of a loophole in the law to start regulating the cable companies -- including putting serious restrictions on growth. Now, there's no denying that the cableco's have a cushy position, which they all too often abuse. However, especially with the rise of satellite TV and IPTV, more competition is reaching the market. In the end, this move sounds like not just a way for Martin to hurt the cable companies, but also a way for him finally to force them to offer a la carte channel choices, a favorite of Martin's for years, not because of the importance of more choice, but because it could lead to more family friendly programming. It could very well be that regulation makes the most sense for the cable industry -- but it's hard to see how Martin can claim equal treatment of his friends in the telco industry, who he lets merge with abandon, while telling the cable companies they can't do the same.

Filed Under: cable, fcc, kevin martin, regulations
Companies: comcast, fcc, time warner

Corporate Doublespeak: By Forcing Competition On The Market, We Will Need To Raise Prices

from the these-guys-are-slick dept

Earlier this week we wrote about plans by the FCC to ban deals that gave a single service provider exclusivity to an apartment building or housing development. Service providers (particularly the cable companies who locked many of them up) loved these deals as they were granted a guaranteed monopoly. Of course, most of us realize that monopolies are bad for consumers and lead to higher prices (monopoly rents and all). Yet, now that they're gone, Comcast is responding to the deal by saying that it's actually competition that will cause them to raise prices. Reader slide23 writes in to point out Comcast's corporate doublespeak:

The following statement may be attributed to Sena Fitzmaurice, Senior Director of Corporate Communications and Government Relations: "Consumers in apartment buildings and condos across the nation received a blow today from the action taken by the FCC. The result of this decision is likely to be higher prices for services and years of litigation and uncertainty for consumers. The significant concessions building owners have been able to bargain for on behalf of their residents will be lost."

Yes, Comcast is going to use the fact that they now have to compete within apartment buildings to raise prices. Or, so they say. Somehow, you get the feeling that once the local DSL providers starts offering faster/cheaper service, Comcast will have a change of heart on the matter. More seriously, perhaps what Comcast really means is that it believes these kinds of services are natural monopolies, which may actually be a defensible position. Of course, Comcast probably doesn't want to go down that path at all. Once you admit you're in a space where a natural monopoly makes sense, then you open yourself up to forced line sharing and (more importantly for Comcast...) regulations barring any kind of traffic discrimination. Given last week's Comcast kerfuffle over traffic jamming, the last thing the company should be doing is suggesting that competition hurts the space, because that just gives politicians all the ammunition needed to put network neutrality laws in place.

The company can't really have it both ways. It can't go around saying it can run its network like a private company in a competitive market that doesn't need any regulation out one side of its mouth, while at the same time claiming that it's facing a natural monopoly where competition hurts the market out of the other side.

Filed Under: cable, exclusivity, internet
Companies: comcast, fcc

FCC Finally Realizes That Exclusive Deals For Cable Aren't Particularly Competitive

from the just-noticed? dept

For years, a lucrative area of business for cable companies was to sign exclusive deals with apartment building and new housing developments, which would effectively lock out competitors from those markets. Often, these deals were signed with the details hidden in the fine print -- and building owners were even given rewards for not altering the contracts. The companies who signed these deals argued that they could then provide better service if they were guaranteed to be the only provider in a building -- but there doesn't seem to be much evidence that either service or prices were any better in these buildings. Bizarrely, the FCC had approved these deals claiming that they were actually helping competition (again, there doesn't seem to be much evidence to support that). Of course, when it comes to cable, there really hadn't been that much competition until more recently -- and the telcos who are just now getting into the TV business missed out on their chance to sign these kinds of deals, since the cable companies locked them all up already. So, even though the telcos would love to have these types of exclusive deals themselves, they're too late in the video space. Thus, the telcos have been complaining, and FCC boss Kevin Martin doesn't much like it when his friends at the telcos complain. So it should come as little surprise that the FCC is about to make those kinds of agreements illegal. The cable companies are gearing up to fight this in court, so it may be a little while before anything happens. Of course, the telcos have often tried to sign similar deals themselves when it comes to broadband access -- so it'll be interesting to see if those are also no longer binding.

Filed Under: cable, exclusive, internet
Companies: comcast, fcc

Comcast Still Dancing Around Its Content Jamming Operations; What's Wrong With Admitting It?

from the shhhh,-it's-a-secret-that-everyone-knows dept

With the news coming out that Comcast's broadband jamming operations actually interfere with other apps as well, Comcast is now trying to respond to the complaints in every way other than telling people what it is that they're doing, which at this point really does appear to be the only sensible response. Comcast went to Reuters (since it was AP who confirmed the original story) and repeated the carefully worded claim that Comcast is not blocking any kind of traffic. Of course, people aren't saying that it's completely blocking any traffic -- just that it's quietly pulling some background tricks to slow down certain types of traffic without letting its customers know. That's the key part, and it's the same complaint that people have had for years with Comcast concerning its fuzzy bandwidth caps. The company advertises unlimited service, but if it's not unlimited, why not come out and explain what the limitations are? It seems only fair.

Perhaps an answer comes from Tim Lee, who was invited to a conference call today with Comcast to help "clear up" the misperceptions Comcast feels are being spread in the media about its actions. The only problem is that Comcast doesn't clear up anything. It basically admits to the traffic shaping but says it can't tell people that it's doing that, as it could help them get around the shaping. Well, sorry, too late for that. Besides, what's wrong with simply telling people what the limitations are and then going after the violators for terms of service breaches? In being so secretive and misleading about it, all it's doing is causing many more people to get upset with Comcast and think that they're being targeted (even if they're not). It's a ridiculous PR situation for Comcast to be in -- and it could be solved easily enough if Comcast stopped beating around the bush, stopped giving gobbledy-gook doublespeak responses that don't actually answer the questions people are asking and simply told people what they're doing and why. It really is that simple. If the company has a legitimate reason for doing what it's doing (and some people say there is) then why not explain that?

Filed Under: bittorrent, cable, network neutrality, traffic shaping, transparency
Companies: comcast