Zero Rating ≠ Net Neutrality

Last week, the FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau released its Policy Review of Mobile Broadband Operators’ Sponsored Data Offerings for Zero-Rated Content and Services.  The report examined the 2016 sponsored data and zero-rating initiatives of mobile broadband providers.  Specifically, the Commission examined T-Mobile’s Binge One, AT&T’s Data Perks, AT&T’s Sponsored Data, and Verizon’s FreeBee Data 360.    The focus of the evaluation was “the potential harm to consumers and competition in downstream industry sectors that could result from upstream network operators’ unreasonably discriminating in favor of select downstream providers that are affiliates”. 

The FCC found that T-Mobile’s Binge One and AT&T’s Data Perks “did not discriminate against or disadvantage edge providers or end users.”  However, the FCC found that AT&T’s Sponsored Data to third party content providers were offered at less favorable terms and conditions compared to what was offered to DIRECTV (benefiting DIRECTV NOW), an AT&T affiliate.   (Note: Verizon’s sponsored data plan was also shown to benefit its affiliate service, go90, but since go90 is much smaller than DIRECTV NOW, the magnitude of the current anticompetitive harm was estimated to be much less.)

The Commission concluded that “Given the powerful economic incentives of network operators to employ these practices to advantage themselves and their affiliates in various edge service markets, we are equally concerned that – absent effective oversight – these practices will become more widespread in the future.”

Why shouldn’t Pennsylvania get to keep the CAF Phase II money?

A brief overview of the Connect America Fund (CAF).  As an extension of the Universal Service Fund, CAF is the FCC's program to expand access to voice and broadband services to un[der]served, rural communities.  Phase I, which began in 2012 and ended a year later, combined millions of public and private funds to expand broadband services to unserved, rural areas.  Phase II began in 2015.  In the second phase, the FCC will provide over $1.5 billion per year for six years to price-cap carriers to subsidize their “cost of building new network infrastructure or performing network upgrades to provide voice and broadband service in areas where it is lacking” (fcc.gov).  

The support comes with strings attached.  After all, there is NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH!  If a carrier accepts CAF Phase II money, it must provide the broadband service at speeds of at least 10 megabits per second (Mbps) downstream and 1 Mbps upstream, and at reasonably comparable rates found in urban areas.  Verizon evaluated the tradeoff as not being worth it.  But, where does that leave residents of rural communities in the state of Pennsylvania?   The PUC and Sen. Bob Casey believe that the PA funds should not be at risk for leaving the state in a competitive bidding process.  Instead, the state should be entitled to “keep” the CAF funds.  Specifically, other providers in the state who have agreed to participate in the program (like CenturyLink or Windstream) should get the money.  Let’s see what the FCC thinks of that idea.

https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/maps/connect-america-phase-ii-final-eligible-areas-map/

Blackout averted, for now!

There was no resolution, just delay, in the contract talks between Charter, the MVPD, and Comcast, the content owner, over carriage of NBC-U programming on Charter's distribution pipes.

See:  http://delivermyshows.com/

Will today be the day that…

Comcast cuts the cord (feed) of its NBC-U channels to 17+ million Charter Communications customers? 

Emboldened by its scale and negotiating heft after its 2016 purchases of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks to become the second largest cable/broadband provider, Charter is pushing back on a proposed deal offered by Comcast to continue carrying its valued content, including NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, Bravo, and Telemundo. 

Will one firm blink before the highly anticipated professional football game between the Green Bay Packers and Detroit Lions airs on Sunday night?  Since the largest MVPD, Comcast, does not compete in local markets against the third largest MVPD, Charter, the beneficiary of a badly-timed or prolonged dispute could be AT&T/DirecTV.  At least this time around!

Next Up...DirectTV NOW!

Why do I need my traditional cable service anymore if DirecTV Now gives me what I want (with the exception of CBS) with no cable box?  AT&T says it is going after 20M non-Pay TV households (the cord-nevers), but won’t this appeal to Pay TV households (like me) who may finally consider cutting the cord?  The Verge

The problem is that a part of me (a large part of me) feels like this is a bait-and-switch.  I can feel like I’m getting the same or more of what I want for less, but the day will come when I will be back to where I am now…paying a lot of money for too many programming options.  So, I do nothing (for now).  Exactly what AT&T wants me to do! 

What do we know or suspect a Trump presidency will mean for broadband?

Net Neutrality, solidified by the 2015 classification of wireline and mobile ISPs as utilities, will certainly be weakened, if not overturned.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/11/trump-will-have-no-shortage-of-options-for-attacking-net-neutrality/

Money is going to infrastructure and so we can assume (maybe) that some of that will go to broadband infrastructure to ensure (at some point) that 100% of the US population will have high speed broadband access (wireline or mobile).  The urban/rural divide is huge and Trump has to reward those rural voters who supported him in 2016.

Back together again?

According to news reports over the past few days, CBS is considering re-merging with Viacom after an eleven-year split.  Why?  In a media landscape that is increasingly becoming (or possibly becoming) more concentrated in both programming and distribution, this is a “have-to” move for the firms.  

In negotiating carriage agreements with distributors, a combined CBS/Viacom will have greater heft in those negotiations with its portfolio of television and film assets.  Will it be enough or is this phase one in an ultimately plan to do what Comcast did and AT&T is trying to do --- be a “player” in both content and distribution.  Time will tell!