Tag: cable industry

A Look Back at Aereo’s Interesting Final Year

The Source of My Policy Geekdom…

I wrote a couple times this past year about Aereo. This is mostly because I’m a bit of a telecom policy geek. My telecom policy geekdom all started decades ago, thanks to a class I took while studying for my B.A. in Telecommunications.  Telecommunications Law, I think it was called. The key thing I took away from that class, taught by the exceptional Professor Thomas Muth, was that it was often possible to credibly, honestly argue either side of a policy debate simply by interpreting the Communications Act of 1934 differently. I was working for telcos when that was replaced by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. What makes telecom law so interesting is that it is often up to interpretation, with case history sometimes providing a window into expected FCC and court decisions, but the Telecom Act often allows for changes in policy direction, if desired. And in the case of Aereo, there was even case history supporting opposing potential decisions.

…and How It Led to My Aereo Posts

So that’s what made Aereo so interesting to me; that’s what prompted two posts, first on April 8th and again on April 20th.  This was a situation in which both sides could find support in telecom laws and case histories; the main question was how those laws would be interpreted in this particular case.

The Unraveling of Aereo Since June, and the Beginning of Its Final Dismantling

I wasn’t blogging much, and therefore failed to publish any posts about Aereo, during the time period that Aereo was “deemed illegal” by the Supreme Court in June (as noted in this TechCrunch article) or when it lost its appeal to be consider a cable company in August (see this c|net article). Nor did I post in November when Aereo’s Chet Kanojia penned a final farewell to the company’s customers (which, at least for now, can still be seen on Aereo’s website).

Most recently, the company was in the news a couple weeks ago for a court decision allowing it to auction off its equipment (as detailed in this telecompaper article).

This seems to be the end for Aereo, but for the telecom policy geek in me, at least, it was interesting following the ups and downs of this potentially disruptive telecom business.

Carrier Consolidation Update: June 2014

I haven’t had time to formulate thoughtful analyses of any news items recently, but I have been noticing a lot of news about telecom carrier mergers lately, so I thought I’d summarize some of what I’ve seen… with links, of course, if you want to delve further into any of them.

TeleGeography reports that it sees cellular consolidation on the horizon in India, as the country’s top three cellular carriers dominate the market.  If that happens, India’s wireless industry would simply be joining the ongoing consolidation trend in telecom.

Here in the U.S., we’re following the merger chatter surrounding T-Mobile and Sprint.  BGR’s Zach Epstein provides the details in his overview, referencing CNBC’s video discussing the $2 billion break-up fee and the plans to go with the T-Mobile name and management team post-merger.  Meanwhile, AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson has been widely quoted as noting that a Sprint-T-Mobile merger would reduce the “big four” to a “big three,” the same reasoning cited for disallowing an AT&T-T-Mobile merger three years ago.  Obviously, T-Mobile and Sprint are hoping a merger of the 3rd and 4th largest carriers is more palatable to the FCC and DoJ.

In Europe, the talk is about Telefonica’s proposed acquisition of German wireless carrier E-Plus from KPN.

In the Italian wireless space, Reuters has reported a restart of negotiations between Hutchison Whampoa and Vimpelcom to merge their Italian wireless subsidiaries.  This report came just a week after Hutchison gained final EU approval of its Irish subsidiary’s acquisition of Telefonica’s wireless business in Ireland.

Back in the U.S., on the video side, AT&T continues to push ahead with its proposed acquisition of DirecTV, while Comcast and Time Warner Cable pursue a mega-merger.  In fact, this article suggests the AT&T-DirecTV deal may help boost the likelihood of regulatory approval for Comcast-Time Warner.

One of the interesting aspects of the AT&T-DirecTV acquisition is the role NFL Sunday Ticket plays in the deal.  As this Digital Trends article points out, there is reportedly an opt-out clause for AT&T if DirecTV fails to renew its deal with the NFL.

Meanwhile, Fierce Telecom’s Sean Buckley notes that Level 3 is looking to vastly expand its access on on-net buildings with its proposed acquisition of tw telecom.

I’m sure I may have missed a few, but those are the deals I’ve noticed in the news lately.

Carrier Ethernet Quick Hits: Price Declines Accelerate; Allstream Gets Certified, So Does Cox

Carrier Ethernet has been in the news a bit lately.  Here are a few quick hits:

1) In its CommsUpdate, TeleGeography noted that Ethernet pricing isn’t just declining; rather, it’s decline has accelerated in the past year:

New data from TeleGeography’sEthernet Pricing Service reveal that as Ethernet service availability has grown around the world, price declines have accelerated. Between H1 2013 and H1 2014, median monthly lease prices for 100Mbps point-to-point Ethernet over MPLS (EoMPLS) pseudowires declined an average of 44%, compared to 26% annually since H1 2011.

You can see the acceleration very clearly in TeleGeography’s graphic:

2) Canadian competitive carrier Allstream is trying to differentiate itself via MEF CE 2.0 certification:

“I am proud that Allstream is the first among Canada’s major national carriers to achieve this significant milestone,” said Allstream President Michael Strople. “The MEF CE 2.0 certification reinforces Allstream’s reputation for innovation and provides assurance to our customers that the products and services they are buying are the best in Canada and the world.”

3) CED reported that, in the U.S., Cox Business became the fourth cableco to earn MEF CE 2.0 certification, joining Time Warner Cable Business Class, RCN Business, and Comcast.

4) So, how many MEF CE 2.0 carriers are there?  Yes, I was wondering, too, so I went to the Metro Ethernet Forum website, where I found this Services Certification Registry.  As of this writing, 74 services, offered by 26 companies in 12 countries, are MEF CE 2.0 certified.  (A lot more companies — 72 in 27 countries– are MEF CE 1.0 certified.)

So that’s today’s tour around the Carrier Ethernet space.  I had noticed a flurry of mentions in the last couple of weeks and was curious what was going on in the space.  Perhaps this summary has satisfied your curiosity, as well.  If I missed any other interesting recent Metro Ethernet news, please do share links in the comment section (or you can send it to me and I’ll share it, if you’re one of my industry friends and contacts who doesn’t want to comment yourself).

Retransmission Fees, Antenna Service, and Aereo

Not much grabbing my attention lately in telecom headlines, but going over the last few days of headlines, this FierceCable article about Aereo founder Chet Kanojia’s interview with Katie Couric brings up a few interesting points. To quote an interesting segment of the interview:

“There’s a market imbalance,” Kanojia said. “Nobody loves their cable company.”

While primarily concerned with his company’s rocky relationship with broadcasters and Aereo’s April 22 date with the Supreme Court to justify an over-the-air-for-a-fee TV service model, Kanojia also said that cable companies are “absolutely” pricing themselves out of the market.

For the most part, he said, this is because cable is caught in a web being spun by broadcasters that link their “crown jewel” over-the-air programming with cable channels.

“If you get these people (Aereo customers) an antenna, you would have half the value proposition in front of them–for a lot less money (than a pay TV service),” he told Couric. Broadcasters, he added, only want “to preserve the old business model.”

There are some valid points here, though the establishment of the legaility of retransmission fees as established U.S. law in 1992 cause Aereo’s arguments to be a delicate balancing act.  (Of note, retransmission fees are not legal in Canada, assuming nothing has changed since 2012.  But I digress…)  This is why Aereo must rely on the argument that it is merely an antenna service.  Ironically, that’s what cable TV started out as.  (As I learned in my intro class while getting my BA in Telecommunications, CATV originally stood for “Community Antenna Television.”)

So the first question is whether you can put access to an antenna in the cloud.  But the second question is whether that antenna in the cloud is any different from the cable company’s antenna.  Aereo is arguing that it’s a personal antenna.  (Note the apparent similarities to cable TV I point out in the previous paragraph.)  Balancing act, indeed.

Of course, Kanojia had some thoughts about retransmission fees in general and the extent to which antenna service simply expands a TV station’s local market (both to those who can’t pick up signals due to obstructions and to those who simply find it more convenient to access local stations via an antenna service alongside satellite signals and other aggregating programming [cable TV]).  Though as someone who has worked in the telecom business, I can see the advantages of maintaining that revenue stream for local programmers to continue ensuring the viability of over-the-air television, I can also make a strong philosophical case for siding with the Canadian Supreme Court.

A little digging also brought up this interesting quote in an Adweek article, a snippet from the Wall Street Journal opinion piece written by TV industry veteran Barry Diller, who is current Chairman at one of Aereo’s financial backers.  Diller makes an interesting point about retransmission fees, a battle that, from Diller’s position, may have been lost more than 20 years ago:

“Broadcasters make more money when consumers are steered away from over-the-air program delivery and toward cable and satellite systems that pay the broadcasters retransmission fees. There’s nothing wrong with that. But it seems rich for them to forget the agreement they made to provide television to the consumer in return for the spectrum that enables their business,” wrote Diller in the Wall Street Journal.

But his reminder that broadcasters use the public airwaves is interesting to consider alongside Kanojia’s quote about how broadcast TV derives a significant portion of its revenue from retransmission fees.  Not sure either of those points, however, matters to the decision of this case; they’re more likely to simply good PR that could score points with a public that would like cheaper over-the-air television.  Of course, if Aereo loses this case and has to discontinue its service, public opinion won’t matter.

Though the outcome of this case will certainly impact the general public, the philosophical arguments behind it are likely only of interest to telecom policy geeks.  If you’ve read this far, though, that probably includes you.

Wi-Fi Hotspots as a Value Add/Customer Retention Strategy

When I was working in rural telecom a decade ago, I used to tell anyone whose ear I could reach that I thought wi-fi hotspots would be a great way to get people to value our local Internet service as they moved around town. I was concerned that the costs might be prohibitive in relation to the measurable benefits — particularly where competition was still sparse — but I figured it was a strategy that would prove useful at some point in the future. A family-driven relocation forced me to leave that company before that strategy’s time came, and I never did find out if my “earworm” dug its way into anyone’s brain there to resurface when the rural markets began to mature, but I was just reminded of my old strategic thinking by an RCR Wireless news item about Comcast hitting 1 million hotspots.

Tech-savvy consumers may be able to fearlessly navigate external wi-fi networks, but what percentage of the customer base simply wants its service provider-given e-mail to work, no matter where they are? And what would they pay for that, either as a rate premium or in the form of reduced churn?

Just my thought for the day; as always, sparked by an item in the news.

Cablevision’s Cloud-Based Multi-Room DVR… and How That Reminded Me About Aereo

It has been a while since I’ve followed the DVR specifics in the cable industry, but this Fierce Cable article about Cablevision’s new DVR product caught my eye.

Cablevision has been pushing remote-storage DVRs for years — I recall the discussion of its legality during my time following the cable industry while I was at NPRG (2005-2007).  And I couldn’t tell from today’s article which functionality in Cablevision’s DVR was new.  So I did a little more research and found the answer, I think, in a Multichannel News article — the ability to record 15 shows at once (up from Cablevision’s previous 10 shows and more than Verizon’s 12 shows).

But that’s not where my Googling stopped, as this reminded me of recent articles about Aereo, which relies on a 2008 ruling (and subsequent rulings as the case has advanced through the courts) as the basis of its claim of legality for its “remote antenna” and “remote DVR” service (as it’s described in the “So what actually happens when I use Aereo?” section of Aereo’s FAQ page).  And that reminded me of an article I had seen discussing how Cablevision seemed to simultaneously oppose both Aereo and the case against Aereo; of course, that’s an oversimplification of Cablevision’s position, which is why I included the link.  Whatever comes next, it will be worth following.  If you have been following this closely, then you’re probably yawning already, as you realize this paragraph is just a quick-hit highlight reel, but if you don’t already know about this and find your interest piqued, please use this as a springboard to do some of your own research in greater detail (and feel free to share your thoughts in the comment section).

And to think this all stemmed from a simple article about a Cablevision DVR product upgrade.