As a bit of a political junkie, I’m very excited to see the presidential debate tonight. I’ll be watching it on cable, as I watched the conventions on cable previously (Note my earlier post on the cable’s convention coverage).  You’ve got your choice of CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, C-SPAN, Fox Business, and BBC America.

But suppose you can’t see it tonight. Or maybe you want to watch it over again tomorrow. Well, good news for Comcast cable subscribers. The three presidential debates, and the vice presidential debate, will be available On Demand, the day after their original broadcast. C-SPAN, Comcast Media Center and TVN Entertainment are teaming up to make the debates available to viewers. [I stand corrected. Other cable operators are also carrying the debates on Video on Demand as well. Check your local system.]

Comcast has already made On Demand programming available from the Democratic and Republican conventions, major speeches from the candidates and Spanish language content.

You may recall an earlier post on C-SPAN’s Convention Hub, which provided online coverage of the two conventions. Now they’ve launched Debate Hub, a one-stop shop for embeddable video of the debates, coverage from the blogosphere and a variety of other tools for broadband subscribers.

Features include:

• Embeddable video of all debates in their entirety from the C-SPAN Video Library. Users can edit, share and post this video on their own websites.
• Interactive timelines that allow users to watch the debate or read the transcript question-by-question and candidate-by-candidate.
• Word trees that give visual representations of the language used by each candidate throughout the debates.
• Aggregated blog and Twitter coverage of the debates, enabling users to follow the latest online debate news and analysis.
• Debate Cam, providing live streaming video from multiple locations including the debate hall, media filing center, protest area and on-campus debate watch parties.

And while it has nothing to do with cable, I have to give a shout-out to Twitter’s new Election 2008 portal, which allows you see tweets flowing by in real time.

While I typically stick to discussions of policy issues, broadband, and emerging technology, when I see some really good news about cable and our ongoing efforts to improve customer service, I have to talk about it.

Recently JD Power and Associates released their annual rankings of customer satisfaction with both local and long distance telephone service.  The rankings measure five factors to determine overall satisfaction.

• Customer service
• Performance and reliability
• Cost of service
• Billing
• Offerings and promotions

For the the second year, cable companies won all four regions. The latest study proves what we’ve said for some time – cable is your best value for telephone service. You can learn more about cable telephony here.

In a recent GigaOm post, Stacy Higginbotham suggests cable’s concern with white space devices is a response to the new broadband competition they would provide to cable.  Michael addressed NCTA’s ex parte filing earlier this week, but it’s important to understand what has happened in the longer history of the white spaces debate.

Cable’s concerns have been based solely on technical issues.  Cable has been very patient in this process, extending over several years.  We first raised our technical concerns at the FCC in the white spaces proceeding four years ago. At the same time we have reached out continuously to the white spaces proponents for constructive solutions.  In 2007, we submitted a detailed technical study which described our interference concerns.

The important thing to keep in mind here is that cable has no white spaces. While various proposals and ex parte advocacy filings have been submitted in this proceeding, none have addressed the implications of TV band devices operating on the same frequencies used by cable. None have focused on the potential disruption of customer viewing of cable programming.

This inattention has persevered despite detailed filings by NCTA demonstrating the high likelihood that unlicensed personal/portable TV band devices, as currently proposed, will interfere with cable service. The Commission’s own findings in lab tests a year ago confirmed the serious risks of “direct pickup” (DPU) interference to cable-ready DTV receivers.  Now, early reports of Commission field tests further demonstrate that the risk to cable consumers is very real.

A second problem is the high risk of interference to rural cable headend antenna reception.  Cable systems in rural communities often rely on tower-mounted, high gain directional antennas to receive broadcast signals.  Many of these headend sites are outside the station’s predicted Grade B contour.

NCTA has urged the Commission to take full account of the unique hazards to cable before it approves unlicensed transmitters on TV white spaces frequencies.

We think this is a straightforward problem that needs to be addressed.  We continue to support efforts to open up additional spectrum for the delivery of new wireless communications.  However, the customers we serve have every right to expect this to be fixed before that happens.

Earlier this week, the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on telecommunications and the Internet held a hearing: “Status of the DTV Transition: 154 Days and Counting.” As a reminder that the Digital TV Transition is about over-the-air broadcast TV stations, one could note some of the issues raised in press coverage.

• Lawmakers See Challenges for TV Transition (WaPo)
• Early Digital-TV Switch Has Flaw: Viewers Could Lose Certain Channels on Permanent Basis (WSJ)

Some viewers had issues in Wilmington with over-the-air reception of the new DTV signal; some had problems setting up converter boxes with their analog TV sets.

NCTA President & CEO Kyle McSlarrow had a little different perspective, as he testified at that hearing. He focused on the issue of retransmission consent and how it would be effected by the transition. This FCC fact sheet covers the details, but suffice to say that retrans (and the related term “must carry”) refer to how cable operators can carry broadcast stations.

Here is some of the coverage of his testimony:

• Retranmission Deals May Get Derailed by DTV Transition, Cable Operators Warn (TV Week)
• McSlarrow: Retrans Uncertainty Creates Cable ‘Storm’ (MediaDailyNews)
• DTV “quiet period” debate gets noisy in Congress (Ars Technica)

Here is a link to the text of McSlarrow’s comments and I’ve embedded the audio below (which runs just under six minutes).

[display_podcast]

To help you understand this, you need to understand that retrans and must carry play a critical role in ensuring you can see your local broadcast stations as part of your cable lineup.  Some of the existing deals will lapse around the end of the year, right before the Feb. 17 transition date.

Last month, the NAB Board of Directors pledged to identify a Retransmission Consent Quiet Period. NCTA issued this statement:

“In recent months, we have discussed with NAB the need to recognize the potential for consumer confusion and disruption involved with retransmission consent disputes that might arise as we approach the broadcasters’ digital TV transition on February 17, 2009. We appreciate NAB’s acknowledgment that this is a very real concern, and continue to support efforts to minimize potential consumer confusion through the adoption of a quiet period. But the reality is that many outstanding retransmission consent agreements expire by the end of 2008. Any voluntary quiet period that does not begin before the agreements actually expire – or which is too brief to preclude potentially confusing messages about broadcast carriage during the time of the actual DTV transition – represents the illusion of a commitment and does not serve the consumer.”

NCTA last week filed an ex parte letter with the FCC regarding the so called “white space” devices and interference with cable systems. While much of the media coverage of these devices has focused on interference with broadcast signals, an often overlooked aspect is the negative impact they can have on cable systems.

The good news, however, is we believe there are steps that can be taken by device manufacturers and the FCC to mitigate those concerns and bring these devices to market. The use of white spaces holds promise for new wireless services. And while we support use of this innovative technology, the FCC must first ensure that no harm is done to millions of cable customers.

White space devices, for those unfamiliar, identify and use unused TV channels for transmission of data. They identify the TV channels in use in a given area, and use the unused TV channels within that area for data transfer.

Broadcasters and makers of wireless devices such as microphones are concerned that the devices may not properly identify used TV channels and cause interference with everything from over the air television reception to concert hall sound systems. Testing currently underway gives a certain amount of legitimacy to this fear. Some devices improperly identified every frequency as being in operation or improperly identified frequencies in use as not in use.

Beyond these issues, however, cable subscribers have unique interference issues that can arise from white space devices, and they have gone largely unreported.

For instance:

• Cable television systems have no ‘white spaces.’ Cable systems use all of the channels in the broadcast television band for the delivery of programming and other services to their customers. As consumers with TVs connected directly to cable (without a set-top) tune up and down the dial, they may experience significant interference as they tune past channels utilized by white space devices.
• The proposed unlicensed TV band devices pose a significant threat to cable’s reception of distant over-the-air television programming at headends. If white space devices operate between a distant broadcast facility and a cable head-end, the device may not recognize the distant signal, and prevent the cable headend from receiving the signal at all.

In many cases, the most serious concerns about white space devices as they impact cable have more to do with the power of the devices. Higher power “fixed” white space antennas could impact consumers with cable ready TVs as far away as three miles from the antenna.

The use of white spaces is just one of the innovative solutions that cable and other industries are exploring to provide consumers more access to content when and where they want. These efforts are exciting but we should ensure that any new technology shouldn’t interfere with the right of consumers to enjoy the services to which they already subscribe.

To help resolve some of these technical challenges, we have proposed some steps that will mitigate the interference from this new technology. These solutions include:

1. Restrict the operation of portable devices to a maximum of 10 mW and prohibit transmissions in the VHF channels given the high probability of direct pickup interference to TV receivers.
2. Prohibit operations, at a minimum, on channels 2- 4.
3. Restrict the operation of fixed devices to at least 400 feet from the external walls of residential buildings.
4. Prohibit operation of fixed devices in VHF channels.
5. Require spectrum coordination before operation of portable devices on channels adjacent to those being received at headends.
   1. Of the suggested methods by which fixed and portable devices might automatically determine channel availability, it appears that auto-location (GPS or equivalent), combined with regular access to a reliable database containing geographically-indexed lists of available channels, has the potential to provide the flexibility and reliability required to protect headend reception.

By incorporating these recommendations on the operation of white space devices, we believe the benefits of the technology can be balanced against the probable impact it will have on millions of cable television customers.