There’s a really interesting discussion to be had about the future of delivering video to the home. Which technology makes the most sense? How will content companies make money in the future? How do we best address digital rights issues?

Instead, I usually read some “kill your cable” rhetoric.

So, that’s why I return to the topic of cord-cutting: Because everybody else keeps writing about it, often in an oddly hostile fashion.

CNET’s Marguerite Reardon started off an Ask Maggie column on cord-cutting this way:

If you are like me, you cringe every month when you pay your cable bill. And you dream of the day you can cut your cable cord and stop paying that monthly bill.

It’s not that I don’t like to watch TV. I do. But I can’t stand that I pay $140 a month to watch a handful of shows on five or six channels.

First, that $140 probably covers more than just standard programming . I pay about $180 a month to Comcast, which includes video, Internet and phone, including HD, a DVR, premium channels, and so on.

When a reader writes in how to watch video online, Reardon answers, “Good for you for cutting the cable cord!”

There are certainly people who choose not to subscribe to multichannel video services. Nothing wrong with that. But if you want to watch the programming – cable’s original shows, news, sports – then that’s how you get it.

Aaron Barnhart of TV Barn helpfully points out that, for all the complaining, people are continuing to subscribe to multichannel video service in growing numbers. But, counterintuitively, Reardon love to recommend that people unhappy with cable service should turn to cord-cutting – which doesn’t allow you to access all you can get from cable programming.

It would probably be along the lines of suggesting that people unhappy with cable should try reading a book. Did you know that libraries loan them out for free?

Read the rest of this entry »

With 95% of U.S. households already having access to broadband service with download speeds of at least 4 Mbps – including 50% of homes with access to cable’s DOCSIS 3.0 speeds of 50 Mbps and faster – broadband in the U.S. is a success story that keeps getting better.  Over the past decade, deployment of broadband throughout most of our country has created millions of jobs, added billions of dollars to our economy and unleashed innovators who are developing creative services and applications that have remarkably improved our quality of life.

While acknowledging these successes, the FCC’s Sixth Broadband Deployment Report – or 706 Report – nevertheless concludes that broadband is not being deployed to all Americans on a “reasonable and timely” basis because five percent of American households don’t have access to broadband with speeds of at least 4 Mbps.

It’s worth noting that the 4 Mbps threshold is new and represents a significant increase from the 768 Kbps used in the 2008 report, and the 200 Kbps used in the first four reports.  We have no problem using a 4 Mbps threshold for defining broadband:  I have argued for several years that 200 or 768 Kbps was an inadequate threshold for a policy definition of broadband (pages 5-6).  But if the 706 Report is to retain any value as a measurement tool, the Commission must heed its own advice and use the definition as “a relatively static point at which to gauge progress and growth… from one Report to the next.” If the Commission continually increases the speed threshold to reflect “current demand patterns” and “estimated future demand” as it did this year, it becomes a circular nullity and it will be a certainty that deployment never will be considered reasonable and timely.

Read the rest of this entry »

There’s a video of Louis C.K. that’s been floating around the Internet for the past two years called “Everything’s Amazing and Nobody’s Happy.” In an appearance on Late Night with Conan O’Brien, the comedian observed that despite our technological advances, people still like to complain.

I think about this when I hear people complain bitterly that the U.S. is dangerously behind on broadband – there’s not enough broadband available, it’s too slow, it’s too expensive. Nobody can get online!

Of course, we have to ensure that as many Americans as possible have access to the Internet. Read this February post from Kyle McSlarrow or this one from James Assey in March. The cable industry has deployed broadband to 92% of American households. We continue to regularly increase broadband speeds and we’re rolling out wideband service based on the DOCSIS 3.0 standard (now reaching 65+ million homes). We proposed the Adoption Plus program to bring broadband to lower income households.

This is a time when:

• 95% of U.S. households have availability to Internet access with speeds of 4 Mbps or more
• 82% of HHs can choose from two or more wireline platforms
• More than 90% can choose from several 3G mobile options

Internet access is important. We can and should do more to get Americans connected. But are we really so bad off?

I Don’t Think We’ve Surrendered to Sweden.

Last month, we blogged about how high consumer satisfaction is with their current Internet connections, but all you’ll hear is about how slow our connections are.  Surveys show that an increasing number of people are using mobile devices to access the Web, but some wouldn’t count those consumers when measuring “broadband.”

Adam Theirer pointed out last year that the speed of adoption for Internet access is far faster than other technology developments (See this Pew report). With three-quarters of Americans currently using the Internet, adoption hit 50% in a decade, ahead of multichannel video (35 years), wireless phones (20 years), home computers (20 years), telephone and electricity (50+ years). Are we crawling along or well ahead of schedule?

Nokia Siemens Networks’ annual broadband development index, the Connectivity Scorecard, just came out and it showed that the U.S. just lost the #1 slot to Sweden. Sweden is beating us!

Of course, Sweden’s population is 3% of the U.S. population; it’s 4.57% of our land mass; the Swedish government owns 37% of the incumbent telecom provider (TeliaSonora) and the Finnish government owns another 13%, making the incumbent half-owned by the government.  Still, look at how bad we have it.

It’s not like I can buy a little device for a couple hundred dollars that I can carry around in my pocket and access most of the Internet, anytime and anywhere. It’s not like I can watch one of thousands of movies 24 hours day by firing up my Wii to reach the Netflix library or by tuning to my VOD service. It’s not like I can get on an airplane and fly across the country while surfing the Web.

Oh, wait. Yes, I can.

[NOTE: I should probably mention Louis C.K.'s terrific FX show Louie. And check out George Ou's debunking of the Berkman study – a key tool used to "prove" how the U.S. is behind – here and here.]

As I mentioned in my previous post, the cable industry has deployed switched digital video (SDV) as a means of conserving bandwidth, allowing us to provide better and more services to our customers.  As the FCC examines the future of set-top boxes and the current CableCARD regime, TiVo has raised a question about whether the Tuning Adapter (which it helped develop) is a satisfactory approach to enable consumers with TiVo one-way devices to access cable programming delivered via SDV.

We’ve already responded via filings of our own  – making the points that Tuning Adapters are generally working and the TiVo proposed “fix” doesn’t withstand scrutiny  – but I wanted to take some time to explain where we think TiVo gets it wrong. (Coverage of this battle of filings can be found at Multichannel News and Light Reading.)

Read the rest of this entry »

Several major cable operators are making new deployments of switched digital video – see here and here – which provides a timely opportunity to explain how SDV works and how consumers will benefit.

Standard cable service, both analog and digital, works on a “broadcast” model, in which every available channel is sent to every subscriber all of the time, regardless of what is actually being watched. Sending more channels than you’re actually watching just takes up more of the capacity on the cable pipe – capacity that could be used for other important purposes.

As this article succinctly puts it:

One of the primary benefits of SDV is that it frees up bandwidth because it only delivers the channel a customer is viewing.

Read the rest of this entry »