Via a new PC Magazine study, cable has once again shown to deliver the fastest broadband speeds to the most homes across the US.  Cox, Comcast and Charter take the first three spots, with other cable operators not far behind.  As we’ve noted previously, cable broadband is available to 93% of U.S. households, offering speeds of 5 Mbps or faster to more than 90% of U.S. households

Over the past 15 years, cable has invested more than $170 billion to upgrade networks, add new equipment and improve next-generation networks.  From this significant investment, consumers are reaping the benefits of the fastest speeds to connect with family, telecommute or download an HD movie for their next trip.

But cable is not stopping here.  Operators are continuing to invest and deploy the latest technology for even faster speeds to even more homes.  As we said in an earlier post, Comcast announced in April that it is offering 105 Mbps service to 40 million homes.  At year-end 2010, speeds of 50 Mbps or faster were available to more than 80 million homes by cable operators.  SNL Kagan notes that ultra-fast wideband service – with speed tiers that exceed 100 Mbps – should reach 94 million homes by the end of 2011.

Most importantly, cable’s customers are pleased with these faster speeds and reliable networks.  A June 2010 FCC survey showed that 91 percent of subscribers are satisfied with the speed of their broadband service.

A new year brings another edition of the CEA’s Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. Traditionally, this has been a “gadget” show, but in recent years, the telecom issues such as video delivery, broadband and voice services have played a larger role.

A few news stories related to the cable industry have already emerged this week.

When Comcast launched the Xfinity app back in November, there were references to streaming video coming soon. This was the week that Comcast announced the arrival of that streaming video. It was not in Vegas (as in ’08), but rather at the Citi Conference for Media, Entertainment and Telecommunications, that Brian Roberts announced that Comcast would support live TV streaming on tablet devices later this year. Read more here, but you can imagine how this made a stir at CES, with the emphasis this year on tablet devices.

Cisco CEO John Chambers presenting the company’s “Videoscape” TV platform yesterday, a new hardware and software system that will (to quote their press release) bring “together digital TV and online content with social media and communications applications to create a new, truly immersive home and mobile video entertainment experience.”

From the Wall Street Journal‘s coverage:

Consumers won’t be able to buy the Cisco boxes directly, as they do other devices already available from companies like Roku Inc. and Apple, which allow users to access the Web from their TVs but don’t offer a cable connection. Rather, Cisco will sell its hybrid boxes to cable operators who, in turn, will lease them to subscribers, the people said. Cable operators will be able to customize the software interface and decide on pricing for the boxes.

Read more here, here here, and here.

Sony announced a plan that would allow Time Warner Cable to deliver programming to their subscribers through the use of Sony’s Internet-connected Bravia HDTVs. Yahoo said they were working with programmers such as ABC, CBS, HSN, and Showtime Networks to provide enhanced interactive TV features through broadband-connected TV sets and other devices.

Of course, the manufacturers aren’t just pushing connected TVs, but also 3D sets. “3net” was announced, a 24-hour 3D network that’s a joint venture of Discovery Communications, Sony and IMAX. On a related note, a company called Marchon announced they would be offering 3D glasses with designer frames, such as Nautica and Calvin Klein. Prescription lenses will become available later this year.

UPDATE: I missed the announcement of Hollywood’s Ultraviolet initiative, which will allow consumers to purchase content once and view it on a variety of platforms.

The blogosphere has been buzzing since last night, with all manner of “experts” offering opinions about the dispute between Comcast and Level 3 over their commercial arrangement for the exchange of Internet traffic.  While I am a bit hesitant to add to the ruckus, I think it is important to refute the misguided notion that this business dispute is really a “net neutrality” problem that can and should be solved by federal regulation.

We all have heard the Internet described as a “network of networks” but we generally give little thought to the remarkable logistics involved.  For the Internet to operate, thousands of networks – small and large, wireless and wireline, urban and rural, domestic and global – must establish arrangements to govern how they interconnect and exchange traffic.  While there are different types of providers (backbone, content delivery network (CDN), etc.) and different types of arrangements (settlement-free peering, paid transit) – see this White Paper for a good explanation – the key point is that these myriad of arrangements have developed over time, in the marketplace, without any legislative or regulatory intervention.  That the Internet works at all is amazing; that it works 24/7 to bring consumers content from around the world at lightning speed borders on the miraculous.

The FCC consistently has taken a “hands off” approach to these arrangements. It has not imposed any form of regulation on these arrangements, nor has it intervened in the periodic disputes that occur between backbone providers, like Level 3’s dispute with Cogent in 2005 – in which Level 3 insisted that Cogent pay a fee for transmitting content on Level 3’s network rather than peering on a settlement-free basis. Moreover, while the FCC has been considering net neutrality regulations for some time, it has never suggested that it was considering any change in the regulatory treatment of backbone and CDN providers. (Indeed, even the most fervent net neutrality advocates, like Free Press, have recognized the legitimacy of these commercial arrangements; see note 8 on pg. 17 in these comments).

So is there anything unusual about the dispute between Comcast and Level 3 that should cause the Commission to reassess its hands off approach to these types of arrangements?  No.  While some of the initial commentary, reacting solely to Level 3’s press statement, reflected a knee-jerk reaction that any dispute involving the Internet implicates net neutrality; as the day wore on, cooler heads seem to be prevailing, with most observers, including some net neutrality advocates, recognizing that this was nothing more than one party to a commercial negotiation trying to use the regulatory process to gain negotiating leverage (Also see this article from Multichannel News).

Nor can Level 3 credibly claim to be surprised by Comcast’s approach.  Comcast’s policy on settlement-free peering – including its expectation that any peering partner “maintain a traffic scale between its network and Comcast that enables a general balance of inbound versus outbound traffic” – is posted right on its website. When Level 3 approached Comcast and asked for a significant change in the parties’ physical interconnection arrangement, it should have fully expected that Comcast would seek a corresponding change in the parties’ business arrangement, consistent with the general practice across the industry.

Under the circumstances, Level 3’s plea for government intervention in this commercial negotiation is entirely unwarranted.

If you follow the discussions on this blog, you would be well-advised to watch this excerpt of Kara Swisher’s interview with Comcast COO Steve Burke at the D8 Conference.

(You can also read coverage on the conference blog and at Barron’s Tech Trader Daily blog.)

Burke makes a good case for cable’s resilience in the face of the supposed looming threat of online video (See my post from last week). I particular enjoy the bit, during an exchange about “à la carte” offerings of service, when Burke gently chides Swisher for comparing the monthly price for Comcast’s video service to the daily price for the Wall Street Journal.

Yesterday, former FCC Chairman Michael Powell led Marc Andreessen, Time Warner’s Jeffrey Bewkes, CBS’ Leslie Moonves, Comcast’s Brian Roberts, and Fox Filmed Entertainment’s Tom Rothman through a wide ranging, free flowing, and spirited discussion of the future of content at The Cable Show’s second general session.

To start the conversation, Powell asked Brian Roberts if cable should be worried about online video.  Roberts responded that every new medium presents a new opportunity, but said they all present avenues to deliver lawful content; the more opportunities for that, the better.

Andreessen (who shared details of his 36 port HDMI switch with 36 different inputs and a $4,000 per month commercial Internet connection) said that was the right way to look at the future – since every device is now expected to be Internet-enabled, and to allow content consumption.

Rothman chimed in to agree, but said that creates a requirement that content be compelling.  Without compelling content, you just have a bunch of devices to check baseball scores.  Rothman says the key to content online is two-fold.  First, the most important piece of content is good storytelling.  Second, that storytelling must be accompanied by a way to protect and monetize content.

The various models of monetization became a hot topic and Powell noted that customers may have different thoughts about the monetization process – so cable operators may end up fighting with consumers.

Moonves answered by noting that, for his company, there used to be one source of revenue – advertising – but now there are many more, such as syndication, retransmission fees, DVDs,  iTunes, Hulu, etc.  That presents more options to address the monetization question.

The introduction of the topic of advertising led Powell to ask what impact services like Facebook will have, since they present a new, and possibly competing, set of audience segmentation data.  Powell noted the industry no longer has the exclusive on audience data.

Bewkes suggested all the different entities must become partners in the sharing of audience data, and Moonves said one of the essentials is accurate eyeball measurement – and we don’t have that yet.

Andreessen suggest Facebook can be an enabler of content by providing data, and also by sharing content with friends.

Roberts said people may go to other providers  – not because the content is different, but because the experience is different or cooler.  As a result, it is incumbent upon cable to stay fresh and cool, and spend more time on the interface.

Asked what makes them nervous, the panelists suggested that the uncertainty of regulatory change was a great challenge.

Moonves joked, “Whenever they say it’s not about the money, it’s all about the money.”