The FCC recently launched a new Twitter account – @FCCDotGov. For those who may be unfamiliar with Twitter (despite Conan O’Brien’s routine ridicule of the service), the micro-blogging platform allows users to send out short updates on just about any topic. Many people envision this as an endless stream of “I had a sandwich for breakfast” notes. However many users share valuable news and information via the service. Companies are also getting into the swing of things and using the service for everything from customer service to sales promotions.

We at NCTA have been using Twitter for about a year and a half to provide updates on our blog content, to promote the Cable Show, and for conversation with and commentary by our CEO Kyle McSlarrow. We’re pleased to see the FCC adopting Twitter and welcome them to this vibrant online discussion.

The FCC account already has over 1,000 followers, and we’re a few of them.  The Internet provides a healthy forum for telecom policy discussion and debate. The number of followers they’ve already amassed indicates the interest level for that dialog.  To welcome them to Twitter, and to share some of our favorites with you, we thought we’d put together a list of our favorite follows.  These are in no particular order, they’re just good content from some very engaging viewpoints.

• @Normative – Julian Sanchez is the Washington Editor for Ars Technica. He covers politics, technology, and even comic books.
• @RobPegoraro – Rob has been critical of cable in the past, but he always brings a fresh perspective to technology. While he styles himself as a local reporter covering the DC area, he has attracted an audience much larger in scope.
• @BlankBaby – Scott McNulty recently took the helm of Comcast Voices – the company’s corporate blog. The blog provides the perspective of the nation’s largest cable provider. Prior to joining Comcast, McNulty was a prolific contributor to The Unofficial Apple Weblog
• @KyleMcSlarrow – Even if he wasn’t our boss, we’d have to recommend Kyle. He does, after all, represent the industry that brings voice, video and broadband to more than 63 million American homes.
• @CZ – While Verizon is a competitor, John Czwartacki does a great job handling their social media outreach.
• @msilbey – Mari Silbey writes for ZatzNotFunny and also handles corporate blogging for Motorola at Media Experiences 2 Go.
• @DaveZatz – Dave is the editor and creator of ZatzNotFunny. He also writes for Engadget and PC Magazine.
• @Om – To many readers of tech publications, Om Malik needs no introduction. His blog GigaOm is a must read for the tech and gadget fan.
• @mmasnick – Mike Masnick is the author of TechDirt, a group blog that covers policy and technology as they shape business innovation.
• @SchatzWSJ – Amy Schatz covers telecom policy for the Wall Street Journal. She covers the FCC and Tech policy, so she’s a definite must.
• @ReginaHopper – Regina is the face of NextGenWeb and a prolific Tweeter. Much of her stream is news and information about broadband – a good source for stories you might have missed.
• @SaulHansell – Saul is the editor of the NY Times Bits Blog and covers everything from advertising to pricing and policy.
• @AdamThierer – Adam is the Progress and Freedom Foundation’s technology policy guru.
• @FreePress – We often disagree on the issues, but we always respect their position.  That’s why we follow them.
• @CJSettles – Craig Settles is a telecom industry analyst.
• @mcuban – You may know him as the Dallas Mavericks Owner or former Dancing With the Stars Contestant, but before that, he made his fortune on Internet content and has a lot to say about telecommunications.
• @linkhoe – Assistant Vice President for Internet and Technology at Verizon. An important player in telecom and frequent contributor to Verizon’s policy blog.
• @joseiswriting – Jose Antonio Vargas formerly covered technology and politics for the Washington Post and is now Technology Editor for the Huffington Post.
• @waltmossberg – Walt is the author and creator of the Personal Technology column in the Wall Street Journal and a Contributor to AllThingsD
• @artbrodsky – Art’s another person with whom we often disagree, but he always brings an interesting perspective as an advocate and blogger for Public Knowledge.

These are some of the really interesting voices in telecommunications on Twitter. Our friends at the FCC will learn a lot from them, and we hope you will, too.

Update: We probably should have added this at the start, but if you think we’ve missed someone, please drop a comment and let us know.  We’re always looking for more people to follow.

For the next two days Paul and I will be Tweeting, blogging, and otherwise chattering about the annual Personal Democracy Forum (PDF) in NYC. PDF is the premier event for dicsussion of online politics and Cable is a proud sponsor. Cable’s James Assey will be participating on a panel this afternoon focused on the state of US broadband and the Obama Administration’s goals to get every American connected. He’ll share the stage with Josh Silver from Free Press, Hank Hultquist of AT&T, and Blair Levin from the FCC.

PDF explores how we, as a society, are changing the way we interact with issue advocacy and candidate campaigns as well as our governemnt.

If you’re interested, use Twitter Search to follow the discussion.  You can find a full program and schedule for the panels at PersonalDemocracy.com

Regular readers of Cable Tech Talk may remember an exchange between Verizon’s Tom Tauke and NCTA’s Kyle McSlarrow that took place last June.  At issue was an FCC decision into allegations that Verizon had violated retention marketing restrictions and actively tried to prevent customers from leaving only after the customer had put in a request to terminate their service and move their number to cable.

The phone company maintains custody of the number you own. When Verizon gets a request to terminate service and transfer your number, they have four days in which they must comply.  This is known as the porting interval.  Our argument then, as now, was simple.  Verizon has every right to offer its customers whatever package it sees fit to offer 361 days out of the year.  They should not, however, be allowed to use advance notice of customer defection as leverage against their competitors.

The FCC agreed, and found that Verizon had been improperly using the porting interval for the purposes of retention marketing.  Verizon, unhappy with the FCC’s decision, filed suit in the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in an attempt to get the FCC decision overturned.

Today, the court reaffirmed the FCC decision that Verizon was violating federal privacy rights by illegally using the number porting window for last gasp offers.

The ruling is a boost for consumers who are already saving billions of dollars each year because they have switched to cable’s digital phone service.

Once you have decided to leave a provider, they should not impede your ability to do so.  This decision is good for competition and will ensure consumers can change local telephone providers without undue harassment by the incumbent provider. NCTA also favors reducing the porting interval to two days to further expedite consumer requests.

For our part, we look forward to the continued competition for your telephone business.

We can only repeat ourselves on a la carte so many times before our heads burst in frustration. I think we’re one or two posts away from that point, so this may be my last word on the subject.

But first, let me explain the reason for my frustration. Rob Pegoraro, the gadget guy at the Washington Post, has an article up about beating the high costs of high tech in a slow economy.  In it he extols what he believes to be the virtues of a) Internet video and b) a la carte TV.

You can also turn your broadband connection into your TV service. The networks offer free streaming video of most shows at their own sites and such third-party portals as Hulu, and you can buy shows at Amazon’s upgraded video-on-demand service and Apple’s iTunes Store.

You may find that these options permit you to chop down your TV service to a cheaper bundle — or, if your tastes line up, drop it entirely in favor of free, over-the-air digital broadcasts. The Web can become the a la carte programming bundle that TV service providers refuse to sell you, greatly reducing your monthly costs. And in the process, you can help teach the cable and satellite folks that we’d like that choice.

Pegoraro deserves credit for trying to help consumers manage their pocketbook in tough economic times, but a la carte is one idea that makes a good bumper sticker slogan (after all, who isn’t for more choice?) but actually would end up costing most consumers more.

First, Pegoraro suggests that you get your broadcast programming online via video portals.  This is impractical on a number of fronts not the least of which is the fact that broadcast television is free over the air.  Suggesting that you pay for broadband service to watch free TV is sort of odd – especially in an article about cutting costs.

Second, he suggests you may greatly “reduce your monthly costs”.  But is that true? For most consumers, probably not.  Let’s assume you are what Nielsen describes as a “TV user”.  On average, TV users watch a bit more than 127 hours of TV per month.  Most television programs sold through iTunes or Amazon’s Unbox run $1.99 per program whether it’s a 30 minute or a one hour program.  If your tastes run to sit-coms or home improvement shows, you’ll be paying about $4 an hour.  If you’re the TV user consuming 127 hours a month, your bill just jumped to more than $500.

If your thing is one-hour dramas, you can cut that down to about $250.

Your monthly expanded basic cable package runs you about $60.

Think of it this way:  If you’re a single person living alone, and you don’t watch all that much TV, web content in a consumption-based billing model may work for you and save a few dollars.  If you’re married, and have to worry about what two people watch, your costs start to rise dramatically.  He’s watching episodes of Eureka and Battlestar Galactica.  She’s watching Miami Ink and The Daily Show.  They both watch Deadliest Catch and South Park.  Those are just the cable favorites.  Throw in Chuck, Dirty Sexy Money, CSI and Law and Order (all 94 different versions) and you’re talking a lot of scratch for even a handful of individual programs.  Now add in a couple of kids, and you’re off to the races.

Also, Pegoraro’s piece assumes that programs would cost the same in an a la carte world as they do now.  This ignores basic market forces.  The reason your program costs $1.99 the day (or the season) after its original air date is because the network made most of the production costs back on advertising during the original airing.

If people were to totally disconnect their TVs, and only consume on demand through iTunes and Unbox, programmers would still need to make up the money they lost with no advertising during the original run.  That $2 program today may become a $5 (or more) program tomorrow.  When you’re suddenly paying $100 or more for a season of your favorite show, it might lose its luster.

The fact is a la carte has been weighed, measured, and come up wanting.  Study after study has determined that for most people costs go up, not down, in an a la carte model.  If you watch very little TV, you might see some reduction.  But based on Nielsen’s numbers, people are watching more, not less, TV.

Given the FCC approval of the XM – Sirius merger, and the release of the “voluntary commitments and other conditions” that sealed the deal, one natural question that has arisen is “If satellite radio can do a la carte, why can’t cable providers do it?”

The answer, of course, is buried in the details.

To understand the answer, you need to understand several major differences between cable providers and satellite radio.  Some of these include:

• Ownership of content
• Advertising support and business models
• Delivery and ease of reproduction/pricing

Most XM/Sirius channels are produced and owned by XM/Sirius so they do not compete with each other for listeners or access to the satellite radio lineup because the company only produces channels that they launch.  In the video world, most channels are not owned by the distributor so they compete against each other for access to viewers, ratings and advertising dollars.  In an a la carte world, this competition would require each video channel to spend significantly more money on marketing and promotional costs to attract viewers, driving up the cost of that programming to the subscriber.

In addition, satellite radio was founded on the notion that most of its channels would be commercial free or have very limited advertising.  Unlike video programming which relies heavily on commercial advertising, XM/Sirius programming is supported almost entirely by subscriber fees.  So with each channel relying on little or no advertising support, applying an a la carte model to satellite radio would not require each channel to boost its price (or reduce its quality) to make up for lost advertising revenues.  In the video world, that is exactly what would happen.

You also must consider the programming.  While satellite radio does have a respectable diversity of programming, each of the channels is essentially a technical reproduction of the other and the cost of production (which largely consists of recorded music and other material) is lower than video production and generally does not vary widely. Obviously attracting well known personalities like Howard Stern can affect costs (including potential litigation costs), but generally speaking, music and talk programming are fairly consistent.

In the video world, however, the cost of producing channels varies greatly and the cost gaps continue to widen with the growth of high-definition and more and more original programming. For instance, it costs more to produce an episode of Burn Notice than it costs to produce How Do I Look? So, while XM/Sirius may be able to offer customers the opportunity to purchase any fifty of its music channels at the same per-channel price, it is impossible for cable operators to offer video channels in this manner.

Finally, aside from the structural business issues mentioned above, it’s also important to understand that what Sirius-XM has agreed to is not actually ”a la carte”. Despite the marketability of attaching the words “a la carte” to their new options, according to their channel lineup and pricing document, XM and Sirius are offering consumers the opportunity to purchase smaller bundles.  You can choose either 50 channels from ONLY one provider (out of a total of 100 possible choices) or 100 channels combined from both.

The pricing document makes it clear that the “a la carte” option will not be available for a year, and will require new equipment.

A la carte programming will be available beginning within one year following the merger, and the other programming options will be available beginning within six months following the merger… A la carte programming will only be available for subscribers using new radios, which will be developed following approval of the merger.

There is no opportunity to buy only 1, 3, 5 or 6 channels.  You have to start with at least 50 channels.  That’s not what most people describe when they talk about a la carte.

There’s no comparison between cable’s business model of delivering ad-supported television purchased from multiple competing providers and satellite radio’s model of delivering ad-free content of their own design.  People may try to make such a comparison in order to argue that since XM and Sirius have agreed to provide “a la carte,” cable must be able to do it, too.    Unfortunately, as study after study has shown, the facts just don’t support the fiction.