The handwringing about broadband adoption in the US continues unabated with yet another group calling for either some sort of government intervention or some form of nationalization (though Vint Cerf now claims he was joking – mostly). In trying to clarify his comments, Cerf actually added more confusion.

“Maybe we should treat the Internet more like the road system, look for ways of creating incentives to make the Internet more accessible to everyone, and less likely to be abused by the private sector,” Cerf said. … “It’s not likely you’re going to want to have multiple roads owned by the private sector to get to your house. Generally speaking, that’s true of the power system — you don’t have multiple wires going to your house to carry power.”

It’s good that Cerf cleared this up. He doesn’t want nationalized Internet. He just wants one wire going to your house, no “multiple roads” run by the private sector and something that resembles the road system (which is run by government, right?)

As just one example of why making the Internet like roads is a bad idea, look at the Big Dig in Boston. It was completed five years late for almost five times its original $2.6 billion budget. Just after it opened, a huge chunk fell on a passing cars causing injury and a fatality. It is a perfect example of government inefficiency on large scale building projects. Not exactly a great model when compared to cable’s $130 billion investment in its network and the more than $200 billion the telephone companies are expected to invest in their upgrade.

While I’m still confused about how making the Internet like roads isn’t actually a call for nationalization (to me, it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…), fortunately, in the midst of the confusion comes a voice of reason.

The Pew Internet & American Life Project released its latest report on broadband adoption on Wednesday. Pew isn’t a group you can write off as Astroturf. They’ve done a lot of extraordinary research into how Americans are using the Internet. What did they find?

• The average price of broadband dropped 4% since the last survey (12/2005) to $34.50;
• Prices dropped despite the fact that 29% of respondents reported opting for a premium tier of broadband service – taking cable’s high-value offerings of faster speeds at a higher price;
• Across the board, broadband adoption grew 17% nationwide for the 12 months ending May 2008 – the strongest growth areas were among senior citizens, lower-middle income households and rural areas;
• The number of dial-up users who report disinterest in upgrading to broadband service remains roughly constant at 62% - even though the average price of dial-up actually increased 9% since the 12/05 survey;
• Of respondents who do not use the Internet, only 7% said that price was a deciding factor.

What this clearly demonstrates is what cable has been saying all along – while the goal of connecting every American is certainly a priority, and one we are working towards – the notion that there is a national crisis which requires immediate government intervention is simply overblown.

Contrary to assertions that the price of broadband in the US is prohibitively high, very few respondents in the Pew study agreed. This correlates nicely with the a Parks Associates Study last year that found very few people refused to get connected due to cost considerations. Adoption increased among Americans in households earning between $20-40k per year by 24% - the highest growth rate among any economic group.  Only among household earning less than $20k a year did adoption rates actually fall.  Given the state of the economy and the weakened dollar, this is not surprising. 

It does, however, highlight the need to specifically target the barriers to adoption that low-income families face – ranging from lack of computer ownership in the home to lower education attainment. In stark contrast to the OCED figures touted by groups like Internet for Everyone – figures about which there is considerable debate regarding methods and measurements – Pew finds that when you actually ask America what they’re paying for broadband you get a very reasonable-sounding number.

Further, the 17% growth rate in broadband adoption is astounding given the level of economic uncertainty gripping other sectors of the economy. This speaks to the steady march toward near-universal nationwide adoption. With more than 55% now connected, broadband Internet has passed the 50% barrier faster than any technology in history – faster than cell phones, radio, television, and computers, Will all Americans be online next year?  No, but we’re definitely getting there – and as we do, cable services are improving to keep pace with faster speeds and lower prices.

Last, but not least, note that 24% of dial-up users in rural America report that they would adopt broadband if it became available to them.  The big takeaway here is that the US, working with ISPs on policies such as the changes to the broadband loan program that were included in the Farm Bill, is doing exactly what it should be doing – focusing on the small percentage of Americans who are either unserved or underserved. There is clearly demand in rural America for broadband, and we ought to use the power of the government wisely to provide the right incentives for companies to connect the unconnected.

The cable industry continues to work with Connected Nation to identify areas that are not reached by cable so every effort can be made to focus government resources on those areas that need it most.

Let’s also not overlook voluntary efforts by the private sector. For more than a decade, cable systems through Cable in the Classroom have been offering complimentary broadband service to any school within the cable system’s broadband footprint. That’s an offer that’s been accepted by thousands of schools already, and it continues to stand today.

What we should not be doing, and the Pew study makes this clear, is pursuing heavy-handed regulation (or even worse, the radical nationalization ideas proposed by Vint Cerf and others).

Popularity: 4% [?]

On Friday morning, Tom Tauke took to Verizon’s blog to post thoughts on the rumored FCC decision reversing the bureau’s suggested dismissal of cable’s complaint about the telco’s “retention marketing”.  NCTA President Kyle McSlarrow drafted a response here and on Verizon’s blog.  The back and forth went on late into the night with Kyle posting his final word after 8pm.

Due to the relatively unprecedented nature of this direct, and public, debate between major industry players, a lot of people took notice.

Sidecut Reports called it a tussle that only telecom policy wonks could love.

Maybe it’s a tussle that only telecom policy wonks could love, but if you are at all involved in the regulatory sphere you’ve just got to love that the battle of the corporate titans has now moved, Web 2.0 style, into the blogosphere, with Verizon and the Cable companies now using blogs to take pokes at each other…  If you are really interested in the argument, follow the links and join the conversation. We are going to spend the rest of the day worrying whether or not direct competitor blogging means that pundits are out of a job — again!

From the Technology Liberation Front:

Verizon’s Tom Tauke and NCTA’s Kyle McSlarrow take to fisticuffs in their comments (well worth reading and remarkably… candid) on the Verizon Policy Blog after Tom asked “Will Cable and FCC Thwart Consumer Choice?”

Dave Zatz at Zatz Not Funny writes:

In the talking typing heads policy battle currently raging across the blogosphere, I hereby declare the NCTA as winner. I actually have very little interest or knowledge of the topic at hand, however there can be only one… and Verizon’s lobbyist is still ending sentences with two spaces, while Cable’s lobbyist linked his rival’s blog. (Bonus 1/2 point to Cable for using WordPress, though they haven’t upgraded to 2.5.* yet.)

Perhaps the most salient point, and possibly the briefest, was made by Insight Communications CEO (and NCTA Executive Committee Member) Michael Willner (a blogger himself) after Tom and Kyle suggested taking the debate offline.

NO! Resist going back to the old Washington ways!! Don’t settle this in a beltway gin mill. This is the 21st Century and we all want a front row seat!!

We wouldn’t consider it.  When Kyle launched this blog, he spelled out its purpose clearly.

But we didn’t start this blog just to tell you all that. We launched this blog to talk about telecom policy. Today’s vibrant public policy discussions are driven by conversation and debate taking place online, so we hope this blog will contribute to that dialogue. We’ll be talking about proposed legislation and regulation at the federal, state, and local level. We’ll voice our support for changes that would lead to a better, more competitive technology landscape. When we think legislation is unnecessary or detrimental, we’ll talk about that, too. And, while we will certainly express our views, our goal is to have a dialogue… So, we’ll… invite people with whom we may not agree to engage in debates across their blogs and ours. We’re looking to cross post ongoing exchanges in an effort to provide you with the kind of information that helps you decide for yourself.

This was obviously an example of that, but this is only one salvo in a much broader and ongoing discussion and debate over telecom issues.  Keep your eyes peeled, there’s more to come.

(On two sidenotes, you can find NCTA’s statement on the FCC Decision here.  A sidenote to Dave Zatz: We’re big fans of WordPress, but haven’t upgraded due to a dependency on one plug-in that hasn’t yet upgraded.  Hopefully we’ll find a 2.5 compatible plug-in soon.  I’m working on it.)

Popularity: 16% [?]

NCTA’s CEO Kyle McSlarrow was featured on Ad Age Magazine’s online video series 3 Minute Ad Age earlier this week.  McSlarrow recently addressed the Association of Cable Communicators (ACC) - the industry’s association for public releations practitioners.  In a conversation with cable consultant Steve Effros, McSlarrow raised, among other things, the relative lack of discussion about broadband policy among the Presidential candidates and the status of the DTV transition.

ACC will be posting the full discussion soon.  Until then, Ad Age has the video.

Popularity: 19% [?]

It seems hardly a week goes by without somebody sounding the alarm bell on the “crisis” in US broadband deployment. While we all share the common goal of bringing affordable broadband service to all Americans, it’s unfortunate that the most frequently cited source of broadband deployment – the semi-annual Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) numbers – contains a variety of inaccuracies.

So, to help set the record straight, this week we thought we would take a look at the OECD broadband study and the real state of broadband today.  In our first two installments, we’ll examine flaws in several units of measurement utilized in the OECD study.  We’ll then move on to fact check the “miracle” of Japanese Broadband and finish by analyzing why consumers aren’t connecting to services that are already available.  

It depends on what your definition of a subscription is.

The most significant flaw in OECD’s methodology is their measurement unit of subscriptions per 100 inhabitants.  Average household size plays havoc with the “inhabitants” calculation, creating some serious unintended consequences.  We’ll cover that in tomorrow’s post.

Equally problematic, however, is what they do and do not consider to be a subscription.  In OECD’s definition of what constitutes a “broadband subscription,” there is no distinction drawn between business DSL or cable lines and residential DSL or cable lines, but there is a specific exclusion of direct fiber and T1 lines for businesses.  As a result, some businesses are counted and others are not.

OECD’s data fails to capture the tens of millions of U.S. workers that access the Internet via these special access connections.

The OECD measure also fails to count the approximately 16 million college students in the U.S., most of whom have access to both wired and wireless High-Speed Internet (HSI) service.   Also uncounted are the HSI users that access WiFi connections, and the growing number of mobile wireless and “Hot Spot” customers.

Undercounting these populations negatively impacts the US ranking, but counting them would be problematic as well.  Because so many people have broadband access at home, at work, via their mobile device, at college, or through some other connection, the risk of double or triple counting becomes fairly great.

Some have suggested that a better metric would be to simply measure the number of residential households that are subscribed.  The distinction is really very stark.  For instance, in the US, roughly 57 million households subscribe to cable, DSL, fiber, satellite, or fixed wireless service.  Using a measurement of how many “residences” have access would more accurately reflect the real state of residential broadband consumption, and would vault the U.S. ahead of 9 European countries which were ranked higher in terms of household penetration in the OECD rankings of December 2006.  (Note: Household data is not available for Korea, Canada, and Australia, so it’s unclear where they would rank).

Popularity: 36% [?]

While every customer service industry deserves intense scrutiny, many pundits have chosen cable as an easy target and use naive (and wrong) analyses to declare that consumers are somehow getting ripped off.

In a recent posting touting his new book, Gotcha Capitalism: How Hidden Fees Rip You Off Every Day and What You Can Do About It (accompanied of course by a web ad telling readers where they can buy the book), MSNBC Technology Correspondent Bob Sullivan jumps to a few erroneous conclusions that cry out for a response. While the juicy rhetoric in the column probably achieves Sullivan’s number one goal of selling more books, the juvenile analysis of why consumers are spending more for cable service today than a decade ago certainly fails Economics 101.

The simplest – and in fact true – explanation of why cable customers are spending more today is that they are subscribing to a video service that is dramatically different (and much better) than in 1998. Consider that in 1998, cable was an “analog” only service that offered 75 channels, period, end of story. Today, cable offers hundreds of channels in both analog and digital with high-definition, video on demand, digital video recorders and other interactive features that consumers love. And, besides a video package, millions of consumers now subscribe to cable’s “triple play” bundle which adds broadband Internet and digital phone service to their video package.

A great way to judge the value of a product is a simple “use vs. cost” analysis. That simple analysis for video service is something called Price Per Viewing Hour (PPVH) which measures how many hours a customer watches TV versus how much they pay for it. The good news for consumers is that cable’s PPVH decreased by 15.4% between 2001 and 2006…that is, the actual cost per hour of watching TV has dropped.

One more point — it’s ironic that Sullivan first complains about rising prices then later talks about the “addictive” power of cable. He claims this addictive power is somehow preventing consumers from exercising self control by subscribing to a different video provider. But 35 million consumers have broken through cable’s alleged mind trap because that is the number (steadily growing in fact) that now subscribe to one of the two national satellite video companies or the two telcos (Verizon and AT&T) that now are offering video service.

These facts may not make great headlines or sell many books, but consumers deserve to know the real story.

Popularity: 49% [?]

There are any number of issues that come up all the time in the cable business. And one of them is the pay-per-channel scheme known as “a la carte.” Sure, it sounds attractive. But when people describe what they think they will get under a mandatory a la carte plan, it doesn’t match reality.

It came up last week when NCTA’s Kyle McSlarrow was on a panel; it comes up all the time. Steve Jobs just gave his yearly Sermon on the Mount (a.k.a, his Macworld keynote) and he announced movie rentals on iTunes and an overhaul of Apple TV. This led to the Bad Luck City blog’s headline: Apple TV and iTunes video rental: Bye Bye Netflix and Cable.

What this means is that I may be able to cancel my Netflix account and rely on Apple for my movies on demand. Why send bits of data on a envelope through snail-mail when I can do it over my Internet connection?

As you know, I ditched cable for OTA television long ago, but now everyone else can do the same, at least until the cable industry offers programming a la carte.

Of course, Netflix already offers online movie viewing and they just lifted time restrictions, so that their customers can watch all they want. And cable customers get a lot more viewing options (especially if you’ve got digital cable with VOD) than someone getting DTV over-the-air.

Here’s another example in a blog post about the satellite radio business:

Sirius’ CEO Mel Karmazin has promised the FCC to allow a la carte programming for a cheaper price if the merger goes through. This way customers can pick and choose what they want to listen to. Chairman Martin of the FCC has tried to get the cable companies to allow a la carte programming, but to no avail, so he may see the Satrad merger as a precedent for a la carte options.

I’m going to keep referring people to this great column by the NY Times‘ Joe Nocera about why a la carte means fewer choices and higher prices. Maybe the message will get through.

UPDATE: And here’s another one. Diane Keaton drops an F-Bomb on Good Morning America and a Wednesday evening panel grapples with the effects. Tim Winter, President of the Parents Television Council, and Shawn Ryan, creator of FX’s The Shield, got into a tiff:

The evening’s hottest moment flared between Winter and Ryan over a PTC-supported proposal to offer consumers a la carte cable choices. Instead of having to buy multiple channels bundled in one package, the PTC supports legislation that would allow consumers to cherry-pick and pay for only the channels they want to watch.

“Why should I have to pay for FX when all I want is the Disney Channel?” argued Winter.

But Ryan, whose award-winning, gritty cop drama “The Shield” broke new ground for language and violence on basic cable, said that proposal would stifle creativity.

“I’d prefer you be honest about this,” Ryan said to Winter, whose nonprofit group originally referred to “The Shield” as “filthy trash” when it debuted. The a-la-carte proposal is a “backdoor way to censor shows and networks,” Ryan added.

On the one hand, you have mandatory a la carte leading to less diversity in programming, which could lead to fewer family-friendly viewing options. And on the other hand, cable has a better solution for content that you may be concerned about: parental controls. Everyone has different opinions about what they might block and cable’s controls let you decide. Check out our Control Your TV website or this report from PFF’s Adam Thierer.

Popularity: 20% [?]

Here are just a couple of headlines from around the net to get you through the day.

Oprah returns to cable (as an owner, that is) under a new deal inked with Discovery. The Discovery Health Channel will be rebranded as the Oprah Winfrey Network and carry “lifestyles-targeted programming.” Said David Zaslav, President and CEO of Discovery Communications, “There is no stronger voice than Oprah Winfrey in engaging, motivating and connecting people to live healthier lives. Oprah has inspired me personally, and through this new venture, Oprah’s talent and drive will have a dedicated multimedia platform to empower, engage and connect with people on-air and on-line”. Oprah previously held an interest in Oxygen before the sale to NBC. Look for the new net in 2009.

An appeals court has upheld the dismissal of a suit brought by EchoStar and DirecTV to overturn a tax levied in North Carolina.  The suit argued that gross receipts (paid by both cable and satellite providers in NC) were unconstitutional and unfair to satellite providers.  The court ruled that federal courts cannot enjoin states from imposing such taxes.

If you’re using that cable broadband connection to stream video, it’s a big day for you.  First, Netflix has lifted the time constraints on its video streaming service freeing customers to watch without limits.  This move comes on the same day that MacWorld saw Apple’s Steve Jobs announce video rentals through iTunes.  Under Apple’s plan, renters would pay $3.99 for recent releases, have 30 days in which to start watching and have to complete the program within 24 hours.

Speaking of MacWorld, if you’re looking to upgrade the old computer, Apple has a simple message - thin is in.  The MacBook Air weighs in at 3 pounds and is thin enough to fit in a manila envelope.  The new machine is just a hair over 3/4 of an inch at its thickest spot, and comes standard with Bluetooth and 802.11n wireless connectivity, a built in web cam, USB and a video port that supports DVI, VGA, and S-Video.  It sports 2GB of RAM and either an 80GB drive or a 64GB Solid State Drive with no moving parts. The keyboard is full size and backlit.  The MacBook Air has an external CD/DVD drive (which never proved really popular when they were in vogue with laptops 7 or 8 years ago, but wireless is more prevalent now).  The touchpad also feature iPhone like controls that let you zoom, rotate and navigate by gesture.

Finally, a hat tip to Broadcasting & Cable for the Simpsons parody of American Idol embedded below.

Popularity: 25% [?]

FCC Chairman Michael Powell once famously referred to TiVo as “God’s machine.” I wouldn’t go that far, but having a DVR is pretty awesome. Watch when you want, pause live TV, never miss an episode of your favorite series. You collect TV shows, rather than just watching what happens to be on right this second.

But most television is based (in part) on advertising revenue and there has been much nervousness about DVRs, given the possibility that viewers might just skip through ads. A new study from Magna Global says otherwise, according to a story in Media Life Magazine:

As it turns out, almost all ads are still seen by TV viewers, either live or when shows are seen in playback. Ad-skipping is minimal.

About three-fourths of all commercials viewed in DVR homes are viewed live, meaning as a program originally airs.

When ads seen during DVR playback over three days from the original airing are added in, the share of ads seen by viewers rises to 97 percent, according to a new report from media buying giant Magna Global.

Further, the study found that for DVR-recorded ads, about half are viewed the same day as the original broadcast, and roughly 90 percent are watched within three days.

That could change as DVRs and their use become more common. As more shows are recorded, presumably fewer would be watched and fewer would be watched in the days immediately after they were recorded.

But with DVRs now in some 21 percent of all homes, most demographic groups watch the vast majority of recorded commercials within a few days, and it doesn’t vary much by age group.

I don’t have an up-to-date statistic, but SNL Kagan had previously estimated 11 million cable customers with DVRs for the end of 2007.

Popularity: 19% [?]

FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin spoke today at CES and did a Q&A with Gary Shapiro, President & CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association. In his remarks, he talked about the coming Digital Transition, confirming that the “hard date” continues to be set in stone.

Actually, he remarked on a number of issues, but I’d like to zero in on comments he made towards the end of the session. The question of cable prices was raised and Chairman Martin reiterated remarks he has made on other occasions. He spoke of the increase in cable prices, which he characterized as too high, and said that “I’m doing everything I can” to increase competition, which he sees as a panacea. He said that prices in “almost every area” had decreased, although the examples he gave were from telephony and data services.

Gee whiz, where to begin?

Cable services, cell phone services. Apples, oranges. That’s one objection. Just to pick one aspect, the rise in prices is driven, in part, by increases in programming costs. A cell phone call isn’t going to ask for a salary bump next season.

Or maybe I should point out that comparing today’s prices with those of 1996 is a little goofy, given the small analog offering of ten years ago and today’s bundle of digital, high definition, and video-on-demand. There’s a factsheet on the NCTA website which compares 1995 to 2005 and finds that consumers were getting more channels, watching more cable programming and getting more value for their dollar.

This fits in with another good piece of research by Professor Steven S. Wildman of Michigan State University. He argued that the “real (inflation-adjusted) price of cable service divided by the number of hours spent watching basic cable programming” was a good way of measuring prices. If you pay 10 bucks for service and watch 10 hours, then you paid a buck an hour. If you pay 20 bucks and watch 60 hours, then you paid 33 cents an hour.

NCTA has also pointed out that cable’s bundle of video, high-speed Internet and voice service costs 23 percent less than ten years ago. Chairman Martin argues that a mandatory a la carte scheme will save money, but there’s plenty of evidence that suggests just the opposite.

Let’s just say we disagree and let it go at that.

Popularity: 20% [?]

It’s official as of this morning. CableLabs announced that the “tru2way™” brand will replace use of the term “OpenCable Platform.” You may recall that the initiative, which began back in ‘97 with the goal of helping the cable industry deploy interactive services, was previous known as OCAP.

Why the name change?

The tru2way brand was developed by the global brand consulting firm Siegel + Gale, in consultation with the Cable & Telecommunications Association for Marketing (CTAM), the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA), and marketing and technology representatives of a variety of major cable providers.

Which basically means that, based on talking with consumers, it was felt that a new name would help with branding. Manufacturers can then make products under that name.

For example: Panasonic and Comcast Announce Products With Tru2way(TM) Technology. Specifically, this means that you’ll be able to soon be able to get a portable DVR which you can take on the road, watching those TV shows you recorded.

Popularity: 27% [?]