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.

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

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.

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.

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.

“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).

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.)

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

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).

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.