MinnPost ran an article earlier this week on Comcast’s decision to transition its Twin Cities customers to Charter Communications – or rather a Charter spin-off that’s yet to be created. The shift is happening to make the Comcast-Time Warner deal more palatable. The article outlines predictions for changes that Comcast customers in the TCs will experience. It seems like there may be more HD options. And it seems that Charter’s current pricing is lower than Comcast’s pricing. BUT that doesn’t mean that the new entity will have the same prices and options.
There was also some discussion on the role of video. US Internet (which offers a range of broadband services in Minneapolis) wishes that they too could provide access to cable video programming, but the Minneapolis franchise license requires that a provider serve all of the Minneapolis market; US Internet doesn’t. Cable franchising is a big issue. It’s a way that cities can make money, get public access programming options and retain some control on the local market. BUT I feel like cable and cable franchising may experience some major disruptions – as more and more people eschew cable for other IP video options. I was at the MHTA conference yesterday and at least one presenter noted that shift away from cable. Consumers are finding new ways to get around cable – business and policy are going to have to follow.
Finally the article talks about the Twin Cities market and fiber and the problem of cable franchising. Right now US Internet offers fiber to 20 percent of their market. (As I recall it was 4,000 homes.) It sounds like they would like to grow that market – but they feel that the lack of video/cable offering is preventing customers from signing up and therefore hampering the expansion. US Internet claims that the cable rule is closing off the opportunity except to most players…
Caldwell [Joe Caldwell, CEO of locally based provider US Internet] says no one, with the possible exception of Google, is able to meet such a whole-city requirement, and thus USI’s growth prospects are stalled. In Kansas City, where there are no anti-redlining rules, Google is doing fiber on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis.
Google has been pretty clear about what they need to enter a market. They want info, permits and access to existing infrastructure. They don’t specify cable licensing but the expediting permits, which could include cable franchising, always comes up. Because I suspect that even Google would like to sell as they build.
Ann — Kansas and Missouri both have Statewide Video Franchising with no minimum buildout requirements to foster and promote competition. This is a big reason why Google chose Kansas City to build first. This is also true of Texas and why Google chose Austin also. Minnesota has Community Franchising where you have buildout requirements and this does stifle competition in Minnesota. I have heard every reason why communities want “Franchise Control” and why they do not want the change. I also know why the incumbent cable providers don’t want the change…..it keeps a major roadblock to competition in place. Companies like USI and Velocity need to come together to remove the barriers to competition.
Jim,
Thanks for you comments. I think it’s time for everyone stop looking at how it’s been done for years and start thinking about how it can be done. So many people have old skin the game – and as you point out that’s creating some serious barriers – to businesses and communities.
Thanks! Ann