Comments Off

FCC’s set top box policy displays no understanding of markets

On 18 February 2016, the Federal Communications Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would allow third parties access to a consumer’s cable television set top box (STP) to gather information that could be used to provide competitive viewing services. Specifically, the third party would have access to:

1. Information about what programming is available to the consumer, i.e., channel listing, video-on-demand lineups;

2. Information about what a device is allowed to do with content; and

3. The video programming itself.

The Commission’s rationale for allowing a firm like Google access to these information streams is that with this information, third parties could create services i.e., apps and hardware, to compete with a cable company’s STP.

Will this policy increase demand for content thus driving up prices, revenues, and returns on the capital it takes to create content? No, it won’t. What the Commission’s policy will do is create a shell game for content. It’s not clear whether there will be a change in demand for content and while alternatives for accessing content will increase incrementally, unless the policy entices more consumers to go online, the policy won’t do much for increasing economic activity in the content markets.

In addition to not creating additional demand in the content markets, the Commission ignores the competition that already exists for cable and the movement from STP to apps. Steve Pociask makes this observation in a recent piece for Forbes.com where he argues that:

“Absent the plan, cable competition already exists and its growing”, and that, “the market is currently moving away from STB to apps, but the plan would forever require STBs.”

The Commission’s proposed policy is indicative of an ongoing problem of failing to focus on the primary market that its policy impacts, in this case the content market. Where information is proprietary, the Commission should protect the content owners’ rights. Otherwise, the Commision should advocate policy that promotes content flows.

Comments Off

Do the markets see an entry problem for new content providers?

On 18 February 2016, the Federal Communications Commission issued a notice of inquiry asking for comments on how regulation can best address reducing barriers to entry to the video content provider market. The Commission believes that cable companies and other multi-channel video programming distributors are in a position to impede the entry of smaller video content providers into the video market. But do video content providers really need the Commission’s help to enter the content provider market? I don’t think so. Rather than going through the twists and turns of a legal argument on whether the Commission has the authority to address the question, why not let the markets determine what content gets offered and accepted by its participants?

Take for example Netflix. Netflix started out as a supplier of rented DVDs distributed via the U.S. mail. While the company still rents out movies in DVD format, it’s its online format that Netflix is best known for today. Consumers now download video content that Netflix has a license to present or can download content produced originally by the online content provider. While its stock has taken a beating over the last twelve months, traders still look at the online video provider as competing ably with the likes of a Comcast or Time Warner’s video product.

From the programming perspective, Netflix produces original content i.e. “House of Cards”, “Orange is the New Black”, and “Marco Polo”, as a hedge, according to Morningstar analyst Neil Macker, against other content programmers that may be holding back their own content from distribution. Netflix, as a result of data captured from its user base, is able to develop or purchase content that suits its viewers’ needs. In other words, Netflix has properly reinvested its capital and other resources to provide a superior content experience as well as built rapidly on an older business model after recognizing and taking advantage of new technology.

Other content providers are going down Netflix’s path. Amazon not only distributes content via the internet but also produces its own content. Hulu is reportedly purchasing original content for distribution as well.

The Commission is running the risk of promising a more open environment for all content imaginable; sending a message that all content is created equally. The Commission is ignoring the fact that there are limited number of distribution channels, whether via cable or over-the-top, and that this natural limit in distributors will create a bottleneck through which only the content deemed attracting the greatest demand will be able to wiggle through. Content that attracts the greatest demand will draw the most see capital investment creating the vicious cycle that smaller entrants will face and the Commission naively assumes it will regulate away.

 

Comments Off

One end game for broadband adoption: digital currency

The message for broadband adoption is incomplete because there is nary any mention of how adopting broadband aids capital accumulation or deployment for the consumer. I talked last week about how the only thing that slowed down capital expenditure by broadband providers is an economic slowdown. But what inroads on the consumer side should we see at the intersection of capital and broadband?

One intersection I find appealing is digital currency.  Digital currency allows users to exchange online credits for goods and services. Digital currency exchange may involve the use of a mobile app or can be conducted from a computer. With the use of a digital wallet, digital currency can be sent to or received by a consumer.

Transactions are made with no middlemen. International transactions are cheap and are currently not subject to regulation although governments are concerned about taxation and the lack of control over the currency. These concerns conflict directly with the philosophy underlying the development of digital currency; to take power out of the hands of the government and central bankers, a philosophy I believe that is much in keeping with the freedom and openness of the internet. With talk of central banks considering the issuance of digital currency, I’m concerned that the speed and freedom of transactions stemming from the use of digital currency like Bitcoin would be lost.

Digital or more accurately cryptocurrencies offer an alternative medium of exchange especially for communities underserved by traditional mediums of capital exchange. With a computer a consumer could “mine” her own currency, enter into markets where it is accepted and purchase goods and services in those markets. As more goods and services are purchased in digital exchanges with digital currency, not only will the value of the digital currency increase but so to will the value of the broadband networks that sustain these exchanges. More consumers would have incentive to get on board with broadband as broadband and digital currencies combine to give consumers increased access to local, regional, national, and global markets.

 

 

 

With all the talk of pending recession, why implement net neutrality rules?

So far 2016 has not been the best year for the equity markets. Over the past four weeks the Dow Jones average has fallen almost three percent and year-to-date decline is approximately 8.7%.  The telecommunications, media, and technology sector hasn’t fared much better. The NYSE TMT Index has seen a fall of 13.72% over the last twelve months. In the past four weeks, the index fell 2.38%. Last month the investor adviser firm Charles Schwab rated the telecommunications sector as under-performing due in part to the sectors move away from the steady cash flow of a monopoly land line business to the cut throat competitiveness found in the wireless arena.

Just about the only thing that has slowed down capital expenditures in the digital economy has been recessions. Capital expenditure outlays in the information sector, which includes television, radio, publishing, wireless and wireline telecommunications and internet portals, peaked in 1999 at an annual $120.1 billion. The impact and aftermath of the 2000-2001 and 2007-2009 recessions were the two major economic bumps in the road that caused decreases in capex. After hitting a bottom of $87.7 billion in capital expenditures in 2009, the information sector, of which roughly 74% is made up of wireline and wireless telecommunications, has seen an uptick in investment from $97.4 billion in 2010, to $99.7 billion in 2011, to $105.5 billion in 2012.

This increase in spending has occurred when broadband while broadband has been treated as an information service. But if talk of recession becomes solidified over the next twelve months, a slowdown in spending can be aggravated where a recession is compounded by rules that go back to the depression-era 1930s.

Depression-era rules applied during a pending recession. The irony.

Comments Off

Any regulation of zero rating is unnecessary market interference

Members of the wireless industry got together yesterday in Washington, D.C. to debate what the Federal Communications Commission’s next move on zero rating ought not to be. Inside Sources reported that the wireless confab included T-Mobile, Verizon, Facebook, and other parties. Zero rating allows wireless services subscribers to access certain content providers without that access being charged against the consumer’s data plan. T-Mobile’s “Binge-On” service is a recently deployed example of this type of service.

Pro-net neutrality groups like Free Press, Public Knowledge, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation believe that zero rating violates the Commission’s open internet order by throttling data streams while favoring certain content providers over other providers.  For example, under 47 CFR 8.7, a person engaged in the provision of broadband internet access service shall not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of internet content, application or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.

One issue will be whether a service like “Binge-On” actually throttles traffic pursuant to this rule. The Commission so far has opted to a light touch approach to zero rating-type services, which wireless carriers have likened to 800-number services where the 800-number customer or its telephone service provider ate the cost of a long distance call from a customer. The Commission should find that there is no throttling because treatment of data traffic will be the same for all content providers, whether access to their content is done via “Binge-On” or not. The Commission’s political constraints go beyond the letter of their rules.

The Commission has been fervent about its clear and fair “rules of the road”; that all traffic be treated equally, that it may not want to rock the boat with the pro-net neutrality posse or their alleged four million post-card writing supporters. There is a chance that the Commission may opt for the safety of saying no to “Binge-On” with the claim that its best to err on the side of caution and avoid having its net neutrality rules go sliding down a slippery slope.

A call against “Binge-On” and other zero rating services is a strike against investor interests especially for investors in smaller carriers like T-Mobile. If T-Mobile is to acquire more market share it will do so with bolder offerings like “Binge-On.” The service appears to be an effective way for promoting the company’s other offerings, so much so that T-Mobile is finding that some customers, having had free access to participating websites are opting for additional and more expensive service. If there is an opportunity for government to show how anti-investor some policies can be, treating zero rating as anti-net neutrality would be one of them.