Robert C. Kenny, director of public affairs for TVfreedom.org, writes in The Hill about the greed of the pay-TV industry, and Congress’ misplaced efforts on fighting increased costs for America’s cable and satellite consumers. Kenny writes, “Congress—at the behest of the pay TV lobby– has been spending much taxpayer time and effort to address only the $3 portion of your cable and satellite bill and ignoring prime areas of potential consumer abuse by the nation’s pay-TV operators.  Why has Congress largely ignored the $7 billion per year that cable and satellite TV companies require subscribers to pay in equipment rental fees for DVRs and set-top boxes?”

Read the full op-ed here.

Read More

By Robert C. Kenny | September 11, 2014

America’s growing dissatisfaction and frustration with the pay-TV industry continues to accelerate as an uncompetitive market structure has enabled an array of well-documented industry-wide practices to ratchet monthly bills upward for America’s cable and satellite TV consumers. Highly publicized incidents of poor customer service over the past couple of months have brought unflattering notoriety to the cable and satellite TV industry.

Let’s face it… Today, consumers bear the financial burden of satisfying the pay-TV industry’s insatiable desire to expand profit margins at nearly any cost. Symptomatic market failures have allowed cable and satellite TV providers to slide into a world where arbitrary pricing, shoddy customer service, outages, and pervasive erroneous billing is prevalent and commonplace.

While TVfreedom.org recognizes that the consumer fact-gathering campaign initiated by U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) will be instrumental in helping curb the pay-TV industry’s deceptive business and billing practices, Congress possesses the ability to reverse this trend of constant consumer abuse as it embarks on reforming the nation’s video marketplace. According to recent news reports, Sen. McCaskill is contemplating holding a Congressional hearing before year’s end focusing on the deceptive business and billing practices of cable and satellite TV providers.

As part of a robust Congressional examination of the pay-TV industry, TVfreedom.org urges lawmakers to create a “National Consumer Protection Plan” (NCPP) for America’s pay-TV subscribers. The NCPP should be guided under the principles that consumer satisfaction is top priority, and that consumers must be empowered with the tools necessary to address recurring billing errors, ‘surprise’ charges and inferior service quality. We believe that the negative economic impact of pay-TV fees and billing practices on the American family budget highlights the need for Congressional action.

Legislation necessary to implement the NCPP should better define the jurisdiction, roles and responsibilities of federal regulators, namely the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), that can aid consumers and address existing market failures in the video marketplace. Today, government oversight of the cable and satellite TV industry is under the jurisdictions of states and local franchising authorities, which has resulted in significant variations in state-by-state government oversight.

Imagine the public outcry if that were the case for wireless voice and broadband services in America. It makes one wonder… Why over the past 20 years has the pay-TV industry largely been left unchecked by federal lawmakers and regulators – especially when industry-wide market failures are pervasive?

Consumers would welcome it if cable and satellite TV providers took the initiative to self-correct billing errors and proactively implemented business policies and practices that helped lower customers’ monthly bills, but it just hasn’t happened.

In its development and implementation, TVfreedom.org believes that the “National Consumer Protection Plan” must uphold, support and promote a series of strong consumer protections at the federal level related to marketing, subscriber promotions, contractual agreements, truth-in-billing practices, service reliability, outage reporting, subscriber complaints, customer service, and service cancellation policies.

* * *

Robert C Kenny is the Director of Public Affairs for TVfreedom.org, a coalition of local broadcasters, community advocates, network TV affiliate associations, and other independent organizations; he formerly served as Press Secretary at the FCC.

* * *

Please visit the TVfreedom.org YouTube web page to watch consumer-friendly videos aimed at pushing back on the pay-TV industry’s gamesmanship in the marketplace and the ongoing abusive billing and business practices hurting consumers.

Read More

Tvfreedom.org Director of Public Affairs Robert C. Kenny writes on The Hill’s Congress Blog about how lawmakers in Washington, D.C. continue to give regulatory and policy advantages to the pay-TV industry while neglecting to look out for the average American consumer. As debates over the future of television rage in the halls of Congress, one thing is clear as the pay-TV industry continues seeking self-serving “reforms”: cable and satellite companies are solely concerned with their bottom lines, and not with improving the overall pay-TV experience. Read about the pay-TV’s latest attempt to game the sytem, here:

Nothing more than a ‘choice’ deal for pay-TV

Read More

Today, TVfreedom.org released a new video featuring the experiences of real pay-TV subscribers. This video details the skyrocketing prices of cable and satellite television, and the misleading and opaque billing practices that customers experience every day. As many Americans continue to see their pay-TV bills rise to unsustainable levels each month, it is time for Congress to stem the greed of America’s cable and satellite providers and start looking out for consumers. Pay-TV is doing just fine; it’s time to stop giving the industry legal and regulatory advantages. ​​​

Read More

By Robert C. Kenny | September 3, 2014

As the Congressional session draws to a close, a move is afoot in the Senate Commerce Committee to introduce a last-minute legislative proposal — known as “Local Choice” – designed to permanently shift the competitive landscape of the nation’s video marketplace by granting the cable and satellite TV industry an unfair regulatory advantage over television broadcasters.

The proposal was first floated as an idea by Time Warner Cable during its retransmission consent dispute with CBS back in August 2013, when it offered to sell the CBS channel to subscribers on an à la carte basis. The proposal also mimics a March 2014 ex parte filed by rural cable giant Mediacom at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This Congressional plan would essentially allow cable and satellite TV providers to separate out local broadcast TV stations from cable network programming and offer these channels to their customers on an à la carte basis.

Similar itemized pricing and channel distribution models have been widely criticized by the cable and satellite TV industry in the past. In fact, the pay-TV lobby has collectively dismissed such proposals as unproven business models that would create uncertainty in the marketplace and result in increased costs for consumers. By their own admission, the core à la carte components of the Local Choice proposal raise significant policy questions regardless of how and to which sector of the industry it is applied.

Even the American Cable Association (ACA), the biggest cheerleader for Local Choice, agrees that this proposal, if implemented, would cost consumers more to access broadcast TV channels. ACA President and CEO Matt Polka publicly stated this week that, “Local stations… would be able to command truly rich market rates (from consumers).” Does this sound like a pro-consumer statement? No.

What the pay-TV lobby is really attempting to do under Local Choice is decrease the number of subscribers who watch local broadcast TV on their systems, giving them a market advantage to pull in more advertising revenues over broadcast TV stations. This will lead to many local TV stations setting their channel rates at unattractively higher prices in an attempt to make up for lost pay-TV viewers and, subsequently, lost advertising revenues. The higher prices will result in more and more subscribers choosing not to pay to receive all of their broadcast TV channels as part of their pay-TV service. This is bad economics and it hurts consumers and America’s local TV stations, especially in small-town rural America.

Given the proposal’s negative impact on competition – as well as America’s television viewers and local TV stations – little justification exists for Congressional haste to pass such legislation by year’s end.

Congress must act with openness and transparency, and move forward with a more inclusive process to address comprehensive statutory reform, while still allowing Congress to take immediate legislative action to reauthorize the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (STELA) before the close of this legislative session.

There is no need to rush Local Choice to a vote this legislative session without allowing for a robust public dialogue. The best way to do this would be to hold a series of Congressional hearings to address the issues that Local Choice raises for consumers, competition and the future of the U.S. video marketplace.

* * *

Robert C Kenny is the Director of Public Affairs for TVfreedom.org, a coalition of local broadcasters, community advocates, network TV affiliate associations, and other independent organizations; he formerly served as Press Secretary at the FCC.

Read More

By Robert C. Kenny | September 2, 2014

During the past 15 years, pay-TV subscribers have had a front row seat to ever-increasing monthly cable and satellite bills. They have been the victims of erroneous billing charges, excessive equipment rental fees, and year-after-year consumer price hikes more than twice the rate of inflation. A new legislative proposal, dubiously named “Local Choice,” is being pushed by some pay-TV industry advocates. This proposal would impose à la carte requirements on local TV stations – and only local TV stations. 

What does this mean in practice? Today, local broadcast stations are included in pay-TV’s basic tier – the cheapest, most affordable package available to consumers. So even if you can only afford just over $20 a month for basic cable, you’re still able to access local news, emergency weather information and sports – like NFL games, college football and NASCAR races, along with other popular entertainment programming on broadcast television. This “Local Choice” proposal would strip most broadcasters out of the cable basic tier and require viewers to “opt in” to purchase their local TV stations – and, no surprise, pay extra for each of the stations they select from an à la carte menu. 

Astonishingly, this “choice” would only apply to local TV stations and broadcast networks like ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX and Univision – which host the most-watched and most popular TV shows by far. This proposal unfairly singles out only one kind of programming – local TV stations – for regulatory distribution mandates.

News flash: there will be no real savings for consumers under Local Choice. Viewers will continue to pay for their expensive cable programming bundle, and under this proposal will be forced to pay extra fees to access and manage their local broadcast TV station lineup as part of their pay-TV service.

So, what’s driving this grossly unfair and selective à la carte proposal? Three faulty assumptions: (1) local TV is driving up the cost of consumer cable bills; (2) broadcast TV blackouts are rampant; and (3) programming blackouts must be stopped for the benefit of consumers. Unfortunately, this proposal fixes none of these alleged problems. First, the cause of spiraling pay-TV rate increases has nothing to do with local television stations. In fact, broadcast TV stations are among the most reasonably priced channels in your cable package. Local channels contribute a mere $3 to an average American’s $65 pay-TV bill – a monthly bill that can easily double when pay-TV companies tack on the costs for HD set-top boxes, DVRs and premium cable channels to the customer’s programming package.

Second, the Washington pay-TV lobby is manufacturing a crisis regarding broadcast TV blackouts when, in reality, hundreds of deals are quietly reached each year through free-market retransmission consent negotiations. In addition, in the rare instances in which a broadcast TV blackout occurs, it is typically resolved quickly, with limited disruption to pay-TV subscribers.

Third, this pay-TV scheme will do nothing to stop the blackouts of cable channels. For example, this proposal won’t bring the L.A. Dodgers pay TV sports channel to cable and satellite viewers in California who have been unable to watch their beloved baseball team – a World Series contender – for the entire 2014 season. Nor will this proposal prevent contractual disputes between pay-TV providers and cable networks that have resulted in indefinite, and perhaps permanent, cable channel blackouts.

Let’s be clear, the “Local Choice” legislative scheme gives TV viewers anything but more “choice.” Let’s take a look at the predictable consequences:

• Cable and satellite TV bills will increase. By requiring consumers to pay separately for local TV stations, viewers will be forced to pay more for what they can get now as part of a cable or satellite programming bundle. Today, a local broadcaster hypothetically charges a pay-TV operator 75 cents per subscriber to resell that station as part of a programming bundle. But under an à la carte scheme, that same station will be forced to charge $2 per subscriber (or $3, $5 or $10) to make up for the revenue loss from fewer viewers. Lower viewership means less audience share, and less audience share means lower advertising dollars for local TV stations. Of course, the costs necessary to produce high valued entertainment, sports and local news won’t change. To maintain current programming, those costs will have to be recaptured by charging more for the product. Viewers who “opt in” to keep those local channels will pay dramatically higher rates.

• America’s television viewers will soon have fewer local broadcast TV options. The corresponding reduction in advertising revenues could cripple some local broadcasters, particularly those in smaller markets and Spanish language stations. Local TV stations – which offer lifeline tornado and hurricane coverage that truly saves lives in times of emergency – would see diminishing revenues, and many simply will not survive. This will have a dramatic impact on television viewers, especially those living in small-town, rural America where local TV stations will be hit the hardesteconomically.

And who benefits from a reduction in local TV stations? Clearly it’s the pay-TV companies who want to kill competition from a free and local TV source. That’s why this legislative scheme is being lauded by a pay-TV cabal led by the American Cable Association (ACA) and American Television Alliance (ATVA) members Time Warner Cable, DirecTV and Charter Communications – companies that receive nearly universal scorn for shoddy customer service, price-gouging and rampant greed. 

Ironically, these are the very companies who have fought to prevent à la carte regulations from being imposed by the FCC on their pay-TV systems. They all argued vehemently against such regulation, ushering thousands of pages of data-supported arguments into the FCC showing that transitioning to an à la carte model would be cost prohibitive, would result in skyrocketing price hikes and would diminish program diversity.

What this policy flip-flop tells us is that this proposal is all about giving cable and satellite companies an upper hand in the TV marketplace, not about what’s best for consumers. What consumer is saying “I want to pay more to watch the NFL, 60 Minutes, the Olympics and Modern Family”? Everyone knows, cable bills are high enough.

Local Choice is ill-conceived and unwarranted. The proposal was only recently released; there have been no public hearings; no studies to determine the financial and economic impact on consumers; and no consideration of the impact on Latino, African-American and other niche programming viewers.

The sad fact is that Local Choice would devastate the economics of local broadcasting, a free and indispensable service available to all Americans. It will only drive up consumers’ monthly pay-TV bills and force them to pay more for broadcast TV programing, it will drive local TV stations off the air, and it will NOT provide pay-TV subscribers with needed consumer protections to guard against the deceptive billing practices of pay-TV providers.

It’s a bad deal for everyone…except cable and satellite TV providers.

* * *

Robert C Kenny is the Director of Public Affairs for TVfreedom.org, a coalition of local broadcasters, community advocates, network TV affiliate associations, and other independent organizations; he formerly served as Press Secretary at the FCC.

Read More

As the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) mulls public comments regarding its broadcast exclusivity rules, Robert C. Kenny, director of public affairs for TVfreedom.org, writes in Broadcasting & Cable about the importance of localism in the American video marketplace. Currently, the pay-TV industry is attempting to undermine the existing broadcast exclusivity rules, which would directly harm local TV stations’ ability to create and distribute highly valuable content to local communities. Kenny challenges FCC Chairman Wheeler to protect local broadcast television, and not cave to the will of the pay-TV industry. Read the full op-ed here.

Read More

Today, an op-ed from Robert C. Kenny, director of public affairs for TVfreedom.org, ran in The Hill, discussing the misinformation campaign promulgated by the pay-TV industry in Washington, D.C.

According to the pay-TV lobby, the retransmission consent regime is broken, leading to programming blackouts. The facts, however, tell another story: over 3,000 blackouts have occurred due to the failures of the pay-TV networks, while retransmission consent disputes have caused five interruptions during the same time period. TVfreedom.org is seeking holistic reform based on a broader congressional examination of the copyright and communications laws impacted by recent advances in technology, rather than a narrowly focused, pay-TV-driven inquiry into retransmission consent.

Read more about how pay-TV is twisting the facts in the full op-ed here.

Read More

As hordes of pay-TV lobbyists try to convince Congress that the current retransmission consent regime is broken, they are keeping American consumers in the dark about some very troubling statistics. The cable and satellite industry would like for lawmakers to believe that most broadcast TV “blackouts” are caused by programming disputes, but the reality is very different. So far in 2014, faulty and outdated pay-TV infrastructure has caused 3,050 service interruptions for subscribers to the top five pay-TV providers, while retrans disputes have caused only five interruptions. It is important to note that the number of pay-TV-induced blackouts due to service failures would increase to an even larger number if all cable and satellite TV service providers across the U.S. were included in the tally. Take a look at the following graphic and then you make the determination about what’s really causing headaches for consumers:

For more information, please visit the TVfreedom.org YouTube page to watch consumer-friendly videos aimed at pushing back on the pay-TV industry’s gamesmanship in the marketplace and the ongoing abusive billing and business practices hurting consumers.

Read More

By Robert C. Kenny | June 16, 2014

Today, TVfreedom.org released a new video featuring the real-world experiences of cable and satellite TV subscribers who expressed frustration with their unreliable pay-TV service, faulty equipment, arbitrary price hikes and poor customer service when contacting their respective service providers for help.

These problems are systemic in nature and signal that the pay-TV regime is in need of a regulatory overhaul. Despite instituting lucrative price hikes year after year, cable and satellite TV operators have failed to deliver any noticeable improvements in service delivery.

Given the pay-TV industry’s poor track record, an increasing number of customers have become disenfranchised with their pay-TV experience and are in search of competitive alternatives for their video services. However, due to a lack of viable alternatives for service in many parts of the country, millions of pay-TV subscribers are forced to shell out extra money to either terminate their lackluster pay-TV service before their multi-year contracts are up, or maintain their costly service with no relief in sight while still under contract.

As pay-TV’s profits continue to skyrocket due to across-the-board fee increases, many Americans are perplexed and wondering, “Why does my monthly bill continue to go up with very little in return?”

Learn more about pay-TV’s consumer rip-off at TVfreedom.org, and watch the new video here.

Please also visit the TVfreedom.org YouTube web page to watch other consumer-friendly videos aimed at pushing back on the pay-TV industry’s gamesmanship in the marketplace and the ongoing abusive billing and business practices hurting consumers.

* * *

Robert C Kenny is the Director of Public Affairs for TVfreedom.org, a coalition of local broadcasters, community advocates, network TV affiliate associations, and other independent organizations; he formerly served as Press Secretary at the FCC.

Read More