From CableFAX Daily’s coverage of Verizon’s earnings announcement yesterday:

“Also notable was (chairman/CEO Ivan) Seidenberg’s take on cable targeting small businesses. While the industry has made a lot of noise in this area, ‘I would say outside the Cablevision territory, I don’t think it is something that we are seeing a lot of at the moment.’”

Over the past several years, cable companies have made the transition to multi-service providers of more than just cable—a journey that started for Cox Communications with the launch of high speed Internet in 1996 and digital telephone in 1997. Cox has led the industry in “bundling” services. Yesterday, Cox announced that 57% of its nearly 6 million residential customers subscribe to more than one service—a 16% increase in bundled customers over the past year. But reflecting the ongoing transition away from just cable, Cox also has made a concerted effort recently to ensure a “line into every home” and pursue business out of every home passed by its network, even if that home has no interest in cable. Yesterday Cox announced success with that strategy, reporting an industry-leading number of non-video customers (432,000 of them) who choose Cox for high speed Internet and/or telephone, but not cable. Cox President Pat Esser described the rationale of Cox's "line in every home" strategy this way: “Our world is changing, and we needed to change our marketing strategies too.” Even so, Cox also saw strong video growth in the third quarter, growing basic cable subscriptions by 1.6%. Click here for Multichannel News' coverage of Cox's announcement.

An impassioned post from Bill Moyers and Scott Fogdall about net neutrality comes on the heels of Moyers’ “The Net at Risk” documentary on PBS this week. While we disagree with Moyers on the need for net neutrality legislation and regulation, we can certainly get behind much of his message—namely, that the Internet is the “most democratic of media” and is rapidly evolving.

The phenomenal growth of the Internet certainly continues. This creates some serious challenges for network owners, complicated further by bandwidth-intensive multimedia, file sharing and other applications requiring huge amounts of bandwidth. ISPs are rightfully concerned that some proponents of network neutrality are casting such a wide net that the ability of ISPs to effectively manage the traffic on their networks could be impeded. For example, as the amount of traffic from VoIP telephone, gaming, digital video recorders and steaming video increases, ISPs must prioritize those demands in a way that best serves their customers. ISPs therefore need to maintain the right to manage their networks for the good of their customers.

From the Moyers/Fogdall post: "So the Internet is reaching a crucial crossroads in its astonishing evolution. Will we shape it to enlarge democracy in the digital era? Will we assure that commerce is not its only contribution to the American Experience?"
Our answer to both questions is an emphatic “Yes.” And we feel strongly that can and should happen without government-mandated net neutrality restrictions that would likely stifle competition by prohibiting network diversity and ultimately harm Internet users. That's something we can all support.

In a recent Business Week article, Roger Crocket questioned whether the thrill was gone when it came to cable partners and the Sprint wireless joint venture. (Click here for a Business Week article)

There’s no doubt that connecting cable and mobile technologies, operations and services is challenging work, but Cox doesn’t shy away from a challenge.

Sprint has indeed made some structural changes to the wireless initiative. Additionally, Cox has created new wireless roles and reorganized internal responsibilities to support our joint venture efforts. But have we lost our appetite to bring consumers the next generation of the bundled experience? Absolutely not. Sprint’s consolidation of its cable-related activities into one group allows the partners to better use their resources. And, allows us to increase our ability to deliver a superior suite of integrated services. The changes also reflect the mutual trust and confidence the companies have built with each other, as well as our dedication to feeding consumers insatiable appetite for what they want—when and where they want it.

Cox pioneered the bundle, so when we hear of other companies attempting to emulate our success; we’re flattered— sort of. Bellsouth’s recent announcement that it will offer its Answers® packages in all Cox/Bellsouth markets is what we’d expect from a company that’s innovatively challenged. On the surface, the packages offer customers the choice of wireless or video in Bellsouth’s triple play bundle for $99, but dig a little deeper and customers will see that if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is….

•Only customers new to one of the services offered in the packages get the $99 bundled price.

•Furthermore, customers are committed to the contractual affiliate (i.e. DIRECTV, Cingular) agreements (typically for one year) to retain the discount. If they discontinue service before the contract expires, they will probably face an early termination fee.

•The local phone packages do not include unlimited long distance, but rather, feature only 200 minutes of long distance calling.

•The packages also lack the “Complete Choice Package,” of call features, so voicemail isn’t included No voice mail in a service bundle? Customers can get it – with an extra $5 price tag.

•And don’t forget about the $10-$15 in additional slick fees, residential fees and taxes.

Really--do those numbers equal $99 to you?

Not by my math.

I guess these things tend to happen at humungous companies. Apparently, Verizon’s marketing department was so caught up with blowing out their advertising that they never bothered to ask their engineering department if they had the resources to support additional customers. At least that’s what some prospective customers are gathering when they get turned down for service (Click here for a New York Post article)

We all know that the Bells love to spend money. In fact, last year Verizon spent well over a billion dollars trying to convince the American public that their service was worth buying. But maybe some of that advertising budget should be spent on teambuilding events between their marketing and engineering departments. Take some time to get to know each other. See if you actually have anything to sell before you bombard the public with your next onslaught of advertising. And in the meantime, your friendly cable operator will be happy to accommodate new customers with faster speeds and better customer service than DSL could ever hope for.

Cox Communications is in a dispute with Hearst-Argyle over permission to distribute the high-definition signals of Hearst-Argyle TV stations to Cox’s cable customers in six markets. (Click here for an Omaha World-Herald article—free subscription required.) Basically, Hearst-Argyle pulled its HD signal from Cox Cable in these markets because Cox wouldn’t agree to its hefty demands for payment to carry the HD signals—the same content from Hearst-Argyle that customers receive in standard definition over the air for free. Hearst-Argyle also even offers the HD version of their content over the air for free. In our view, Hearst-Argyle is holding Cox customers hostage. Hearst-Argyle received broadcast spectrum free from the government but is in turn demanding an exorbitant fee from Cox and its customers. In defending its actions, Hearst-Argyle has made the false statement that Cox charges its customers for the broadcaster’s HD signals. That’s completely untrue. Cox does not charge for HD service. The only charge in these markets is a rental fee on the HD receiver needed to receive the signal which is allowable under FCC guidelines to help offset the $300-$500 cost per receiver that Cox incurs.