A new report from BernsteinResearch includes some interesting stats from Massachusetts, where Verizon is delivering its FiOS video service in several communities.

We draw two conclusions from the [Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Cable] data. First, the data broadly confirms the obvious; Verizon's FiOS is, as expected, gaining traction and share. Second, the results belie the consensus expectation that Verizon's gains will inevitably mean steep losses for cable incumbents.

Thre report notes that Verizon’s 2007 gain in the Massachusetts communities was far larger than Comcast’s losses.

This counter-intuitive observation reflects the manner in which cable subscriber growth has remained essentially flat even while new entrants (the DBS providers) have, over the last fifteen years, grown to 33M subscribers: industry growth and, to a lesser extent, loss of share by smaller providers.… The result runs contrary to expectations about TelCo entry into the TV market, but are consistent with broader themes of limited TelCo overlap: Verizon FiOS will be available to just 16 to 17% of Comcast subscribers by the time Verizon completes construction of the FiOS network in 2010/2011; and continued (even modest) industry growth. The net effect on the cable industry is a loss of share – but a relatively steady subscriber count over the period.

Last week the Associated Press reported on AT&T’s 4-hour DSL outage which impacted their customers across the Southeast on December 3. We don’t usually use this forum to discuss our competitors’ network outages. An outage can happen to an telecommunications company for a variety reasons ranging from simple human error to technological failings and natural disasters.

What brings us to mention this on Digitalstraighttalk.com are reported comments made by Dave Burstein, editor of the industry newsletter DSL Prime who said that broadband outages are not unusual. He is quoted, "Broadband goes down much more often than telephone lines because they didn't build the system for the same level of reliability. We do not know how often it happens, however, because they're not obligated to report it."

CableFAX Daily is reporting that Verizon is raising the price of the most popular programming package on its FiOS TV service. The cost of the premier package will increase 11.6% next year for new customers, while existing customers will see a 7.6% increase. CableFAX cited a Sanford Bernstein research note stating that “the price increase will ‘almost certainly’ be larger than any instituted by cable or satellite ops. It also should signal to legislators that more factors impact pay-TV price jumps than just a dearth of competition.”

This Los Angeles Times editorial takes a swipe at the telcos for hiking fees on custom calling features:

AT&T and Verizon wasted little time taking advantage of the freedom that the California Public Utilities Commission granted them in August. Unleashed from regulations that limited how they priced many of their services, California's largest telcos quickly hiked the fees they charged for many of their custom calling services, such as caller ID and call waiting. The phone companies had argued for unlimited "pricing flexibility" by pointing to the many phone lines they were losing to rivals, such as cable TV operators. They also said allowing them to respond quickly to competitors' promotional offers would (in AT&T's words) ensure that "customers reap the full benefits of competition."

Cable companies rank highest in telephone customer satisfaction in all six U.S. regions, according to J.D. Power and Associates’ latest study. Cable completely beat out the traditional telcos for the first time. Cox Communications is again tops in three of six regions, while Bright House, Cablevision and WOW! each top a region. Verizon, AT&T and Qwest were shut out at the top of all regions.

The study measures telephone customers’ satisfaction with their local and long distance providers in six major areas: performance and reliability, customer service, billing , image, cost of service, and offerings and promotions. The findings underscore the critical importance of bundling for service providers.

Some Verizon customers are fuming that the company removed copper wiring when they installed the FiOS fiber-optic service. From the Associated Press:

Once the copper is pulled, it's difficult to switch back to the traditional phone system or less expensive Digital Subscriber Line service. And Verizon isn't required, in most instances, to lease fiber to rival phone companies, as it is with the copper infrastructure. What's more, anyone who owns [Long Island, N.Y., Verizon customer] Powderly's house in the future will face higher bills with FiOS than another home with copper. … Besides limiting options down the road, the switch to FiOS can have other implications. Unlike copper-connected phone service, FiOS doesn't work during power outages once a backup battery goes out -- not even for emergency calls. Home-alarms and certain other devices work best with copper. Rabe, the Verizon spokesman, said the company will restore copper to homes if the customer insists, but Verizon would rather not reconnect the copper and will try to persuade the customer to agree.

Okay, this one may scream self-promotion, but we simply couldn’t ignore an article in the current BusinessWeek, “A Cable Company People Don't Hate – How Cox is keeping customers happy and stealing business from the phone giants.” Yes, we cringe a bit at digs like the one in the headline, but, then again, we have to admit it’s a fair dig since Cable’s customer service record hasn’t always been sterling. But back to the present: the article addresses not only Cox Communications', but the industry’s, successful entry into the phone biz and our push into wireless. Here’s a snippet:

There's a ton of money to be made in phone service--about $60 billion of yearly revenue just on voice plans for U.S. consumers. And don't cable companies know it. For years they have been laying miles of new fiber-optic cable and doing everything they can to steal chunks of that business from the phone giants. So far they've managed to pull away about $4.6 billion in phone revenues, according to Sanford C. Bernstein & Co.

In the scramble for every customer, one cable outfit seems to have hit upon a formula that works: beating the phone companies at customer service. In recent surveys conducted by J.D. Power & Associates Inc., owned by Business Week parent The McGraw-Hill Companies, Atlanta-based Cox Communications outscores traditional phone providers such as AT&T, Verizon Communications, and Sprint Nextel. On a variety of metrics, from network performance and reliability to billing and cost, customers in several regions describe Cox as their preferred provider.

Techdirt has a post about the BusinessWeek article, here.

Is AT&T’s Project Lightspeed about its network upgrade or its PR function? It’s nice to see the media holding a phone company responsible for the promises it makes to Wall Street and to consumers.

In “Lightspeed’s Slow Start,” four BusinessWeek reporters offer a skeptical view of the viability of AT&T’s plans for offering video service. The magazine takes the RBOC to task for failing to launch the service in the promised 15 to 20 markets by the end of 2006 (in November it was available in only two markets) and chides the company for the flurry of year-end press releases that announced an additional nine markets launched. Despite this noise in the last 10 days of December, BusinessWeek points out that the company’s efforts were still “short of its original target.” And, as we noted last week, its U-verse TV service added no customers in the fourth quarter.

This year at Cox Communications, we’re celebrating 10 years of delivering a bundle of cable, telephone and high-speed Internet services. As our 2006 accomplishments demonstrate, the benefits of bundling continue to make a huge positive impact. Some highlights: The number of new cable customers who also subscribe to Cox’s phone and/or Internet services is 60%, a record high. Customer churn (i.e., disconnects) is at an all-time low. In all, as of the end of 2006, Cox had 3.4 million “bundled” customers, representing an increase of about 15% over 2005. The bundle will soon grow larger with the addition of a fourth service, wireless. In related bundling news, Verizon said this week that, in an effort to compete with the cable bundle, it will integrate its wireless service, previously offered separate from landline and other services, into its bundle. Verizon also said its FiOS service added 89,000 TV customers in the quarter, although the company's profits declined 38% due to its aggressive fiber roll-out. Meanwhile, AT&T’s U-verse TV service added zero customers in the fourth quarter.

Satellite providers Dish Network and DirecTV are raising prices, effective early February, for the fifth consecutive year. DirecTV is hiking its two most popular packages 11.1% and 10%, while Dish is increasing the price of three of its four packages an average of 5.9%. However, that’s probably new news, if you rely on consumer press for such coverage. A quick search of recent articles about cable and satellite price increases reveals decidedly one-sided coverage. We found scant coverage specifically about the satellite increases, and those articles generally featured no commentary, no quotes, no consumer reaction. Conversely, a slew of articles about cable price increases included a heavy helping of commentary and quotes from consumers, consumer advocates and regulators. (Much of the coverage was driven by the FCC’s cable pricing survey, released in December, that excludes satellite TV prices.)

Beyond the disparity of press coverage, the satellite price hikes underscore an important and frequently glossed-over reality: the pressure of rising programming costs. All video providers purchase the same networks from the same owners and therefore face the same reality of rapidly rising wholesale programming costs. When Verizon recently increased its video prices 8%, wholesale costs were a big factor, just as they are with the satellite providers’ latest increases. Until content providers drop their wholesale prices, or reduce their price increases, it’s unrealistic to expect retail video prices to drop significantly—whether the provider is cable, satellite or telco.

A recent Wall Street Journal editorial (“Franchise Freedom”) was a wake up call for those of us who communicate about Cable. In a few short paragraphs, the editors somehow managed to color the mammoth and glacier-like former Bell companies as the champions of competition and cable companies as anti-competitive incumbents who are “crying foul” at the prospect of having to earn our customers’ business. An opinion on the FCC’s recent ruling on video franchising, the editorial goes so far as to levy accusations that Cable is blocking the franchise applications of the RBOCs by pulling the strings of the local franchising authorities (LFAs) – causing them to slow roll applications and make unrelated demands for things such as parking garages and community swimming pools.

The FCC voted along party lines, 3-2, to treat service providers differently in video franchising. The Commission didn’t release an order, and likely won’t for several weeks, so we can’t comment on all of the details. But based on what has been reported, it’s a disappointment that the FCC appears determined to create an uneven, unfair playing field slanted decidedly in the telcos’ favor. Of course, it’s far from a done deal, with lawmakers questioning the FCC’s authority on the matter and cities likely to sue. (Here’s the official NCTA response.)

The other matter on the FCC’s meeting agenda was release of the 2005 cable pricing survey. No surprise there, since details had been leaked for months. NCTA head Kyle McSlarrow on Tuesday called the study “almost entirely useless as a foundation for any policy decision.” Although we haven’t seen the full report, based on the data that have been released, the conclusions of the study just aren’t true for Cox Communications. The FCC’s chief contention is that speeding the entry of AT&T, Verizon and other large telcos into the cable business will reduce prices. Truth is, Verizon and AT&T’s video services are already priced well above $35.94, which is the FCC-reported average price of cable in markets with at least two wireline competitors. Verizon’s FiOS service is $47.98 ($42.99 + $4.99 for a required converter) and AT&T’s U-Verse starts at $59. The FCC’s report claims that cable prices in markets with video competition from the telcos are about 20% lower (or $7) than in markets without telco video. Again, in Cox markets at least, that’s just not the case. Our prices in competitive markets aren’t distinctly different – only about 3% lower than in other markets. So, our prices are essentially the same whether we’re competing directly against satellite or telco video.

Kyle McSlarrow, president of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, didn’t hold back in a year-end media briefing earlier today. His ire was directed toward the FCC and his timing surely was not coincidental. The Commission is set to meet tomorrow and is expected to release the ’05 cable price survey and to take action on new rules that could further ease franchising requirements for AT&T, Verizon and other telcos entering the video business.

Addressing the price survey, McSlarrow said, “It is unclear to me why a report that was clearly finished at the beginning of this year was kept under wraps or why it has been subject to selective leaks of information.” He further derided the report as “almost entirely useless as a foundation for any policy decision,” noting that the data in it are almost two years old. He further declared it “severely limited” in its focus only on analog expanded basic cable, which ignores the reality that most cable customers subscribe to digital and that satellite TV providers DirecTV and Dish Network have significant video market share, yet are excluded from the report. Of the satellite competitors, McSlarrow noted that they have aggressively increased their prices, as has Verizon. As for the so-called Section 621 proceedings the FCC is expected to address tomorrow, McSlarrow said, “Based on what we know, I think it’s a proposal that has to be dramatically pared back. The case has been made by the telcos that they’re being held back from getting franchises. There’s no evidence in the record at all to support that.”

Early in his remarks, McSlarrow exasperatedly declared that the current agenda of the FCC “represents one of the most sweeping regulatory examples of government micromanagement.” Asked later by a reporter if FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has a grudge against the cable industry, he replied, “You’d have to ask him. All I can say is I just think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what actually our industry is doing. It’s almost like they are moving through a time warp.” How misunderstood? How far into a time warp? Stay tuned for news out of the FCC meeting tomorrow.

Not surprisingly, we love the current cover story in Telephony magazine, “The Best Phone Company in America?” Of course we love that it implies (without explicitly answering the question posed in its title) that Cox Communications is that phone company. But beyond the obvious self-serving, self-congratulatory reasons for us to love reporter Carol Wilson’s article, we above all respect and admire its painstakingly thorough review of the dozens of steps and components required to successfully launch and deliver cable telephony. In what is essentially a tutorial for new entrants in the telecom space, the article addresses basically every gory detail of the telephony biz—network redundancy, powering, billing and provisioning, customer care, knowledge management, training, research, etc.—in a surprisingly readable way. Granted, we admit that, other than Cox employees, it likely will be the rare reader who will stick with every one of the more than 3,500 words in the thing. But for those who like their business news unabridged, it definitely provides some enlightening historical context to the current hyper-competitive telecom marketplace.

We were pleased to see that this Wall Street Journal article touched on a few key issues of relevance in their discussion of cable’s price increases. First, they referenced the price increases of our satellite competitors, which have been more frequent and larger than the price increases implemented by many cable operators in recent years. This clearly supports something that we at Cox have been saying for years—that programming is the single biggest driver in the retail price we charge for cable TV. In the article, Cox was the only cable operator to highlight rising costs of our wholesale product as a driver in our retail prices.

The fact is that the universe of programming content is not infinite and often not competitive in nature. All video service providers buy content from the same providers, and in many cases the retailers have interests on the wholesale side as well. Several cable and satellite video distributors own programming networks (or have ownership stakes in them) which they distribute themselves, and sell to their peers and competitors. (Cox Communications, for example, holds about a 24% stake in Discovery. )

A major premise of this story is that competition from DBS and more recently the telcos has already slowed the rate of cable price increases. While we agree wholeheartedly that competition is always good for consumers, we still suggest that telco competition in the video space will not be the panacea suggested by policy-makers and the media. There is much additional room for studying the food chain in television; it’s nice to see the Journal taking some initial steps toward that end.

Today’s CableFAX Daily notes our Friday post about the misleading way cable price increases are frequently reported. Citing Friday’s USA Today’s article, CFD agrees that FCC Chairman Kevin Martin will apparently tie rising cable prices to proposed plans making it easier for the telcos to receive video franchises. While the FCC’s annual price survey isn’t out yet, CFD did its own calculations:

It appears that the avg monthly rate of cable has increased about 5% from $41.29 for Jan 1, ’04 and about 7% in areas where there’s effective DBS competition. If those numbers hold, expect cable to point out that Verizon plans to raise its rates for new customers 7.6% in Jan to $42.99. The most basic AT&T package listed on its Website (over 190 channels) starts at $59.99. Martin, however, will probably base his argument on the idea that the avg rate declines where wireline overbuilder competition exists.

As the familiar holiday song goes, “It’s the most wonderful time of year.” If only that were true in the halls of cable TV companies; you see, this is the time of the year when we are assailed by the media over rising video prices. These reports rarely get into the real issues impacting the cost of TV, leaving readers with a sour taste in their mouths and the wrong impressions of cable providers.

Today, we see coverage in USA Today: “Trying to spur competition and beat back cable TV prices, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin has proposed rules to make it easier for phone companies and others to jump into the video business.” The story goes on to discuss a “cozy duopoly” between satellite and cable and refers to a forthcoming FCC study which purportedly shows a $7.40 difference in the average price of cable TV in markets where a third wireline competitor is present.

While we welcome competition from a fourth, fifth, or sixty-fifth competitor in our markets, there are a few problems with such a rudimentary analysis of potential benefits:

The New York Times had a business-section front page article over the weekend about broadband speeds. The gist was that consumers are frequently confused by marketing that touts speeds “up to” a certain point. It chided the RBOCs and cable companies alike because, it claimed, users routinely don’t get those maximum speeds. Among the companies reporters Matt Richtel and Ken Belson talked to was Verizon. One particular quote from its spokesman, Eric Rabe, was classic Verizon-speak:

While Mr. Rabe defended his company’s advertising policies, he said he could not do the same for competitors, particularly in the cable industry. “We deliver the full speed or close to it more often than our competitors,” he said. But Mr. Rabe said he did not have statistics that would back up that contention.

In covering Cox Communications’ announcement of a great third quarter for commercial sales, CableFAX Daily inserted an editorial comment referencing a certain statement last week from Verizon chairman and CEO Ivan Seidenberg.

Cox Business Services announced a 28% increase in 3Q commercial subs, due largely to greater availability of telephone service to business customers (Can you hear me now Verizon?). The MSO said 55% of new data customers in its legacy voice markets also subscribe to its VoIP service.

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.’”

Walking into the office today, I actually felt pretty good about myself and the work I do here at your friendly neighborhood cable company. But after reading The Wall Street Journal this morning, I suddenly feel like the dirty, destructive, dangerous, evil criminal I apparently am. Yes, according to an opinion piece in the WSJ, I shill for “the most pernicious monopoly in America.” And all this time I innocently thought we simply delivered entertainment and communications services. Silly insidious me.

Of course, the message that I am pernicious was delivered by a lobbyist—or, I should say, “senior adviser”—for AT&T. Yes, the same AT&T whose financial prospects are exponentially improved by passage of the statewide video franchises heralded in this exposé of the evil cable guys. The same AT&T whose logo should be drawn in the margin beside the dictionary definition of “monopoly.” The same AT&T that’s essentially the Humpty Dumpty of today’s American economy (all the king’s horses and all the king’s men are certainly trying to put it back together again—the “it” being Ma Bell, inarguably one of the largest monopolies ever). But if a “senior adviser” to AT&T declares that Cable is the monopolistic devil and the offspring of Ma Bell the valiant knights of communications commerce, then surely it is thus. I’m so thankful we cleared that up.

It seems like confusion was in the air at an IPTV workshop last week at the Fall 2006 VON (the "Global IP Communications Industry Event" in Boston). Telephony magazine, which sponsored the IPTV workshop, reported: "…it was also clear for the 150-plus attendees today that, while it’s certain telecom service providers must compete with cable and do so immediately, it’s much less certain which network approach will serve them well in doing so."

Following presentations from Verizon and BellSouth, the mostly telco audience had no shortage of questions, ranging from “How do you know if you have enough bandwidth?" to "What’s the greater risk, taking longer to build out an all-fiber network or building a near-term fiber rich network that doesn’t go all the way into the home?” Perhaps the Telephony writer summarized it best as she began to recap the workshop: "It’s clear that there is still uncertainty among telecom service providers when it comes to what form of fiber optic access network makes the most sense – fiber to the premises, fiber to the curb or fiber to the node." Just imagine how things would’ve heated up if a cable operator had actually been in the room.

Intriguing quote from Forrester Research analyst Maribel Lopez in an Associated Press article today about the major RBOCs' TV strategies: "Telcos expect to grab 20 percent-30 percent of the market just by showing up. We think acquiring TV subs in a three-way battle will be much tougher than that.... Assuming telcos execute flawlessly, they still have to steal customers in a saturated market whose growth is largely tied to population growth." The article reports that the major telcos are seeing higher stock values following a tough 2005, citing wireless growth and cost-cutting, but noting that the rise in stock price comes as the telcos suffer continued loss of phone customers to VoIP providers, including Cable. In fact, as of the end of the second quarter, the number of Internet-based phone customers had risen 150% from a year earlier, to 7 million. As we all know by now, the loss of phone customers is driving Verizon and AT&T's push to upgrade their networks with fiber. Speaking of which, Verizon says its $20 billion fiber-to-the-home project had helped garner 110,000 FiOS customers at the end of the second quarter—“a level the company said represented an average market penetration of 15 percent,” according to the AP.

But some analysts aren't sure that early success can be seen as indicative of how the battle will play out. Already, Verizon's FiOS rollout has sparked a nasty arms race in the Long Island region of New York, where cable provider Cablevision Systems Corp. has been boosting its Internet speeds in retaliation. Meanwhile, in a possible sign of the technological challenges phone companies face with their foray into cable, the new AT&T has fallen well behind with its original timetable for U-verse. That service, which uses Internet technologies to deliver TV over a copper phone line, costs only a fraction of the investment of FiOS, but the company has yet to show enough confidence for a full-scale market launch.

It was nice to see recognition of the great strides Cable has made in the business services market, in a Reuters article this week:

After winning over many consumers by packaging phone, Internet and TV services into attractive bundles, cable is planning to attack the estimated $100 billion corporate market....Telecommunications analysts said companies like Verizon and AT&T Inc. have become complacent in serving small and medium businesses because they have not faced the same competitive or regulatory pressures as in residential markets.

Investor’s Business Daily has a follow-up on last week’s leak of a CableLabs report to The Wall Street Journal and trade publication ScreenPlays. As we wrote last week, the report postulates that Cable will have to significantly upgrade its networks to match the speed and capacity of fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) deployments from the likes of Verizon. We thought the WSJ article made a much bigger deal about the report than was warranted. As IBD reports, that sentiment is widespread:

A report leaked last week that said cable companies might need another round of billion-dollar network upgrades has angered cable firms and forced the authors to backpedal. But it hasn’'t hurt cable stocks, and analysts seem unworried.

The report by CableLabs, a research consortium run by cable TV companies, said cable firms — under a “very speculative scenario” — might be forced to sharply spend more to keep up with the rapid growth of broadband video.....

The report also reportedly said cable firms should have enough bandwidth to deliver fast Internet access, more high-definition TV and phone call services “past 2010.” Cable TV companies — which fund Denver-based CableLabs — were mad the study was leaked. After the reports surfaced, CableLabs issued a statement stating: “The report shows that no major investment is needed for cable to compete with FTTP networks.”

A Wall Street Journal article today postulates that Cable will have to invest billions in new network upgrades to weather competition from the telcos, including Verizon. The reporter based his conclusions on a confidential report from CableLabs, the cable TV industry’s research and development consortium. We believe the article makes a much bigger deal about this one report than is warranted.

To start with, this was just one single report. CableLabs routinely evaluates a wide range of emerging technology trends for its members, and cable companies like Cox Communications see numerous conclusions and recommendations from various researchers all the time. The future course of our network design and upgrades can only be charted with a substantial amount of competitive and technological trending information—info much broader than this one single report. Further, as the report in question makes clear, Cable’s hybrid fiber/coax (HFC) network can be “gracefully extended” as bandwidth demand grows. This is a critical point. The article posits that Verizon’s fiber to the premises (FTTP) path will be one of the key factors forcing cable to upgrade. But you have to note that Verizon is investing a reported $20 billion to lay fiber now because they do not have a network that can accommodate a video play, nor can they “evolve” to one. They simply have no choice but to make this investment now, given competition from Cable.

A glitch in AT&T’s U-Verse TV service has bloggers buzzing. According to a U-Verse users site, when the company first started rolling out the service, every set-top box it deployed was a DVR box. The company soon changed that practice and began giving customers only one DVR box; additional outlets in the home were outfitted with a non-DVR set-top. But some users quickly discovered that the additional boxes were basically DVR receivers with the hard drive unplugged. So, they plugged the hard drive back in and, surprise, had DVR service on all sets. Here’s the full “Hacking Your Set Top Box” article on the users site, and what Engadget has to say about it.

First it was Dish Network and its fixation on pigs and snakes. Now, the latest entry in the oh-so-mature "name-calling" marketing/PR genre is a curious campaign from Verizon likening Cable to a clown. According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Verizon spent $6.05 in postage to send the newspaper a pair of blue plastic clown shoes with accompanying propaganda slamming Cable. So, how successful is a PR stunt that only generates coverage making fun of the stunt? Oh, in Verizon World, it’s probably being branded a raging success, and we should expect a press release any minute touting its phenomenal results.

An essay by Mark Gimein in BusinessWeek posits that the phone companies are afraid of technology:

Ah. Welcome to Telco Land, a strange country where the biggest players talk more and more about innovation yet approach new ideas with baby steps, build little themselves, and when they think about technology are apt to believe it's a threat they have to fight....

Verizon and AT&T are under great pressure to recast themselves as innovators. They lag behind the cable companies in their efforts to sell high-speed Internet access. Their local telephone monopolies are under attack as those same cable companies' offer to provide phone service at lower rates along with TV and data. Looking ahead, wireless technologies ranging from the familiar Wi-Fi to more powerful wireless standards being advanced by researchers in academia and companies such as Intel pose a whole new set of threats.

In response, AT&T and Verizon are rushing to build networks to deliver TV service and high-speed broadband access. They point to them to make the case that, yes, they are technology companies. Verizon is spending billions to roll out a next-generation phone, data, and video network called FiOS (as in "fiber optic") to give its customers faster Internet service and an alternative to cable. While not matching FiOS' impressive speeds, AT&T promises to do something similar with Lightspeed, which it started marketing in parts of San Antonio under the brand name "U-verse" not long after my visit.

Today’s Chicago Tribune includes a letter from Matt Polka, President and CEO of the American Cable Association, which represents independent cable operators serving about 8 million customers nationwide. Polka blasts claims made by AT&T in a recent Tribune article addressing AT&T’s video franchise agreement with the city of North Chicago. From Polka’s letter:

“This article highlighted a series of claims that telephone companies have used to justify special video franchising legislation, but it overlooked the most critical issues in this debate. Rather than reduce barriers to entering the video market or reduce consumer prices, the radical legislation telephone companies are seeking would merely help them undermine competition and pad their own pockets. Now AT&T has conceded to Wall Street investors that it will not engage in a price war, and Verizon has said it will not price its video service at a discount. So their claims to dramatically lower consumer video prices are empty promises.”