U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–367 PDF 2004

S. HRG. 108–494

CABLE COMPETITION—INCREASING PRICE;

INCREASING VALUE?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ANTITRUST, 

COMPETITION POLICY AND CONSUMER RIGHTS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 11, 2004

Serial No. J–108–56

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

BRUCE ARTIM, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ANTITRUST, COMPETITION POLICY AND CONSUMER RIGHTS

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio, Chairman 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

PETER LEVITAS, Majority Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

JEFFREY MILLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Page 

DeWine, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio ................................ 1

Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin ............. 9

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah ............................ 4

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 48

Kohl, Hon. Herbert, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin ....................... 3

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 59

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 6

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 61

WITNESSES 

Cleland, Scott, Chief Executive Officer, Precursor Group .................................... 19

Cooper, Mark N., Director of Research, Consumer Federation of America ........ 20

Johnson, Rodger, President and Chief Executive Officer, Knology, Inc., on 

behalf of the Broadband Service Providers Association .................................... 13

Sachs, Robert, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Cable and 

Telecommunications Association ........................................................................ 15

Willner, Michael, President and Chief Executive Officer, Insight Communications ....................................................................................................................... 11

Wilson, Coralie, President, National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors ................................................................................................. 17

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Cleland, Scott, Chief Executive Officer, Precursor Group, statement ................. 34

Cooper, Mark N., Director of Research, Consumer Federation of America, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 39

DeWine, Hon. Mike, A U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio and Hon. Herbert 

Kohl, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin, joint letter ........................ 44

Johnson, Rodger, President and Chief Executive Officer, Knology, Inc., on 

behalf of the Broadband Service Providers Association, statement ................. 50

National Cable & Telecommunications Association, report ................................. 63

Sachs, Robert, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Cable and 

Telecommunications Association, statement ..................................................... 77

Wildman, Steven S., Michigan State University, paper ....................................... 97

Willner, Michael, President and Chief Executive Officer, Insight Communications, statement .................................................................................................... 125

Wilson, Coralie, President, National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, statement .............................................................................. 147

(1)

CABLE COMPETITION—INCREASING PRICE; 

INCREASING VALUE? 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2004 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ANTITRUST, COMPETITION POLICY AND

CONSUMER RIGHTS, OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:47 a.m., in 

room SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike DeWine, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators DeWine, Hatch, Kohl, Leahy, and Feingold. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE DEWINE, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Chairman DEWINE. Good morning. I apologize for being late this 

morning. 

As you can tell from the title of our hearing—‘‘Cable Competition—Rising Prices; Increasing Value?’’—any evaluation of cable 

television seems to require at least two different points of view. In 

fact, in some ways the truth about cable has always been really 

hard to pin down. The industry has swung from regulation to deregulation and various stages in between, and consumers and the 

Congress seem to have a long-term love/hate relationship with the 

cable industry. 

For this Subcommittee, it has been 3 years since our last cable 

oversight hearing. The industry continues to be a source of competition in some markets and a source of frustration in others. On 

the one hand, the cable industry has made an enormous investment over the last decade of between $75 to $85 billion to upgrade 

cable facilities. 

Those upgrades have increased the quality and availability of 

video, Internet and telephone services offered by the cable companies and increased the competitive pressures on telephone and satellite companies to improve their competitive offerings, all to the 

benefit, of course, of consumers. 

Unfortunately, there is a downside, as well, a downside that is 

all too obvious to all of us. Cable prices have risen dramatically 

over the last decade—53 percent, which is more than twice the rate 

of inflation. That trend has accelerated recently, with cable prices 

going up 5 percent from June 2002 to June 2003, compared to a 

general inflation rate of 2 percent. These increases, of course, are 

of great concern to the Subcommittee and need to be examined. We 

need to understand, for example, why prices are routinely inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:33 Jun 30, 2004 Jkt 094367 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\94367.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
2

creased, despite the market presence of satellite providers and the 

so-called cable overbuilders. 

We are likely to hear testimony today from several witnesses 

about the market share of satellite providers, which account today 

for about 22 percent of national pay TV subscribers, a level of market penetration that would normally indicate serious competition. 

Why isn’t satellite competition limiting cable price increases? 

Well, it is possible that the 22 percent figure is somewhat misleading because it appears that competition between satellite and 

cable is not spread evenly throughout the country. Specifically, the 

satellite companies often have a disproportionate number of customers in rural areas or other areas that cable doesn’t effectively 

serve. 

On the other hand, satellite has technological limitations that 

often restrict its ability to serve customers in crowded urban markets. So there are a number of markets, large and small, where 

cable and satellite do not compete with each other, which may limit 

impact they have on each other’s pricing. 

Even worse, satellite companies may have bigger market share 

in the smallest markets and smaller market share in the larger 

markets, making them a much weaker competitor and further decreasing their ability to restrain prices. This is an important factual issue and one the Subcommittee will, in fact, pursue. 

Accordingly, today Senator Kohl and I will send a letter to the 

GAO asking them to examine market share of the incumbent cable 

providers versus the market share of satellite providers in geographic areas of different size and demographic make-up. The letter also asks the GAO to examine if the market share of satellite 

is affected by whether or not the local cable system is fully upgraded. We are also willing to expand the study, if necessary, and 

look forward to working with our witnesses for any recommendations they may have to more fully explore this issue. 

However, pending completion of that study, and even assuming 

that the satellite providers don’t really compete in certain large 

and small markets, they still represent over 20 million customers 

across a wide range of markets, and that should be enough to allow 

them to more effectively blunt the rise of cable price increases. 

But that just doesn’t seem to be happening. Why not? Is it just 

another example of oligopoly pricing, or are we actually seeing 

greater competition in the form of better customer service and enhanced viewing options? Those are important issues to evaluate 

today. 

We also will examine another form of competition that has been 

somewhat disappointing, and that is the competition provided by 

cable overbuilders. Several years ago, these companies were investing a lot of money to put fiber in the ground and create brand new 

cable facilities that would provide a range of services to customers—video, voice, and high-speed data. 

Last year, Senator Kohl and I commissioned a GAO report to examine how much impact these companies were having in a range 

of case study markets, and the report showed basically what one 

would expect, that for the most part increasing competition led to 

decreased prices and improved offerings. 

3

However, the report also noted that the overbuilders as a group 

are ailing. Many of the companies are having recent financial difficulties and have been unable to expand to new markets, or even 

to fully market their services within their current regions. Why exactly are the overbuilders struggling? Is it the result of predatory 

conduct by the incumbent cable companies or just good, solid competition from cable and satellite providers? Is the overbuilder business model viable? We will explore these issues, as well as others, 

today. 

To the extent that anticompetitive behavior is an element in the 

overbuilder struggles, the Subcommittee is considering at least one 

possible remedy—specifically, a modification of the program access 

rules that require vertically-integrated MVPDs to make content 

available to competitors on reasonable terms and conditions. 

These rules have long included the so-called terrestrial loophole, 

which exempts programming delivered via wire, and there has 

been some concern that this loophole impacts the ability of competitors to compete. Senator Kohl and I are currently planning to offer 

legislation to close the loophole and look forward to discussing that 

idea here today. 

Another idea to improve competition is to strengthen the uniform 

pricing rules. Broadly speaking, existing regulations require the incumbent to charge customers the same price throughout a market 

unless they face effective competition in that market. If they do 

face effective competition, they are then allowed to vary pricing as 

they see fit customer to customer. This allows incumbents to make 

very targeted responses to competitive efforts into that market. 

Some of our witnesses here today believe that we should further 

limit the ability of incumbents to respond with customer-by-customer offers. Others believe that such responses are the essence of 

competition. This is an important issue that the Subcommittee 

plans to examine, and we will no doubt hear a spirited debate from 

our witnesses today. 

Let me now turn to my colleague, the Ranking Member of the 

Subcommittee, my good friend Senator Kohl. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HERB KOHL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF WISCONSIN 

Senator KOHL. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing 

today. In the cable arena, there are certain simple truths. First, 

consumers pay more and more every year. Indeed, increases in consumers’ cable bills are now about as predictable as the change of 

seasons. Second, cable companies make more and more money from 

these increased prices. And today we can add a third: Where real 

competition exists to cable, prices are lower, and often dramatically 

so. 

At our Subcommittee’s April 2001 hearing, we reported that 

cable prices had increased nearly three times the rate of inflation 

since the passage of the 1996 Telecom Act. Today, the just released 

FCC video competition report finds that little has changed since 

2001. In the year ending June 2003, cable rates rose more than 5 

percent, about two-and-a-half times the rate of inflation. During 

the last 10 years, cable prices rose about 53 percent, far in excess 

of the overall inflation rate. 

4

While the prices consumers paid continued to escalate, so did the 

cable companies’ earnings. The FCC report found that the cable industry’s cash flow has increased more than 25 percent since 2001. 

So prices and profits go up dramatically in the absence of competition. 

The GAO report that we commissioned provides today’s news. It 

found that the cable industry reacts to competition with lower 

prices and better services. In virtually all communities where more 

than one cable company competes for customers, video prices are 

lower by 15 to 41 percent. 

Therefore, our conclusion seems to be rather simple. Real competition benefits consumers and it keeps prices down. Our challenge is how to make competition a reality. Despite what the cable 

companies assert, satellite is not a complete substitute for cable in 

most markets, particularly in urban areas where many residents 

are not able to receive satellite. The key to video competition is the 

presence of cable overbuilders, companies that have built new cable 

systems to compete with the incumbent operators. 

Unfortunately, these new cable companies face a range of obstacles which seriously harm their ability to survive. We have heard 

many disturbing stories of allegedly anticompetitive and predatory 

conduct by the cable incumbents, such as below-cost pricing designed to drive their new rivals out of business. Additionally, ties 

between programmers and the cable incumbents often make it difficult for competitors to obtain access to the very programming that 

consumers demand. 

It is essential that these new challengers be given the breathing 

room to survive so that consumers can reap the benefits of true 

competition. Therefore, we will propose the following measures: 

first, ensuring that competitors have access to all essential programming owned by the cable incumbents by closing loopholes in 

the program access laws. Second, we urge that the Justice Department investigate allegations of predatory behavior by incumbents 

and take action to stop conduct which violates antitrust laws; and, 

third, a GAO study to determine whether satellite TV is truly an 

alternative to cable. 

In closing, we should commend the cable industry for the billions 

of dollars it has invested to upgrade the quality of service in many 

areas. The cable industry is unquestionably bringing much needed 

competition to local telephone companies. Yet, we must not lose 

sight of the fundamental problem that brings us here today, which 

is that American consumers suffer with cable price increases and 

a lack of competitive choices. We hope that today’s hearing will be 

helpful in determining how we can ensure that competition truly 

flourishes in this very important industry. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DEWINE. Senator Kohl, thank you very much. 

Let me turn to the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF UTAH 

Chairman HATCH. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

5

First, I would like to thank Senator DeWine and Senator Kohl 

for the work they do as Chairman and ranking Democrat member 

of this Subcommittee, and I commend them for holding this very, 

very important hearing. 

As the title suggests, today’s hearing will focus in part on whether the strongly increasing cable prices paid by consumers across 

the Nation actually reflect an increased value in cable television 

services. I would like to turn that around and, before I address the 

issue of price, comment briefly on the value, or more accurately the 

values reflected in television programming today. 

I am sincerely troubled by some of the programming that is 

being aired on both broadcast and cable television, and I am not 

alone in this country in this criticism. Beyond Janet Jackson’s and 

Justin Timberlake’s deeply inappropriate display during the Super 

Bowl halftime show, I feel that certain recent programming has 

tended to reflect the least admirable qualities present in our Nation, and sometimes crosses the line into denigrating the values 

that I and many of my constituents in Utah, as well as millions of 

Americans, hold dear. At the Grammys, Justin Timberlake apologized, and I respect him for that and commend him for that. 

Now, some of you may question what this has to do with cable 

competition and the antitrust laws. A partial answer may be that 

the enormous consolidation that has occurred in the cable and 

media markets, as well as the substantial vertical integration between these markets, appears to have resulted in the increasing 

harmonization of programming across the country. 

I am sure that some of these concerns will receive attention in 

connection with Comcast’s $66 billion bid to acquire Disney that 

was announced this morning. These issues also arose recently 

when many here in the Senate decried the loss of localism in media 

markets during the debate over media ownership rules. 

It is not my intent to rekindle the media ownership debate or to 

pre-judge the proposed Comcast acquisition, but I would say that 

many of my constituents feel that the programming they and their 

families view these days on television seems to be targeted at an 

audience that has a distinctly higher tolerance for profanity and 

sexually-suggestive behavior than they do. 

Although the most recent controversy involves broadcast television, some of the most offensive and indecent material comes 

from such large cable stations as FX and MTV. So I would like to 

take this opportunity to encourage all media operators, broadcast 

and cable, to clean up their content. 

Having voiced these concerns, I want to emphasize that I do not 

mean to necessarily equate big with bad. I believe that much of the 

recent consolidation in media and entertainment markets has the 

potential to benefit consumers in the long run. However, as I have 

frequently stated, it is essential that consumer choice be preserved. 

In this case, that should include the ability to choose not to be exposed to objectionable material. 

Turning to the narrower issue of competition in the market for 

subscription television, I am pleased to note that recent reports by 

the Federal Communications Commission and the General Accounting Office indicate that greater competition between cable television and direct broadcast satellite, or DBS services, that has 

6

emerged in the last several years has, on the whole, resulted in increased access and improved services for consumers. It is less clear, 

at least to me, whether current levels of competition adequately 

discipline price increases. 

Over the past 10 years, inflation, as measured by the Consumer 

Price Index, as Senator Kohl has mentioned, has gone up about 25 

percent, while by some measures cable prices have increased more 

than 50 percent during the same time period. I think Senator Kohl 

mentioned 53 percent. While this disproportionate increase in cable 

prices is partially explained by increases in programming costs, 

and in particular the skyrocketing price of some sports content, I 

am concerned that higher costs may begin to significantly limit the 

ability of consumers to afford subscription television service. 

Interestingly, the recent GAO study indicates that facilitiesbased competitors, often referred to as overbuilders, may be successful in providing price competition in markets where they compete with incumbent cable service providers. I think this is something that deserves our ongoing attention, and I commend Senators 

DeWine and Kohl for their work on this issue. 

I look forward to hearing more from the witnesses on this panel 

today about these issues and about any emerging issues arising as 

a result of quickly evolving technology and the changing competitive landscape in the communications sector. In particular, I hope 

that the witnesses will address the increased competitive significance of bundled service offerings that combine subscription television, local telephone and high-speed Internet services into a single package. Also, I hope that we will touch on the advent of Voice 

over Internet Protocol technology and how it is expected to be deployed to provide local telephone service. 

Once again, I thank all of the witnesses for being here today, 

welcome them to the Subcommittee, and again commend our two 

leaders on this Subcommittee, Senators DeWine and Kohl, for their 

work and for their holding a hearing on these important issues. I 

am very grateful to them for doing so. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DEWINE. Chairman Hatch, thank you very much. 

Senator Leahy.

STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As I have 

said before, the partnership that you and Senator Kohl have in 

running this Subcommittee benefits all of us in the Senate. It certainly benefits the Judiciary Committee and it benefits the Senate, 

and I believe the hard work both of you have done benefits the 

country. 

I might say in just referencing something my good friend from 

Utah, Senator Hatch, has said, there is another part of that thing 

that offended me even more, the halftime. I think list most Americans, I totally missed the Janet Jackson thing because it happened 

so quickly. However, I was bombarded for several days afterwards, 

with the press making sure that I could be appropriately offended 

by what happened by repeating and repeating and repeating it. 

7

But I will tell there was one thing that went on at some length 

that I haven’t heard anybody talk about. Do you know what the 

most offensive thing to me was about that halftime show? Kid Rock 

prancing around with the American flag, with a hole cut in it making it a pancho, and he goes around like that desecrating our flag 

and then taking it off and throwing it out, I assume onto the 

ground. 

Now, if people want to get offended by something, all Americans 

ought to get offended by that. That didn’t need repeats over and 

over again so we could be properly offended. That went on at such 

length that I was actually standing up hollering at my TV set. 

Chairman HATCH. Senator, I am happy to hear that because— 

Senator LEAHY. I was so annoyed that, in fact, my wife finally 

said at one point, okay, Patrick, turn it off, turn it off. 

Frankly, I didn’t even notice. I was eating some popcorn and it 

happened it so fast. But, boy, that flag just ripped me. Sorry about 

that. I just wanted to get that off my chest. 

Chairman HATCH. Senator, I am glad you got that off your chest. 

I presume now you are going to support the anti-desecration flag 

amendment. 

Senator LEAHY. I don’t think we need that, if the American public would stand up. 

Chairman HATCH. Oh, I see. 

Senator LEAHY. I will tell you right now, in my State we don’t 

stand for that kind of thing. We don’t need a law to tell us to protect the flag in Vermont. Vermonters are patriots. We don’t stand 

for that, we don’t stand for that. 

Anyway, this hearing is extremely appropriate. There were three 

reports recently released by the Federal Communications Commission and the General Accounting Office. They tell us what we all 

know to be true: Greater competition among cable and satellite providers results in better prices, more options and improved service 

for consumers. 

When Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, I 

was one of five Senators who voted against it. I expressed reservations at the time that the competition predicted by many would fail 

to materialize. All those who said vote for this because we have 

competition and prices will come down—I said it is probably not 

going to happen. Unfortunately, it turned out I was right. 

The October 2003 GAO report notes that cable rates in this country have gone way ahead of inflation. In the last 10 years, to give 

you some idea, the Consumer Price Index has gone up about 25 

percent and cable rates have gone up 53 percent; in other words, 

more than double what the Consumer Price Index has been. 

In my own State of Vermont, I have heard complaints from a 

number of constituents who are very upset at substantial increases 

in their cable subscription fees. After all, when they see them go 

up twice the rate of inflation, of course, they are going to be upset, 

and rightly so. And as is the case in all but 2 percent of the television markets across the U.S., there is no wire-based competitor 

available to Vermonters who wish to change their service. 

Now, I know we are going to hear testimony today attributing 

the increase in subscription costs largely to the increases in programming costs incurred by content providers. But at least in marVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:33 Jun 30, 2004 Jkt 094367 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\94367.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
8

kets there is only one wire-based cable provider, why do we not see 

any downward market pressure on content providers acting to keep 

programming prices low? And if there is no meaningful downward 

pressure exerted on the cable market, what is going to stop prices 

from skyrocketing? 

When sports programming licensing fees increase 59 percent in 

a 3-year period, as they did between 1999 and 2002, what would 

lead us to assume that this upward spiral is going to cease? I 

mean, at some point somebody is going to put in legislation to require cable companies to build for program, so if people don’t want 

to buy the sports programming and that has a certain cost and 

they won’t take it, then their costs will be lower. 

They may decide they don’t need ten channels with preachers 

telling them that if they will just send money to that one preacher, 

of course, they will be saved, the assumption being that if they 

send it to the other nine, they won’t, and so on. Some people might 

say we don’t want to pay for that. 

I do understand that some of the increased price of cable reflects 

increased quality, more and better programming. I am told this by 

my staff and I am eager to see if that is so. But what will this do 

for the bottom line of consumers making these tough budgeting 

choices? 

Subscription video services have become a vital component of 

America’s information infrastructure. Cable accounts for the majority of that market across the country. According to the FCC, 67 

percent of households today subscribe to cable television services. 

Many others subscribe to satellite DBS services. 

In Vermont, those numbers are different. We have the highest 

penetration per-capita of satellite of any State in the United States, 

and correspondingly fewer cable subscribers. But we do lack much, 

if any, wire-based competition to Adelphia. That is the cable company serving those Vermonters. 

I can give you one example. They wire our capital city of Montpelier and a couple of the adjoining towns. In my own town, which 

borders and wraps around more than half of Montpelier, there is 

no cable. There is no cable because the one monopoly basically for 

Vermont decides they don’t want to bother, so it is not there. Many 

satellite subscribers in Vermont have no cable alternative, and vice 

versa. 

So what I am saying is when prices spiral out of control for services Vermonters have come to depend on and there are no real options existing in terms of alternative providers, they are really 

hurting. And I suspect this is probably similar in many, many 

other rural areas of America, probably affecting most rural areas 

of America. 

There are a variety of factors that conspire to raise cable rates 

borne by consumers. As they rise, fewer people are going to be able 

to afford access. It is my goal, and it should be the goal of the Senate to provide access to high-quality programming to as many 

Americans as possible. 

Data from the FCC and GAO show us the best way to keep 

prices low and to improve the quality and quantity of programming 

offerings, of course, is to increase competition. We all know that. 

While there is a discrepancy in the exact amount of the reduction, 

9

all three reports show that competition reduces cable rates and 

when there is no competition, cable rates go up. The GAO study 

found that there is a 15-percent reduction in the cost of cable services when there are two wire-based cable competitors. 

Finally, I know that my colleagues on the Antitrust Subcommittee do not intend to specifically address media consolidation, but it is an issue that impossible to avoid whenever we talk 

about providing choices to consumers at a fair price. Indeed, the 

GAO report points to this as an area of concern. If nothing else, 

the data show that ever-tightening bonds between corporate control 

of content and of distribution are having an anticompetitive effect 

on what consumers can see on their screens, and also how much 

they are going to pay for it. 

Many of the technological issues, I would say to Senator Kohl, 

Senator DeWine, Senator Hatch and Senator Feingold—we have 

worked on this—these issues are never put to rest because the 

change is so rapid in this area. But I think providing access to the 

latest and best information at a fair price to consumers is an issue 

we can look forward to. And we have to do that if we want all parts 

of our country to be competitive, whether it is high-speed lines, 

whether it is working at home or getting information at a price 

Americans can afford. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman DEWINE. Senator Leahy, thank you very much. 

Senator Feingold.

STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank 

you and Senator Kohl for convening this hearing on the continuing 

increase in cable rates. It is a very important consumer issue and 

one on which Congress and the American people deserve some answers. 

I am alarmed by the soaring cable rates that consumers in Wisconsin and across the country have had to endure. For a number 

of years, I have been hearing from my constituents about the rising 

cost of basic cable and the many other services that are often bundled together for the consumer, like high-speed Internet connections, wireless phone service and digital television. 

For all of the promises of more services for less money since 

1988, average cable rates have increased each year. Between the 

enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which I also 

voted against, like Senator Leahy, and today, rates have jumped by 

over 40 percent, almost three times the rate of inflation. 

In my home State of Wisconsin, the problem is exacerbated in 

rural communities where there is no meaningful competitor to the 

local cable operator. Over the years, I have been actively engaged 

in efforts to foster true competition in the cable industry, and I 

hope today’s hearing will help spur Congress to act responsibly. 

I am concerned that as more and more services are bundled together and companies claim to offer special prices for these bundled 

services that we lose sight of the fact that already high prices actually keep getting higher. About two-thirds of the households in this 

country rely on cable for their television programming, and more 

10

and more households receive their Internet services from a cable 

company as well. 

We now rely on cable for entertainment and information. More 

and more, cable has become part of the monthly budget for the average consumer. And instead of the cost going down because so 

many people now use the service, the costs actually just keep rising. 

What I hear time and time again is not that we need hundreds 

of channels or more bells and whistles for our televisions, but rather that we need prices that families can afford. I believe that we 

have a responsibility to ensure that there is meaningful competition across the technological spectrum. 

Without competition, cable companies have no incentive to keep 

rates low and consumers have nowhere else to turn for the products they provide. As the GAO study confirms, when there is a 

meaningful competition in a community, like a broadband or a satellite service provider, then cable rates will decrease. I believe Congress therefore has a responsibility to ensure that there is true 

competition in the marketplace. 

Again, according to the GAO report, cable companies charge 15 

to 41 percent less for the exact same programming in areas where 

they face competition. If applied across the country, the savings for 

the American consumer would equal more than $4 billion. So I was 

a little bit surprised to read in a recent Business Week interview 

with Rupert Murdoch, the new owner of DirecTV, that when he 

was asked if he intended to undercut cable’s prices, he said that 

he wasn’t, quote, ‘‘going to get into a price war with anyone,’’ unquote. 

If Rupert Murdoch isn’t willing to compete, then we need to 

make sure our rules will allow someone else to offer the American 

people a better price. 

I am looking forward to hearing about how Congress can protect 

new entrants into the marketplace. As we watch the providers of 

cable and satellite continue their vertical integration of the industry by controlling the distribution and production of content, I wonder if an independent operator trying to reach homes across America today like Ted Turner once did would have the same opportunity. Or have we gone so far in allowing the vertical integration 

between those who create the content and those who distribute content that new entrepreneurs can never enter the marketplace with 

any realistic chance of survival? 

Mr. Chairman, I again thank you and the Ranking Member for 

holding this hearing. 

Chairman DEWINE. Senator Feingold, thank you very much. 

Before we get to our very patient panel today, let me just mention the hostile takeover offer that has been made by Comcast for 

Disney, which has already been mentioned here today. Obviously, 

this is a very important deal, if indeed it happens, and it is something that this Committee will, in fact, be looking at, just as we 

looked at the DirecTV-NewsCorp deal as well. 

It is my pleasure to introduce our panel today, a very distinguished panel. Mr. Michael Willner is the CEO and President of Insight Communications Company, a company that he co-founded in 

1985. Insight is the ninth largest cable operator in the country, 

11

serving customers throughout the Midwest, including my home 

State of Ohio. 

Mr. Rodger Johnson is the president and CEO of Knology. He 

has been with Knology since 1999, before which he served as the 

CEO at Communications Central. 

Robert Sachs is the president and CEO of the National Cable 

and Telecommunications Association. He has worked for over 25 

years within the cable television industry. He has testified before 

the Subcommittee in the past and we certainly welcome him back. 

Ms. Coralie Wilson is the president of the National Association 

of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Board of Directors. 

She has worked extensively in the cable area serving Ohio as the 

Executive Director of the Miami Valley Cable Council, in Kettering, 

and as an adviser in the Dayton City Manager’s office working 

with cable administration. 

Mr. Scott Cleland is the founder and CEO of Precursor Group, 

and also serves as the Chairman of the Investorside Research Association. He has testified before the Subcommittee on prior occasions, and we also welcome him back as well. 

Dr. Cooper is the Director of Research at the Consumer Federation of America. He works on telecommunications, media and economic policy. He is also the author of Media Ownership and Democracy in the Digital Age. He has testified before the Subcommittee in the past, and we welcome him back as well. 

We will start from my left to my right, and we will start with 

Mr. Willner. Thank you very much. We are going to follow the fiveminute rule and that will allow us to have plenty of time for questions. I think you all know how the system works up here. You get 

the one-minute warning. 

Mr. Willner. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL WILLNER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS 

Mr. WILLNER. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would like to point out 

that with a name that starts with ‘‘w,’’ I think this is the first time 

that I get to go first. So thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman and Senator Kohl, my name is Michael Willner, 

and thank you for inviting me to testify today about the state of 

competition in the multi-channel video market. I am the President 

and CEO of Insight Communications, a cable company that serves 

about 1.4 million customers in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky and 

Ohio. We also serve as employers of 3,200 people, virtually all of 

whom live in the communities that we serve. 

I would like to make three basic points this morning: one, that 

the multi-channel video market is fully competitive; two, that cable 

has invested heavily—as we heard earlier, $85 billion since 1996—

to upgrade its facilities and bring new services to market; and, 

three, that cable offers American consumers that excellent value 

and our prices are a reflection of what it costs to deliver top-quality 

product to consumers. 

Competition is alive and well not only in Columbus, Ohio, Mr. 

Chairman, where, as you know, we do have a wireline overbuild, 

but as far as we are concerned in every community in America. It 

is real and it keeps me awake at night. 

12

Every customer we serve has at least three choices of video service providers, and some have four. The fact is that our most significant competitive pressure today does indeed come from satellite. 

For instance, just last summer when satellite began local-into-local 

broadcasts in the Louisville, Kentucky market, we saw the most intense competitive attack against us that we have ever experienced. 

So why did DBS become our primary competition instead of 

wireline overbuilders? Because their infrastructure is far more costefficient than having to construct a duplicative wireline network in 

every community. Indeed, since DBS launched in 1993, cable’s market share has dropped from 95 percent to under 75 percent today. 

Last year, DBS subscribership jumped from 19.4 million to 21.1 

million, a painful 8.8-percent increase, while cable subscribership 

remained flat. 

The GAO has noted that DBS has emerged as the principal and 

formidable competitor to cable. That is absolutely true. In short, 

even though competition did not develop the way we anticipated, 

competition is alive and kicking in the multi-channel video business. 

Because of competition, cable operators embarked on a massive 

rebuild of our cable systems a few years ago. Yes, we were encouraged by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the subsequent 

deregulation it brought. But make no mistake about it, competition 

caused cable operators to raise $85 billion of risk capital to rebuild 

those systems. That is more than $1,200 per cable subscriber, and 

we did it without any government assistance. This, in turn, spurred 

a response from our competitors to roll out advanced services like 

digital subscriber lines and high-definition television. 

Since I met with you, Mr. Chairman, 18 months ago, Insight has 

aggressively expanded and launched new and advanced services. 

We now provide interactive digital video services to over 400,000 

customers, which includes video-on-demand, interactive services, 

and more recently, digital video recorders and high-definition television. We also deliver high-speed access to the Internet to over 

230,000 customers, and we are a very aggressive competitor in facilities-based telephone service. Today, we serve 55,000 circuitswitched voice telephony customers in four markets, including in 

Columbus, Ohio. 

As we look to the future, we soon will launch an Internet-based 

Voice-over-IP service in many of the markets where we do not have 

telephony right now, and we will have a blended service in the ones 

we currently serve. By any measure, from my point of view, we are 

indeed fulfilling the promise of the 1996 Telecommunications Act 

to provide a facilities-based competitor in every market. 

So why do cable prices rise with all this competition in place? 

The answer is simple. Our prices are a function of our costs. Let 

me mention a few. I already talked about the $85 billion of invested capital, but did you know that the total wages paid by cable 

operators to employees—employees who live and work in the communities that we serve—rose 15 percent a year, five times the rate 

of inflation? That increase reflects the operating reality that competition brings—vastly improved customer service, expansion of operating hours, and the higher-tech nature of our business today. 

13

And then there are the programming costs, our single highest external cost. Between 1997 and 2003, expenditures by basic cable 

networks on program acquisition and development increased 121 

percent, from $4.7 billion to $10.4 billion, an average of 20 percent 

a year. The result of that investment is that cable viewership has 

indeed exploded. 

Eight years ago, many of us expected wireline overbuilds to be 

the main competitor to cable operators. Instead, DBS succeeded in 

that role. Both the GAO and the FCC have confirmed the existence 

of a highly competitive multi-channel video market. The current 

environment has been extraordinarily successful in creating an opportunity where consumers enjoy ever-increasing choices of providers, programming and services. New regulations would simply 

deter additional investments while depriving customers of exciting, 

new-generation services. 

I would like to thank you again for the opportunity to testify 

today and I will be pleased to answer any questions you have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Willner appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman DEWINE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Johnson. 

STATEMENT OF RODGER JOHNSON, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KNOLOGY, INC., ON BEHALF OF THE 

BROADBAND SERVICE PROVIDERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. JOHNSON. Good morning. I want to express my appreciation 

to Senators Kohl and DeWine for sponsoring the GAO study that 

has just been released. I would also like to thank you for the opportunity to participate in this hearing and provide additional testimony regarding competition in the cable television market. 

I am pleased to represent both Knology, a competitive overbuilder, in the terminology that you have used, and the Broadband 

Service Providers Association, the BSPA, which is a trade association that represents the companies that the GAO referred to as 

wire-based competitors to incumbent cable operators in its most recently released study. 

Consumers are reaping the benefit of a $6 billion capital investment by BSPs in new, competitive networks. This new GAO report 

again documents that customers in communities served by 

broadband service providers, or BSPs, realized from 15-percent to 

41-percent lower cable television rates than consumers in communities where there is no wire-based competition. 

BSPs have shown that they not only provide consumers with demonstrable benefits on pricing and services, but they are proving 

the economic strength of their business model. This is attested to 

by Knology’s successful completion of its initial public offering in 

the month of December. This is the first IPO in the telecom media 

sector in over 3 years. 

These BSP systems are models for the type of competition envisioned by Congress in passing the Telecommunications Act of 1996. 

The key issue for policymakers today, however, is whether the legislation and its implementation as it currently exists supports the 

development of competition for cable services. 

14

Knology and the BSPA are primarily concerned with three issues 

that, if not addressed, could slow the deployment of competitive 

broadband networks in communities around the country. 

First, regulators must not mistake competition between cable 

and satellite with wire-based, head-to-head competition between incumbent cable operators and broadband service providers. In our 

experience, despite the fact that satellite has a 22-percent national 

share, a fully upgraded cable provider often maintains a market 

share of 90 percent or greater in local markets when it is only competing against a satellite provider. We do not believe that a market 

with 90 percent or more of subscribers concentrated with one provider should be deemed fully competitive. 

We want to thank you for your support to publicly document the 

state of competition in local markets through an additional GAO 

study. We further would hope that this market analysis becomes 

part of the FCC’s next annual assessment of competition. 

The second key issue to the success of the deployment of competitive broadband networks is ensuring continued access to the content necessary to compete. Specifically, the protections of the 1992 

Cable Act were limited to satellite-delivered programming. This 

has come to be known as the terrestrial loophole. 

Incumbent cable providers have evaded application of the program access protections in the Cable Act by migrating critical programming services to terrestrial-based distribution. As a result of 

this terrestrial loophole in the Cable Act, BSPs and other competitors are often denied access to vital regional sports and news programming controlled by incumbent operators that consumers demand. 

We fully endorse the need to close the terrestrial loophole. The 

FCC has repeatedly and conclusively acknowledged the critical nature of this issue. The Commission has concluded, however, that 

existing legislation does not provide it with the authority to promulgate rules prohibiting exclusive arrangements involving terrestrially-delivered programming. We agree. It is now time for Congress to step in and close the terrestrial loophole and address the 

expanding issues of fair access to content created by new technologies and distribution platforms. 

Third, the BSP industry is threatened by other types of anticompetitive actions by incumbent operators, such as targeted predatory pricing campaigns and other conduct designed to prevent entrants from getting a foot-hold in a particular market. 

Predatory pricing strategies are frequently accompanied by significantly higher prices in surrounding markets that do not yet 

have the benefit of facilities-based competition. Communities in the 

surrounding areas are, in effect, subsidizing the economic costs of 

the predatory pricing behavior of the incumbent cable provider. 

The FCC has recognized public harm inherent in predatory pricing, 

and has also disagreed that targeted discounts reflect merely 

healthy competition. 

In closing, broadband service providers have shown that in markets they serve consumers enjoy the benefits of lower prices for 

broadband services. In order to continue to expand the availability 

of competitive broadband services, broadband service providers 

need policymakers to recognize that the market for cable television 

15

is not fully competitive and care must be taken to prevent incumbents from erecting artificial entry barriers and engaging in predatory pricing behavior. Moreover, access to content is a threshold 

issue that needs to be addressed in the upcoming session. 

I again want to thank you for this opportunity to be with you 

this morning and look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman DEWINE. Mr. Johnson, thank you very much. 

Mr. Sachs. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT SACHS, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL CABLE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. SACHS. Mr. Chairman, Senator Kohl, Chairman Hatch and 

Senator Leahy, my name is Robert Sachs and I am President and 

CEO of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association. 

Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify. 

In assessing the competitive effect of wireline overbuilders on incumbent cable operators, it is appropriate at the outset to establish 

the context. There are more than 9,000 cable systems serving 

33,000 communities in the United States. And as the FCC has 

found, virtually all those systems face vigorous competition from 

two well-established national DBS providers. 

While fierce competition from DBS is ubiquitous, competition between wireline video providers is scarce and often precarious. Only 

about 400 communities nationwide have two competing franchised 

wireline providers. So the real story of effective competition to 

cable is about satellite competition. 

The GAO study released yesterday is based on a tiny percentage 

of those rare communities where there is a fourth video provider, 

in addition to the incumbent cable operator plus two national satellite providers. GAO examined six overbuild communities and 

compared them with six other communities that had a single cable 

operator and two satellite providers. 

The half dozen overbuilds GAO looked at exemplify many of the 

difficulties faced by overbuilders. According to GAO, and not surprisingly, all six are currently experiencing some level of financial 

problems. In particular, the overbuilders told GAO that, quote, 

‘‘their difficulty in obtaining access to necessary capital is threatening their ability to construct their networks and market their 

services,’’ end quote. 

The major reason for overbuilders’ problems was that they simply underestimated the extent to which the marketplace they chose 

to enter was already fiercely competitive. Simply put, too much 

capital was needed to attract too few potential customers. 

Overbuilders assumed that they could easily and profitably capture customers from incumbent providers with lower prices. But 

vigorous competition from DBS had already ensured that cable operators were providing the services that best met consumer demand at competitive prices. So overbuilders were caught in an economic bind. To entice customers away from cable and DBS, they 

had to charge lower prices than the incumbents, but those lower 

16

prices proved insufficient to cover costs and investment risk, and 

were economically unsustainable. 

To supplement GAO’s case study, which, as mentioned, examined 

six overbuild communities, NCTA retained Kagan World Media, a 

leading cable industry analyst, to review all of the 433 communities 

with identifiable overbuild systems. Kagan found that most of them 

do, in fact, display anomalies that explain why their prices and the 

prices of competing cable companies in those communities may, at 

least temporarily, be lower than prices in other communities. 

As analyzed more fully for NCTA by economist Steven Wildman, 

those anomalous characteristics confirm that overbuilders frequently enter the market with prices that are artificially low. Incumbent cable operators may have no choice but to reduce their 

prices to such levels. But as Professor Wildman concludes, these 

lower prices are either not economically sustainable by the overbuilders or are sustainable only because of artificial cost advantages. 

Indeed, 83, or nearly 20 percent of the overbuilds identified by 

Kagan, either have failed and are no longer operational or are not 

yet operating to any meaningful extent. Kagan also found that 

overbuilders might face significantly less extensive and costly franchise requirements than those imposed on incumbent operators. 

Kagan identified 96 such overbuild communities. 

Additionally, some overbuilders’ prices may be artificially low because the overbuilder is a not-for-profit entity with access to belowmarket capital. Kagan identified 31 municipally-owned overbuilds 

and 10 overbuilds owned by cooperatives. 

The bottom line is that overbuilds are the result of anomalous 

circumstances in nearly all cases. Whether or not overbuilders ever 

develop sustainable businesses, their artificially low prices in a tiny 

number of communities cannot and should not serve as a benchmark to evaluate competitive cable prices in 33,000 franchise cable 

communities. As GAO states, and I quote, ‘‘Our approach in this 

report—a case study analysis—is not generalizable to the universe 

of cable systems.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, 21 million DBS customers offer ample evidence 

that there is vigorous competition to cable. Cable customers and all 

consumers have been the beneficiaries of such competition. Effective competition does exist, just in a different form than some had 

envisioned, and overbuild competition tells only a very small part 

of a much larger competitive story. 

Thank you very much. I would appreciate it if my full remarks, 

along with Professor Wildman’s study and the Kagan analysis, 

would be included in the record. Thank you. 

Chairman DEWINE. They will certainly be made part of the 

record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sachs appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman DEWINE. Let me just note for the record that with regard to the six BSP markets chosen by the GAO to conduct their 

study, those six markets represent more than 20 percent of all the 

overbuilder markets throughout the country. In addition, all six 

overbuilders chosen have been in existence for more than 1 year. 

17

So I believe the study itself provides useful insights into the broader national market for cable services. 

We do have a vote. As you may have noticed, some of the other 

members have left. We are going to go vote. The first member who 

will come back, whether it is Senator Kohl or myself, will then resume the hearing. So you can take a break for a moment. Whether 

it is Senator Kohl or myself—if Senator Kohl gets back first, he 

will then resume the hearing and we will start with Ms. Wilson, 

with her testimony. Thank you. 

[The Subcommittee stood in recess from 11:38 a.m. to 11:53 a.m.] 

Senator KOHL [PRESIDING.] We will resume right now and I believe, Ms. Wilson, your testimony is being requested. 

STATEMENT OF CORALIE WILSON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS OFFICERS AND ADVISORS 

Ms. WILSON. Chairman Kohl and members of this Subcommittee, 

I am Coralie Wilson, president of the board of directors of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors. 

NATOA is a national organization that represents the cable and 

telecommunications interests of local governments across the 

United States. We are grateful for the opportunity to share our 

views and suggestions on the important issues before you today. 

The FCC has repeatedly found that head-to-head competition between terrestrial facilities-based providers of video programming 

results in significantly lower rates, more channels and better service for consumers. The General Accounting Office recently estimated that the rate differential is approximately 15 percent and 

more nationwide. 

Local governments therefore have a strong interest in promoting 

robust cable competition. In the late 1990’s, competition actually 

began to emerge in many communities across the United States. 

Often, however, incumbents sought to thwart local governments 

from awarding competitive franchises and we began to see incumbents engaging in a variety of anticompetitive practices. 

By 2002, the number of overbuilds declined dramatically. Although the economy was clearly a factor, the feedback that NATOA 

was receiving from its members suggested that the anticompetitive 

activities of incumbents were also contributing to this phenomenon. 

As a result, NATOA commissioned a study of the kinds of anticompetitive practices that were occurring and the steps that may 

be necessary to deal with this problem. 

In March 2003, the Baller Herbst Law Group submitted its extensive report, a copy of which is attached, with privileged attorney-client material removed. As you will see, it contained dozens 

of examples of anticompetitive behavior. The report cautioned that, 

given the nature of the data collection process, some of the information presented might not be completely accurate or current, and 

that it has not been subjected to detailed analysis. 

In presenting the report to you, we underscore its reservations 

and add a further qualification that the facts and cases cited are 

now nearly a year old. The report concluded, however, that the 

sheer volume of the information available indicated that antiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:33 Jun 30, 2004 Jkt 094367 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\94367.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
18

competitive practices by incumbent cable operators warranted further investigation. 

Recent FCC decisions and orders have reflected increasing concern about anticompetitive practices by the major incumbent cable 

operators, but the agency believes that it lacks statutory authority 

to do anything about this problem. To this end, we believe that two 

statutory changes—you have already mentioned some of them—

while not the entire solution, would be very helpful. 

First, several major incumbent cable operators are practicing targeted rate discrimination through what they call win-back programs. A common and critical feature is that the incumbent does 

not offer its own subscribers the same special deals that it offers 

to subscribers who have transferred or are threatening to transfer 

their business to an overbuilder. 

It was precisely for this reason that Congress enacted in 1992 a 

uniform rate requirement in Section 623(d) of the Communications 

Act. As Congress stated, the purpose of Section 623(d) was in part 

to prevent cable operators from dropping the rates in one portion 

of a franchise area to undercut a competitor temporarily. 

In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, believing that true competition in the cable industry was imminent, Congress subjected 

the uniform rate requirement to an important qualification. It 

would no longer be applicable if there was effective competition in 

the relevant market. Because meaningful competition has not yet 

evolved and this loophole is being used to further frustrate competition, it should be closed, and Congress should therefore delete 

the effective competition exception from the uniform rate provision 

of the Act. 

Second, Section 628 of the Communications Act prohibits 

vertically-integrated cable operators and programming vendors 

from entering into or renewing exclusive contracts under most circumstances. Unfortunately, the FCC has repeatedly found that 

these provisions apply only to video programming delivered by satellite and not to programming delivered terrestrially through fiber 

optic cable. As the FCC has itself recognized, this construction of 

the law adversely affects the ability of overbuilders to obtain programming, especially regional sports programming, and it gives incumbents the incentive to shift programming delivery from satellite 

to terrestrial. 

NATOA recommends that Congress eliminate the terrestrial delivery loophole. Furthermore, given the efforts of major cable incumbents to tie up content of all kinds in exclusive contracts, Congress may also want to extend the ban on exclusive contracts to include all content. 

We appreciate this opportunity to testify and would be glad to 

answer any questions or provide any further information that the 

Subcommittee or its staff may desire. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wilson appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator KOHL. Thank you, Ms. Wilson. 

Mr. Cleland. 

19

STATEMENT OF SCOTT CLELAND, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

PRECURSOR GROUP 

Mr. CLELAND. Thank you, Senator. I have the perspective of investors. We do research for institutional investors and so I have 

very much a market orientation type of point of view. I want to 

kind of make three points here briefly in my oral remarks. 

One is that this is an artificial market created by the Government that has actually created many competitive benefits for consumers. Second, I will make a point that the pay T.V. market that 

we see today is going to change dramatically going forward. It will 

be very different going forward. It will be more of a bundled service 

marketplace. And then, third, I will make some comments about 

overbuilders, where they are possible and where they are not. 

Actually, starting now back to my first point about this being an 

artificial market, this marketplace wouldn’t exist if the Government hadn’t licensed two DBS providers—they actually licensed 

four; only two ended up being viable—and creating the program access. So I am a little surprised that, as critical people are of the 

marketplace, 20 million Americans enjoy a choice. I am one of 

them. We are no longer captive to a cable provider. There is competition out there; there is vibrant competition. Twenty million 

Americans can attest to that. 

There has also been $86 billion invested into a high-speed network. Cable now has the best high-speed network by far in the 

country that is enabling millions of Americans to get high-speed. 

They were forced through competition to improve their customer 

service. You have much better customer service now than you ever 

had because when they didn’t take care of their customers, their 

customers left. I actually was one of them. 

They now have created a digital network, and that allows them 

to do video-on-demand. Those are new products and new services 

to keep people and to provide value to them. They are also going 

to be able to offer cable telephony, and that is my segue to my second point about how Voice over IP, VoIP, is a game-changer. 

I mean, the marketplace of the last 10 years has been pay TV, 

cable versus DBS. Well, what VoIP does is it allows the cable companies to be a direct competitor to the Bells, and so the marketplace has changed. It is not going to be pay TV to pay TV in the 

next 10 years. It is going to be service bundle to service bundle. 

You don’t need to look any farther than to watch what did the 

four Bells do very rapidly in 2003. They all made alliances with 

DBS in preparation for this. In 2004, we expect that VoIP will really ramp up. That is where the game is. So once again, competition 

and technology are vibrant here. The marketplace is changing, is 

responding, and I believe that many consumers are going to enjoy 

some price benefits if they avail themselves of the different competitive bundled choices going forward. 

Now, is this going to be a perfect competitive market? No. I 

mean, it costs a ton of money in order to be in this business, and 

so people shouldn’t think that there can be 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 competitors. 

It is not going to happen here. I know my clients and investors look 

at it and say, boy, three, maybe four. 

Now, to my third point, when they look to overbuilders, overbuilders for a wire is all driven by density. You can create an overVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:33 Jun 30, 2004 Jkt 094367 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\94367.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
20

builder that could work, but it would to be in the really dense 

apartments markets of New York or Chicago, where you are really 

selective, where you can really get a real good bang for your buck 

when you overbuild. 

But as other people have said, investors are not looking to invest 

in overbuilders. During the bubble, they got a lot of capital, and 

the reason they got a lot of capital is the same reason that CLECs, 

the telephone overbuilders, got a lot of money. At the end of the 

bubble, investors in the marketplace had more money than they 

knew what to do with. They were trying to put money to work 

wherever they could. So a lot of these overbuilder or CLEC models 

got funded during a period where money was near free. Money is 

cheap now, but it is not anywhere near free, and so there is very 

little interest from Wall Street or the investment community to invest a lot of money into overbuilding. 

With that, I see my yellow light. I will quickly summarize. Thank 

you, Senator. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cleland appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator KOHL. Thank you, Mr. Cleland. 

Mr. Cooper. 

STATEMENT OF MARK N. COOPER, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, 

CONSUMER FEDERATION OF AMERICA 

Mr. COOPER. Thank you, Senator Kohl. Several Senators vented 

on the Super Bowl as a cultural event and I have to take an opportunity as well. The moveon.com ad that CBS refused to run had 

higher production values and a more thoughtful message than all 

the commercial crap that they put on the air. This is censorship 

that is just as much a threat to the values of our country as the 

moral and patriotic issues that Senators Hatch and Leahy properly 

raised. I think this needs to be thought about as well because the 

choice of who gets to speak goes back to the media ownership and 

concentration issue we mentioned earlier. 

But having vented, let me move on to the more mundane question of price. In its first report on competition in the video market 

back in 1994, the FCC found that head-to-head competition between cable companies lowered prices by 16 percent. Last year, the 

GAO found that head-to-head competition between cable companies—that is, intramodal competition between two guys using the 

same technology—lowered prices by 15 percent. Several times in 

the decade, the same result was obtained. So over the course of a 

decade, while satellite was taking its 20 million customers, nothing 

diminished the ability of cable head-to-head competition to lower 

price. 

Satellite doesn’t lower price, for the reasons you have heard. It 

is not really head-to-head in lots of markets. It is an upscale niche, 

high-quality, high-content package that really doesn’t address what 

we call the lunch bucket cable crowd. The econometric analyses of 

the FCC and the GAO have repeatedly found that satellite does not 

discipline cable prices. The simply, common-sense observation over 

the decade is correct. 

So if only head-to-head competition matters, intramodal competition, then that is what we have to look to for the standard. And 

21

the excuses we heard about don’t count these, don’t count those, 

don’t count the other ones, do not diminish the fact that over the 

past 8 years, since the passage of the Telecom Act, if that 15 or 

20 percent is right, that sums to $30 billion of abuse of the American consumer by the cable operators. 

In addition, what the cable operators did not mention about why 

it is so difficult—the one answer they did not look for about how 

difficult it is for overbuilders is the anticompetitive tactics that 

they use against overbuilders—the withholding of programming, 

the exclusives, the playing around in the regulatory process of the 

approvals. They don’t sit idly by while the overbuilders try to get 

approvals. So they have created their own market power. 

The other key lever that the cable operators use against consumers is to bundle all of their programming into larger and larger 

packages. They give consumers virtually no choice. Actually, you 

get three choices—nothing, almost nothing and almost everything. 

The ‘‘almost everything’’—the expanded tier gets bigger and bigger. 

Lately, they have added the digital tier and, of course, they have 

moved popular programming into that tier, which causes people to 

pay more money to get the same set of shows. 

So what the cable operators never give the consumer is real 

choice, the option to choose which shows they would want to watch. 

They have got to buy that whole bundle in order to see any. Ironically, if you gave consumers a la carte choice, you would not only 

give them the ability to protect their pocketbooks, but you would 

solve Senator Hatch’s problem as well because they would be able 

to defend and protect their moral values. They would not choose to 

pay for, and therefore not have in their homes, the shows that offend their moral values. That sort of consumer sovereignty is critical to advancing the welfare of the public with this industry, both 

for its cultural values and for its pocketbook. 

Congress created this problem by deregulating cable before there 

was competition, in the hope there would be competition. Overbuilders have been stymied, telephone companies have not entered 

the market, and the track record on satellite is clear. It won’t give 

us the consumer protection we need. 

If you believe the cable operators’ message that overbuilding is 

not economically viable, then you better re-regulate fast because 

there is nothing to prevent the ongoing abuse of the public in the 

intermodal competition that they wave before you today. And it is 

going to get worse because the cable bundle is the dominant bundle, so their market power will become greater and greater. 

Thank you, Senator. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cooper appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator KOHL. Thank you very much, Mr. Cooper. 

My first question is for Mr. Sachs and Mr. Cooper. As noted now 

at several points in this hearing, year after year consumers have 

endured rising cable rates. Just two weeks ago, the FCC reported 

that cable rates had increased more than 53 percent over the last 

10 years and by more than 5 percent in the last year, very much 

in excess of the rate of inflation. 

We know that the cable industry blames much of the increase in 

prices on the cost of programming. GAO has noted that a substanVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:33 Jun 30, 2004 Jkt 094367 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\94367.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
22

tial portion of these programming costs are recouped by cable operators by increasing advertising revenues. 

So, Mr. Sachs, and then Mr. Cooper, don’t these constant price 

increases really demonstrate the absence of competition in the 

cable marketplace? 

Mr. SACHS. Respectfully, Senator Kohl, I disagree with that conclusion. As GAO noted in its October 2003 report, while cable programming represented the most significant increase in operating 

expense, there were significant increases as well in personnel, 

which is the second largest category. This is an industry that, as 

Mr. Willner pointed out, has invested $85 billion since passage of 

the 1996 Telecommunications Act in infrastructure to provide consumers with new services like high-speed broadband and high-definition television. But for the cable industry’s investment, we would 

not have the broadband deployment that we see today. 

To put cable prices in context, if you look at the CPI-U numbers 

from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which I believe was 55 percent 

from the period December 1993 through June 2003, education costs 

in this country went up 62 percent, college tuition and fees 60 percent, financial services 56 percent, cable television 55, admissions 

55. 

Let me focus on admissions, and I will submit an entire list for 

the record. Admissions includes ticket costs for movies, concerts, 

theater and sporting events. Cable in its purest form is an entertainment medium, and we have seen across entertainment alternatives that prices increase more rapidly than inflation because the 

inputs for creating programs increase—especially the inputs for 

sports salaries. 

Do we think that consumers are getting good value for their money? Absolutely. For $40 a month, the average cost of a cable 

bill for basic cable and expanded cable, it is impossible to take a 

family of four to a movie for a single evening in the course of a 

month, whereas cable is something that people can enjoy for the 

full month for $40 a month. Now, people elect to pay more for premium services, for new digital services, for high-speed Internet, 

and now for telephony in an increasing number of communities. 

But those are all options that consumers have. 

Finally, I believe we have a fundamental disagreement with Dr. 

Cooper about satellite competition. The fact that we have seen 21 

million American consumers elect to subscribe to a DBS competitor 

offers ample evidence that consumers do have choices and are making those choices. 

Thank you. 

Senator KOHL. Dr. Cooper. 

Mr. COOPER. Senator Kohl, if you look at the operating income 

of the cable companies, which is the cash available for profits and 

other kinds of things, it essentially doubled since the passage of the 

Telecom Act on a per-subscriber basis. 

If you look at the question of the costs—and we tried to do that 

in the paper we released on Monday—traditional video services—

that is, basic and expanded basic—were not driving the cost of the 

upgrade. The upgrade was built to deliver digital services, and lo 

and behold digital tiers and high-speed Internet have now become 

the number two and number three income streams of the cable opVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:33 Jun 30, 2004 Jkt 094367 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\94367.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
23

erators. The digital upgrade is paying for itself and that was the 

intent of developing that plan. 

So if you back out the reasonable projection of the operating costs 

of traditional video services, the income has been growing almost 

double over that period. And that takes into account programming 

costs, all the non-operating costs. So you have got a throw-off of 

cash here available for other uses. 

So with respect to satellite, the 21 million, you have to back out 

a significant number of satellite subscribers who don’t reside in 

places where they have cable, and that is where satellite started. 

But the simple fact of the matter is the GAO looked at it and they 

could barely find the merest price effect of satellite. So satellite basically appeals to a different market than does the basic lunch 

bucket cable opportunity that we have. 

The market share at the point of sale in every American market 

roughly today is about an 80-percent market share. That is a number that under traditional antitrust practice clearly rises to a level 

at which monopoly abuse can be alleged. If a company has less 

than 60, the courts won’t listen to it. Once you get to 65 or 70, you 

can allege monopoly abuse. 

Let me make one simple point. In the recent Microsoft case, 

Microsoft asserted the same thing, that you could find about 20 

percent of the people who didn’t use a Microsoft operating system. 

Therefore, they concluded since people have choices, ignore my 

market share. Of course, on a 7–0 vote of the D.C. Circuit, they rejected that defense against the fundamental question of whether 

market power exists. 

Thank you. 

Senator KOHL. Mr. Cleland. 

Mr. CLELAND. Yes. With all due respect to Mark, I have to kick 

in here because it is a little bit of a retrograde kind of regulatory 

view on cable. Ten years ago, in 1992, all of those statements were 

dead-on, but over the last 12 years the world has changed dramatically. 

Twenty-one million Americans have chosen DBS. The cable industry has gotten some sense into it and started treating its consumers well so they wouldn’t leave. It spent $86 billion or so to 

completely reinvest so that it could compete. It is now able to offer 

telephony, so it is competing against the local monopoly. It competes against Blockbuster with video-on-demand. 

So competition is so much more than price. There are the benefits of competition, which means choice, innovation, new products, 

new services. So I am a little bit stunned to think that all is horrible in this market. It is never going to be perfect. It is never 

going to be perfectly competitive because it is an artificial market, 

but the strides that have occurred because of originally the 1992 

Cable Act and then the 1996 Telecom Act and the program access 

rules have made dramatic gains for consumers. 

Mr. COOPER. Scott, let’s give consumers choice a la carte. That 

is real choice. That let’s me vote with my pocketbook both for moral 

values and price values. Give me choice. 

Mr. CLELAND. I don’t believe that every product in the country 

is always served— 

24

Mr. COOPER. But give me choice here. Instead of a $40 bundle, 

give me a series of choices, real choice so I can tell you what I really want to pay for. A study recently done—we mentioned it in our 

document—looked at ESPN, which is the most expensive one, and 

80 percent of the people said they would not pay the price that 

ESPN is charging. Give me real choice, not three choices. Give me 

real choice, and that will discipline the heck out of this industry. 

Senator KOHL. Ms. Wilson. 

Ms. WILSON. First, I have to say I am not speaking as an attorney, a financial analyst, or an economist. But I am speaking as a 

regulator on the front lines in a normal community. 

It seems to me that one of the first tests of effective competition, 

not competition alone, but effective competition is the impact on 

rates. So while I can acknowledge that DBS apparently does provide some competition, if the rates are not affected, if customer 

service isn’t markedly better, then I would say that there is not effective competition, and certainly not the kind of competition that 

is going to impact what is most on the minds of a lot of my residents these days, which is price. 

Every time the rate goes up, I get phone calls from a lot of people 

on fixed incomes, many of whom frankly do not have an option of 

direct broadcast satellite because of their financial circumstances, 

their living circumstances or their technical aptitude. So satellite 

is simply not an option for them. 

As has been pointed out, they get a lot of services on expanded 

basic that they really don’t want. They wouldn’t buy them if they 

weren’t forced to take them. So I think there are a number of 

issues here, but from my perspective and the perspective of the 

people who are cable customers, I will tell you that they do not believe that there is effective competition in the marketplace when 

they only have a choice between cable and DBS. 

Senator KOHL. One other question before I turn it back to Senator DeWine. This is for Mr. Sachs and Mr. Willner. For years, we 

have heard allegations from competitors of predatory conduct engaged in by cable incumbents against new competitors. These allegations include stories of cable incumbents, when faced with a new 

competitor entering their market, offering subscribers extraordinary discounts off their normal prices, prices which appear to be 

below the cost of acquiring the programming. These discounts demonstrably are not being offered in neighboring communities 

where the incumbent does not face competition. So they clearly are 

a competitive action intended to drive out cable competitors. 

Now, Mr. Willner and Mr. Sachs, are you denying these allegations? Are you saying they never occur or are you saying this is the 

normal course of business? I will ask you, Mr. Willner, first because you have some experience with this. 

Mr. WILLNER. I do, and I thank you for that. Senator, we do have 

two communities where we have wireline overbuilds. And as I said 

in my oral statement, we think about competition in every market 

that we serve. We do have win-back programs. We have win-back 

programs against wireline competitors, we have win-back programs 

against satellite competitors. 

When DISH Network comes out with an offer, we respond to that 

offer. When DirecTV comes out with an offer, we respond to that 

25

offer. When we come out with an offer, they respond. And it is the 

same thing with the wireline overbuilders; there is no difference 

between having two competitors rather than three. 

I can use the example in Columbus, Ohio, where only 70 percent 

of our system is, in fact, overbuilt by a wireline competitor. In the 

areas where we have comparable service, the rates are exactly the 

same, whether they have an overbuild competitor or not in that 

market. The reason for that is because, quite to the contrary of 

what Dr. Cooper said, the satellite industry has, in fact, changed 

dramatically over the last few years. They are, in fact, winning the 

lunch bucket crew over to their services with their America’s top 

50 and top 100, and now it is top 120, with deeply discounted rates. 

And I will tell you that those competitive forces are in place in 

every community that we serve, not just where there is an overbuild. 

Senator KOHL. Mr. Sachs. 

Mr. SACHS. Senator Kohl, if competitors have a grievance of this 

nature, they do have the ability to take that complaint to the FCC, 

where it can be adjudicated. I am aware that just recently there 

was a case presented to the Commission which, after investigating 

all the facts, found that the win-back program was not inappropriate and was not in violation of the uniform pricing rules. 

Cable operators everyday are competing against satellite providers who are offering very deep discounts, 3 months free service, 

three rooms installed for free, and introductory rates that may be 

one-half or a third of the normal rate for an extended period of 

time. That is not being offered to all existing customers. It is being 

offered in an effort to win customers from the cable operators. 

So without the benefit of the specific allegations and the specific 

facts in a case, it is really difficult to respond generally. But what 

I would say is that it is a fiercely competitive environment out 

there. I am unaware of cases where cable pricing practices have 

been found to be predatory. 

Ms. Wilson referred to a study that they are submitting today. 

We will obviously take a look at that study, but as I understand 

it, it consists of allegations and facts that were current as of a year 

ago. So it is difficult to respond more specifically without specific 

case examples. 

Senator KOHL. Mr. Johnson, what has been your experience? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Quite the contrary to what these gentlemen would 

say. We actually see markets—and we are the traditional overbuilder—where promotions are offered at costs that are less than 

the cost of programming that extend for in excess of a 12-month 

period. That is not a short-term promotion and it is significant for 

us as entrants into the marketplace, the degree of difficulty competing with price points that are that low. As a matter of fact, we 

have evidence in certain of our markets where people can buy expanded basic cable service for as long as $5 a month—very, very, 

very low. 

I think if you look at the record, the statistics speak for themselves. The pricing advantage is in markets where there are overbuilders. I mean, that is where the discount actually occurs. 

One of the statements was made earlier in the testimony about 

overbuilders coming in and pricing their product at a lower price, 

26

an arbitrarily lower price that was not a sustainable price. In fact, 

the reason that many of the overbuilders or broadband service providers have been able to price at that level is because they delivered earlier in the marketplace a full bundle of all three service offerings—telephone, video services and high-speed Internet services. 

It stands to reason that when you are generating three revenue 

streams off a single pipe into a residence, you can discount all 

three services because it is germane. You have got the same infrastructure in place. You have got one technician to take care of all 

three products. So that is where the big benefit of another wireline 

competitor evolves. 

Ms. WILSON. Senator Kohl, we have given to the Subcommittee 

staff an example of what we believe to be predatory pricing. It certainly looks like predatory pricing to us. It is an offer that 

MediaCom made to subscribers in Laurens, Iowa—Free Family, 

which is their concept for expanded basic or digital cable, for 2 

months, and half price for the next 10 months and free installation. 

The normal price for this service, family cable, is $23.25 per 

month. Now, if you do the math, as we have done, the effective 

price of this promotion takes the monthly rate down to $9.69 per 

month for that year. That is certainly less than what we believe 

the company is paying for programming. We estimate that their 

programming costs alone for these particular channels are a little 

over $14 per month. So that is not taking into consideration any 

of their ongoing operating costs, debt service, any of that kind of 

thing. 

Again, I know that there are legal ways of looking at these kinds 

of things, but the fact of the matter is this was an offer that was 

only offered in Laurens, Iowa. It was not offered in surrounding 

communities. We also gave to the staff a transcript of a city council 

meeting with a representative from MediaCom when they asked 

why they were not getting the $9.69 rate or the special offer. 

They suggested—and I think it may be true—that if you have got 

a larger company, a nationwide company with a lot of systems, 

they can afford to do these kinds of things that a smaller overbuilder will not be able to do. They can afford to offer these kinds 

of low rates for a year at a time and a competitive broadband or 

wireline overbuilder is not going to be able to sustain that. 

Senator KOHL. Dr. Cooper. 

Mr. COOPER. Senator Kohl, let me offer another example of predatory pricing used in an anticompetitive practice against satellite. 

If you call Comcast today and say I want cable modem service only, 

they will say you have to pay them $60 a month. If you say you 

will also take basic cable with the bundle, the price goes down to 

$45. In other words, there is a negative price on basic service of 

$15. Now, I understand that economists will argue about what the 

floor is under a predatory price, but a minus 15 is pretty tough to 

justify. 

When they rolled that price difference out, people started calling 

and they said, this is nuts, I have satellite, I don’t want basic cable 

and they are just ripping me off; they are trying to force me to take 

basic cable so that I can get that $15 discount off of my cable 

modem service. It was intended as a satellite killer. We have asked 

the Federal Trade Commission to look into it. 

27

When Mr. Sachs says, well, we haven’t been found guilty in a 

court, that may be one of the reason why the overbuilders can’t get 

going because you have got to do a 10-year antitrust action before 

the markets will start to put up the money and believe you have 

a fair competitive landscape. 

Senator KOHL. Mr. Cleland. 

Mr. CLELAND. It seems like people are trying to have it both 

ways. In this instance, consumers are getting a lower price. Now, 

I do believe you can have predatory pricing for some of these overbuilders in one city. There may be a problem there with predatory 

practices because you are maybe using pricing in order to try and 

put that company out of business. 

But don’t cry for DirecTV or DISH about predatory DBS pricing. 

They are 10 million subscribers. They can hold their own. They are 

doing just fine in the stock market. And if anybody wants to offer 

me one of those so-called predatory prices to go after DirecTV, I 

would be delighted to get it. That is the price competition and the 

price decrease that you want, so I am kind of lost here. 

Mr. COOPER. You may actually suffer from the short-term problem that Wall Street has inflicted us all with because predatory 

pricing is, in fact, a long-term strategy. 

Ms. WILSON. If I may, I might also add that Mr. Sachs referred 

to an FCC ruling recently on a case before it. The fact is that the 

FCC did not find that the win-back pricing was okay under the 

uniform pricing rule. They didn’t rule on the underlying conduct. 

They said they couldn’t deal with those issues. 

Again, that is why we are recommending that there be a statutory change that allows the FCC to, in fact, deal with predatory 

pricing. The reality is that, again, if a broadband provider cannot 

sustain or cannot survive predatory pricing for a year at a time, 

they are not going to be able to afford to go to court and bring an 

antitrust action against a cable company and bear that financial 

burden. It takes too much time and it takes too much money. 

Senator KOHL. One more comment and then we will turn it back 

to Senator DeWine. 

Mr. Johnson, do you want to say something? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Sure. Mr. Cleland just made a comment that there 

may in a single market be the opportunity for predatory pricing. 

I think that is what we are finding out in the competitive marketplace. I just pulled some pricing structures and I am going to use 

Montgomery, Alabama, as one of our marketplaces that we operate 

where there is a competitive overbuilder. At the end of last year, we priced $27.95 for our bundled product. 

That was the equivalent price point for cable. If I look at surrounding markets, Dothan, Alabama, $32.95: Selma, Alabama, $36; 

Birmingham, $39.54, and up. What that is saying is in the market 

where there is competition, there is viable price benefit to the subscriber, but it doesn’t translate to those other markets that are, in 

fact, subsidizing the opportunity to deliver discounted pricing by 

the incumbent in those markets. 

Senator KOHL. Mr. Willner, you wanted to say something. 

Mr. WILLNER. Well, I would like to just point out that we have 

1.4 million subscribers. Each of the DBS companies has somewhere 

close to 10 or 11 million. They are larger than every cable comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:33 Jun 30, 2004 Jkt 094367 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\94367.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
28

pany, except for two. You know, when we go in and open up newspapers with full-page ads about free installation, free service for 3 

months, and service for three TVs in the house, we know that they 

are pricing below their cost and we have to respond to that. 

Now, I don’t know if that is really predatory pricing or not, but 

a lot of times, for a lot of cable companies, they are competing 

against much bigger satellite companies. This whole debate as to 

whether or not there is predatory pricing or true competition 

doesn’t make a lot of sense to me in the everyday marketplace, 

where we are responding to these types of marketing tactics all the 

time. 

Senator KOHL. I thank you, and I will turn it back to Mr. 

DeWine with the expression of appreciation that no one has commented on the cost of sports programming having gone up so much. 

Mr. WILLNER. Would you like me to? 

Senator KOHL. You are very kind. 

Chairman DEWINE. I was going to ask about that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I think we can be unified in our position there. 

Chairman DEWINE. Mr. Sachs, you haven’t said anything about 

this. Do you want to respond to any of this? 

Mr. SACHS. Sure, I would be happy to. On the subject of overbuilds, my home is in Boston, which is one of the communities in 

the paired studies used by GAO, and I think it is a good one to use 

as an example here. This is a market which RCN entered in 1997. 

RCN is the largest alternative broadband provider, the largest 

overbuilder. Today, they have approximately 450,000 customers. 

They entered that market in 1997 with an expanded basic package 

which was below $20. The price today is about twice that. 

In the GAO study, there was one very large overbuild that was 

noted. I believe that was probably Boston, where the prices with 

a comparative city were actually higher in the city with the overbuild than the city without the overbuild. 

The point I want to make here is that cable franchises are 

awarded for 15 years with successive renewal periods of another 10 

years, typically. You have to take a long-term view of prices to see 

whether they are sustainable. 

RCN came into Boston with a lot of bravado six or 7 years ago. 

Three years ago, their stock was trading at $72 a share. At the end 

of December, it closed at $0.68 a share. The point of our testimony 

is that, yes, you can find examples where prices are lower, where 

there is overbuild competition. But you really have to look over a 

long continuum of time and ask yourselves ‘‘is this sustainable 

competition?’’ In some places it may be, but generally it has not 

been. 

But that does not diminish the fact that cable customers can 

choose from two satellite providers. In 1992, Congress said that if 

there is an alternative taken by more than 15 percent of the people 

in a community, there is deemed to be effective competition. Today, 

in 40 States, satellite competition exceeds 15 percent. 

Chairman DEWINE. Let me just say that Ms. Wilson mentioned 

in her testimony that she was submitting a report which was drafted by outside consultants which described alleged anticompetitive 

behavior by incumbent cable companies. She also noted that the information had not yet been subjected to a detailed analysis, nor 

29

had those mentioned in the report had a chance to respond to the 

allegations. 

Accordingly, the Subcommittee is going to accept that report with 

those reservations noted for the record. In addition, the hearing 

record will remain open long enough for any interested parties to 

examine the report and respond. We will enter those responses in 

the record. So if anyone would like to do that, they will certainly 

have the opportunity to do that. 

Mr. Johnson, let me direct this question to you, and also to Ms. 

Wilson. According to the cable industry, you and your fellow overbuilders are right on the verge of going out of business. Let me ask 

you, what is your financial state and is the overbuilder business 

model even a viable one today? If it is viable, why are you having 

so much trouble convincing the capital markets? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, actually—and I appreciate that question—

from an economic viability standpoint, we feel very comfortable 

with where we are. Knology completed a successful initial public offering in December of 2003. At the current time, our stock is trading at a level higher than the offering price. It is rated by at least 

three analysts that I am aware of right now as a ‘‘buy.’’ 

It is worth noting also that we accomplished the first media/

telecom IPO in approximately 3 1/2 years. The company has also 

recently been presented with the opportunity to refinance its existing debt at very much more attractive rates than we have right 

now, if we choose to do so. 

We operated in a positive free cash flow position in the third and 

fourth quarters of last year. What that means is fundamentally we 

have reached a stage of maturity—and everybody has talked about 

the heavy front-end capital investment, but we have reached a 

state of maturity where more cash is coming in than cash is going 

out, a very, very healthy position to be in. 

I am also aware of other BSPs that have continued to raise capital. As a matter of fact, from Knology’s standpoint, over these 3 

years of very difficult economic times, we were able to raise over 

$300 million in equity to continue to get our business to the point 

where we are right now. 

I am also aware that other BSPs have continued to raise capital 

and to expand their business. At least one other BSP that I have 

got public information on announced the successful completion of a 

private equity funding round in the past 90 days. And just as 

Knology announced a major acquisition, this firm also announced 

a major acquisition. 

So when I hear some of the comments about economic viability, 

I think it is a little bit like whistling past the graveyard. We have 

been hearing this refrain. I have been around Knology 5 years. I 

heard that the day I arrived there. I think the incumbents have 

said that. They have tried to convince the financial markets, and 

they have also now tried to convince you. But quite frankly, we find 

that the companies that are well-managed companies are able to 

get capital. 

Chairman DEWINE. Ms. Wilson. 

Ms. WILSON. Well, I am not a broadband service provider, so I 

can’t speak to their business model or their financial situation. But 

I do know that in 1992, or after 1992, with the program access 

30

rules in place, there was a substantial amount of overbuilder activity, and by the end of that decade we were really starting to see 

some serious efforts. 

Where I live in Minnesota now, we saw two companies, Wide 

Open West and Everest, approaching us. And we had some concerns whether the market could support three wireline providers, 

as well as satellite, but we felt that it was not our responsibility 

to choose winners and losers. So, you know, come on in and do your 

best. 

But in 1996, when that terrestrial loophole and the access to programming—I mean, early on we did see a lot of complaints that the 

overbuilders simply could not get access to programming. That 

stopped when Congress said you can’t do that anymore. The terrestrial loophole, especially for regional sports programming, is a problem, and I think certainly the predatory pricing. 

I think we have to be clear when we are talking about predatory 

pricing. We are not talking about temporarily lowering the price or 

special offers here and there. We are talking about a long-term concerted effort to price the product below cost for an extended period 

of time. 

Chairman DEWINE. Very quickly, Mr. Sachs. 

Mr. SACHS. Yes. Ms. Wilson referred to the so-called terrestrial 

loophole. 

Chairman DEWINE. Well, that was my next question. I want to 

get into that. You can jump right in, but I also want to ask Mr. 

Johnson about that. 

Mr. SACHS. If I could make one other brief comment? 

Chairman DEWINE. Sure. 

Mr. SACHS. I congratulate Mr. Johnson on his recent successful 

public offering. But one fact he omitted was that his company in 

2002 filed for bankruptcy and emerged from bankruptcy only after 

having shed $250 million in debt and rearranged its balance sheet. 

So I think if you are going to ask ‘‘is this economically viable?’’ 

The answer is yes, if you are able to rearrange your financing 

through bankruptcy, it may be. And if you are able to use the proceeds from a public offering to purchase assets of another overbuilder for a fraction of their original cost, the economics of the 

business look a lot better. 

Ms. WILSON. Senator DeWine, may I just make a brief comment? 

Chairman DEWINE. Briefly, Ms. Wilson, and then briefly, Mr. 

Johnson. 

Ms. WILSON. I would say that if, in fact, we are not going to get 

effective competition—and by effective competition I mean competition that is going to affect rates—then the only option that we have 

is to go to a more regulatory environment in order to force that 

kind of rate behavior, that discipline on the rates. 

I don’t think any of us wants to do that. But, again, if you are 

going to get not just competition, but effective competition, you either have to get more entrants into the marketplace to bring that 

discipline to all of the participants or you have to take a regulatory 

approach. 

Chairman DEWINE. Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator DeWine, I would like to make two comments. First, I cannot not address the bankruptcy question that 

31

Mr. Sachs talked about, and then I will comment on your terrestrial question to me. 

First, relevant to the bankruptcy— 

Chairman DEWINE. Let me ask it first, though, will you? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Excuse me? 

Chairman DEWINE. Let me ask the question first. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay, I am sorry. Can I speak to the bankruptcy 

first? 

Chairman DEWINE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. First, we saw an opportunity at the end of 2001 

to restructure our debt on very, very favorable terms. Our business 

model was in great shape. We actually had no debt payments due 

for at least 18 months. We had the foresight, recognizing that the 

bond markets were very, very soft at that time, to be able to start 

buying our bonds back. 

We went to our bond-holders and found 93 percent of our bondholders who said this is a great time for you guys to do this; we 

support you entirely. We could not find 7 percent of those bondholders, and rather than end up with a capital structure that had 

two diverse sets of bond-holders with two different sets of covenants and restrictions, we asked our lawyers was there a way to 

get a consolidated capital structure. 

They suggested this pre-packaged bankruptcy that had the full 

support of 93 percent of our bond-holders that we could locate. We 

completed this administrative transaction. There were no service 

interruptions, no employee layoffs or lost customers, and all vendors continued to be paid in full. So it was not an escape from any 

debt obligations. 

As a matter of fact, the Wharton Business School actually developed a business case and taught it this spring, highlighting 

Knology’s restructuring as a premier example of the use of bankruptcy as an administrative tool to affect and improve capital 

structure. 

Chairman DEWINE. We appreciate that explanation, Mr. Johnson. 

Let me turn to the terrestrial loophole. Senator Kohl and I have 

stated we plan to draw up legislation addressing this loophole. In 

your experience, how often has the loophole been utilized to prevent an overbuilder from obtaining content, and how much of a factor is it in negotiations between the owners of content and other 

distributors? 

Mr. JOHNSON. It is used in a number of the markets that the 

broadband service providers serve. As a matter of fact, in our extended comments that we filed for this session we have a listing 

of a number of cases in terms of regional sports programming and 

regional news programming. 

In the market that we just recently acquired, in Clearwater and 

St. Petersburg, Florida, there is a local news programming station 

down there that is owned by the incumbent that is considered to 

be very, very viable. We would like to have access to that, which 

we don’t have at this particular point in time. So we see it a good 

bit in the marketplace. 

Chairman DEWINE. Very quickly, Mr. Willner. 

32

Mr. WILLNER. I would just like to talk about the test of unintended consequences. That kind of a news channel, which is a 

money-losing proposition for an incumbent to create—and they are 

probably still not making any money—would never have been created in the first place if they had to, under a law or a regulation, 

sell it to their competitor. It is one of the tools that people use to 

compete in the marketplace. 

Chairman DEWINE. Anybody else? Mr. Sachs. 

Mr. SACHS. If I could add a word on that subject, when Congress 

created the program access rules in 1992, it expressly provided that 

if programming were being distributed terrestrially, it would not be 

covered by those rules. And as Mr. Willner just mentioned, that 

was to provide an incentive for companies to create new local and 

regional programming. 

Since that time, we have seen in more than 30 markets cable operators invest to create 24-hour news channels like New York One 

or New England Cable News, and the public has benefitted from 

this. Virtually every nationally distributed network is available to 

cable overbuilders and satellite. Local programming is a small area 

where a company is able to differentiate its product from a competitor and create a service that is of benefit to that community. So, 

again, I agree with Mr. Willner about the law of unintended consequences. 

Chairman DEWINE. Mr. Cleland, as you have testified, phone 

companies are now linking up with satellite providers to provide 

bundled services, specifically SBC with EchoStar, Qwest Communications with both EchoStar and DirecTV, Bell South with 

DirecTV, Verizon with DirecTV. Is this enough competition for the 

consumer, and will anyone else be able to provide bundled services 

or are consumers going to be faced with a duopoly? 

Mr. CLELAND. Well, it is going to be more of two big providers 

offering the bundle. I know in my personal case I was upset with 

my cable company and I walked. I was one of the early DBS people. But right now, I couldn’t get DSL from Verizon and so I got 

a cable modem and now I am entertaining going back to cable for 

the bundle savings that you get. So there is a benefit. 

What it will create is a lot of different types of bundles and different prices. People have mentioned that DBS is competing at the 

low end. I imagine that the Bells and DBS will be much more aggressive at the low end, will offer much more aggressive pricing 

there. And I envision the cable companies are going to try and hold 

on to their high-value-add customers. 

So I think that one of the aspects of bundled competition is probably going to result in a bifurcation of the market where they start 

to choose sides in where they are going to go. The reason for that 

is that the cable companies have a vastly superior pipe and offering. So they are going to be able to offer the high-value-added services that the high end wants, and they are going to be able to command the price for it. DBS and the Bells, in order to get the scale 

that they need and have the customers they need, are going to 

have to compete more on price. 

Chairman DEWINE. Mr. Cooper, go ahead. 

Mr. COOPER. Senator DeWine, Scott has just described a duopoly 

between two badly matched competitors. Two is not enough, four 

33

is not enough for real competition. But he has described the problem that satellite faces. They couldn’t deliver a high-speed Internet 

and so they have signed deals with the cable operators, so it is not 

an integrated plan. So the economies of scope that the BSP gets 

they don’t get. They are at a disadvantage. DSL is an inferior service. Even at the discounted rates, on a megabit basis it costs two 

to three times as much as cable services. 

So what we have here, then, is a future which looks like competition between two badly matched, partial competitors, one a highend product, one a low-end product. And that is not going to get 

us effective competition that protects the consumer. 

Mr. CLELAND. Could I follow up on that? 

Chairman DEWINE. Sure, Mr. Cleland. 

Mr. CLELAND. Many people talk about effective competition, 

which is a euphemism for more competition than they have now so 

that I have lower prices. Generally, to go in that direction, you are 

going to have to get more intrusive on a regulatory basis. 

We see in the marketplace the Bells are hyper-regulated now. 

We regulate them more than we regulate toxic waste in this country, and their stock values and their business prospects reflect that. 

Cable has a lighter regulatory hand, and they then have the opportunity. Investors are willing to put their money at risk to invest in 

new products, invest in new technologies, invest in new plant, so 

that consumers can get the benefit of new services. So it isn’t an 

either/or or a black-or-white. 

By no means am I saying there is going to be perfect competition 

for everybody. But from my standpoint, which is admittedly an investor and market standpoint, you want to have a light touch in 

the Government. If you have a heavy hand, you are going to 

squash more than you would otherwise. 

Chairman DEWINE. I want to thank you all very much. We have 

had a very vigorous conversation today. I think it has been very 

helpful. We had good opening statements, but I think, as usual, we 

get most of our information from exchanges from you all back and 

forth between you. And none of you are very shy or retiring, so that 

was very helpful. 

This Subcommittee will continue to exercise oversight over this 

very interesting industry and we will continue to hold hearings in 

this area. So I thank you all very much. 

[Whereupon, at 12:51 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material is being retained in the Committee’s files.] 

[Submissions for the record follow.]

34


94367.001
35


94367.002
36


94367.003
37


94367.004
38


94367.005
39


94367.006
40


94367.007
41


94367.008
42


94367.009
43


94367.010
44


94367.011
45


94367.012
46


94367.013
47


94367.014
48


94367.015
49


94367.016
50


94367.017
51


94367.018
52


94367.019
53


94367.020
54


94367.021
55


94367.022
56


94367.023
57


94367.024
58


94367.025
59


94367.026
60


94367.027
61


94367.028
62


94367.029
63


94367.030
64


94367.031
65


94367.032
66


94367.033
67


94367.034
68


94367.035
69


94367.036
70


94367.037
71


94367.038
72


94367.039
73


94367.040
74


94367.041
75


94367.042
76


94367.043
77


94367.044
78


94367.045
79


94367.046
80


94367.047
81


94367.048
82


94367.049
83


94367.050
84


94367.051
85


94367.052
86


94367.053
87


94367.054
88


94367.055
89


94367.056
90


94367.057
91


94367.058
92


94367.059
93


94367.060
94


94367.061
95


94367.062
96


94367.063
97


94367.064
98


94367.065
99


94367.066
100


94367.067
101


94367.068
102


94367.069
103


94367.070
104


94367.071
105


94367.072
106


94367.073
107


94367.074
108


94367.075
109


94367.076
110


94367.077
111


94367.078
112


94367.079
113


94367.080
114


94367.081
115


94367.082
116


94367.083
117


94367.084
118


94367.085
119


94367.086
120


94367.087
121


94367.088
122


94367.089
123


94367.090
124


94367.091
125


94367.092
126


94367.093
127


94367.094
128


94367.095
129


94367.096
130


94367.097
131


94367.098
132


94367.099
133


94367.100
134


94367.101
135


94367.102
136


94367.103
137


94367.104
138


94367.105
139


94367.106
140


94367.107
141


94367.108
142


94367.109
143


94367.110
144


94367.111
145


94367.112
146


94367.113
147


94367.114
148


94367.115
149


94367.116
150


94367.117
151

Æ


94367.118