Comcast Model Franchise Agreement: Fill & Download for Free

I’m not sure why they aren’t more scrutinized for anti-trust behaviors in general, and specific to Internet access services. About 80% of US households have one “broadband” option.Traditionally cable TV was the alternative to satellite TV, or OTA (over the air) broadcasts. Data was not in the picture then. The franchise agreements were formed around this time. With data becoming (maybe not legally) a “utility” service since, one would think things should change now. But they really haven’t. What I would like to see happen is competition, but that is really, really expensive. Google Fiber is one of the only “over-builders” in this area. There are some municipal networks now too, small in scale.What is interesting about competition is, Comcast and a collective of cable and telco companies form groups/organizations that lobby and fight off this competition (“overbuilders”). They try to pass state laws that prohibit municipal investments in a fiber network, or even Google Fiber from expanding, etc. And, for whatever reason, this is not considered anti-trust (eg, “cartel”) behavior.It’s not that it (the cable industry) started out a cartel, but with data services they have effectively become that in my eyes (and Netflix, unofficially Google and others). There were hundreds of cable networks, now there are 4 or 5 large ones, who bought up the rest. And they don't compete with each other. This is the definition of cartel per the Sherman Act. It's just not clear IF or what collusion is involved between them as far as setting prices, packages or terms (caps). But like I said, they do form "anti-competition" groups.Probably factoring in their lobbying efforts, they also are able to set (their own) data caps, and speed and general performance standards. No regulatory board is doing that. Other than some very low (basic) customer service requirements (franchise agreement contracts), they are not really regulated when it comes to data offerings. The FCC is trying (Title II), but of course the cartel is fighting that in the courts. And congress is watching the show, if they even are aware there is a show.The latest franchise agreements no longer provide exclusivity, but that was not the case 5 and 10 years ago. Hence, Comcast claims anyone can compete… come and build. They then complain about other things, how they pick the service areas, how the municipalities are involved, etc. Basically, they want competition to compete is ways that cannot work, cannot scale. Using old, 1980’s telco models. The Internet has changed things, except for the grandfathered companies.Another similar/related concept is how the FCC manages RF spectrum, and more specifically how the broadcast TV providers were granted rights back in, I think the 30's and 40’s, to broadcast television. Keep in mind, the airwaves are public domain/property - a public resource. At the time, there was little infrastructure and ability for the government to propagate information (news, Presidential addresses, PSA, etc). ABC, NBC, CBS and like were given an awesome resource, for peanuts. They now reap huge profits off of these resources. Times have changed, it’s time for us to use that RF spectrum in more efficient and better ways. It belongs to the people. The people can get better use, at the expense of loss of some free entertainment. And forcing the companies in question to change, evolve.

In my opinion, there are a number of factors involved. Please note that I am an engineer, I do not have a MBA.Disclosure: I worked for Comcast (acquired through mergers, 1998-2010) for a little over 11 years. I then worked for Google Fiber for 2.5 years. They were two very different cultures and philosophies; one I liked and one I didn't. My length of tenure does not reflect that fact though. Comcast was a very closed door type company; need to know basis only with very limited access to most of their negotiated terms and vendor relationships. I also felt they didn't communicate their goals and objectives well, and many of us were clearly performing tasks for a larger idea than we were aware or could see at the time (one of many examples, Sandvine - their spoofing of TCP resets for traffic management). But I should say I am grateful to Comcast for the professional opportunities they provided me. Comcast also employs some great people and minds.That said, Comcast says they are changing, and I see some signs of it. While I was there, they were very much a traditional cable company culture. They were adjusting to the Internet over that period - with very traditional (dated) telecommunications methods and processes. And in my opinion, I saw a leadership culture of, essentially, 'how can we exploit' the Internet to better align with our interests. There is now an acceptance that the Internet, or simply data networks, will be their entire infrastructure in the near future - so they are starting to embrace what the Internet can do.From where I sit, they have a minimal regard for the overall health and well-being of the Internet. Comcast is very happy and willing (as well as able) to change the things (diversity, collaboration, innovation) that helped the Internet become what it is today. In many ways, they want to be what AOL was in the 90's. To date, the government has been pretty hands off -- I do not mean to suggest that as being good or bad. What is unfortunate, in my opinion, is the lack of laws which take into account the capabilities of the Internet (were specially drafted to address Internet issues). Rather, there are a lot of pre 1995 telecommunications laws that are trying to be applied to the Internet. I believe our elected officials do not understand the Internet well and/or are otherwise not motivated/interested in addressing some issues. As such, all of the major telecommunications companies (eg, AT&T, Verizon and Comcast/TWC) are capitalizing on that, and consumers are losing.Addressing the question:1) Franchise AgreementsThey still exist today, but have generally been diluted over the years. These franchise agreements have or had restrictions regarding price increases and overall required certain levels of service/support/performance, else penalties. Price increases also often had scrutiny of local utility commissions, and sometimes required approval from local franchise boards.Cable TV traditionally had a fair amount of regulation, and the early and initial construction and infrastructure was often subsidized and held by some public interest. Cable companies were rooted in a regulated monopoly model, branching from the same culture of the original "Ma Bell," AT&T (before the 1984 breakup). These franchise agreements exist because of the "regulated monopoly" and generally apply to all services over the cable infrastructure.2) PoliticsComcast is very political (@Summary | OpenSecrets and @Follow the money to Congress on Comcast-Time-Warner deal ) ... as such, they don't want to upset too many people. They are methodically influencing policy and pushing their interests, but they need to maintain a perception and image (Comcast/TWC merger is a good example).3) CMCSAComcast is a public company... back to point 2, if their SEC filings showed absurd profits, that would get a lot of people's attention. The company will lose value if they upset the system enough to prompt regulations (government intervention), or maybe even worse -- invite competition (see point 6).4) Subscriber NumbersWhile the majority of the US population have two choices for a "broadband" provider (FCC defines "broadband" as 4Mbps down / 1Mbps up -- AT&T and Verizon say 10Mbps is too fast for “broadband,” 4Mbps is enough), , most only have one choice for anything 10Mbps or greater. Despite the lack of choice, people still have tight budgets and Comcast has clearly observed lower subscription rates (reference my inside experience, I'm sure there are other references out there too) as the price is higher. I guess not everyone is a geek like me, and they can live without a good performance Internet service.As I see it, they play billing games. That is, they offer heavily discounted rate on a promotional basis. Those subscribers that are ok with the price afterwards (it usually doubles, or more) keep paying that amount. Those that are ok with either not having a wired broadband service or maybe have a DSL option at $25 a month, or just like to call Comcast, call to cancel -- and are generally retained through any manner of methods). Or, sometimes Comcast may try to call your bluff, and you don't actually cancel... they are well aware of all of this.Either way, investors look at subscriber numbers and gains or losses - so they need to maintain that image (perception).5) Other Sources of Revenue, the Big PictureThe not so obvious... Comcast is making good money (and this is an area of growing revenue and great potential) in just the fact that it has a lot of "eyeballs." That is, they don't necessarily need to profit largely on the product itself, because the more subscribers they have, the more leverage they have when negotiating with anyone that wants access to their subscribers (advertising in general). @In Letter to Sen. Franken, Netflix Says Competition & Consumers Will Suffer if Comcast/Time Warner Cable Deal is ApprovedThis includes competitors, such as NetFlix @Deal with the devil: why Netflix broke its own rules on net neutrality. Yes, NetFlix is a competitor -- not in providing residential broadband, rather in what is still Comcast's core business - video services (delivery of entertainment content). Comcast was able to "extort" (I'm taking that a little out of context, yes... Netflix Responds to Comcast: It's 'Extortion' to Demand Payment for Delivering Video) NetFlix in this way.the post: Internet Tolls And The Case For Strong Net NeutralityAfter Netflix pays Comcast, speeds improve 65%Comcast also owns or has a large stake in a lot of the content they delivery (NBC Universal). The more customers Comcast can win now, the better they will be as/when/if competitors like Google Fiber enter the market. It's expensive to get a new customer, to get someone to switch. Likewise, many people are content with something that just works -- they may have simple needs / are not heavy users. Also, many people bundle - and being video is still their largest product (again, they get ad revenue there, and sports -- Comcast Sportsnet)... so just winning a customer is lucritive.6) CompetitionThere is a little (competition). Referring back to points 2 and 3 a bit, even if you don't have a choice at your residence, if Verizon FIOS offers a comparable product (even across the country) for $X, you cannot be too far from that without political/regulatory blowback. You may not have choice, but the industry as a whole helps to regulate the price. And... per anti-trust (Sherman Act) laws, these companies cannot legally get together to "fix prices."7) Google FiberMy opinion, Comcast is scared (Kansas Anti-Competition Bill Authored by Cable Lobbyists), and watching closely. If (when) they prove out the business model of FTTH at $70/month for 1000Mbps up/down, no caps, good partnership (mutually beneficial) with NetFlix, etc... if Comcast is 'too far' away in price and performance from Google Fiber - that will open a door for others to enter. More simply stated, they don't want to invite competition... this can come in many forms._If they do just enough to keep the masses happy, they'll be ok. Or at least that would appear to be their model/philosophy (that's my hypothesis). Comcast tries to tell people that they don't need 1Gbps, that even 100Mbps is more than enough -- and for the majority that is basically true and a fair statement, but that shows little interest in innovation, and an acceptance of mediocrity. The reality is, with 1Gbps, all you would need is a Internet connection. You can (or could, will be able to) consume as good (actually better) live and cloud video content, VoIP already covers >90% of the calls outside of a provider/area code. There is no need for the old school television model, IP is more efficient.Closing opinion statements:Consumers are getting the short end of the stick in the United States. We need more choices, and more direct competition. We do NOT need larger corporations, as then their interests then outweigh that of the individual ("too big to fail)." Yes, it's in the shareholders interest (short term, and generally speaking) for a company to be as big as it can be, but it's not in the consumers (and the peoples) interest.I also hold this opinion ... the Internet (our data infrastructure - to the home) is today's version of the national highway system, and even a little bit of the space race. If we don't continue to innovate (it's a huge opportunity to do so) by improving our ability to consume data, but the rest of the developed world does -- our GDP will drop, and in the mid to long term, we will suffer as a country.

You can use Zayo Tranzact to estimate your monthly operating expenses from various POPs or carrier hotels, or how much it’d cost to lease wavelength transport or Ethernet private lines between markets, just for fun. But all you actually need is a wholesale Internet circuit in each city, since that includes IP transit to other networks along with access (the local loop, the meet-me room interconnection, or whatever the case may be).But if you’re asking about equal access or connecting cities, you should start by reading up on how IP transit works. The idea is not original, or necessary, since IP transit, indefeasible rights of use to certain wavelength routes, and oodles of fiber exist between every major market in the US at this point. Anyone can become an ISP with a wholesale circuit from a tier-1 provider - which would not degrade packet delivery in any way (per the service-level agreement) - and you’d face established competitors in each market. If Comcast, Spectrum, Optimum, Suddenlink, etc. start charging more for unbridled access to Netflix, a cable/fiber overbuilder like Consolidated, Google Fiber, RCN, etc. will simply offer Internet access free of those restrictions. So your business model isn’t different from theirs, and consumers would have no real reason to choose you over an established overbuilder that already serves their home or business.If you live in an unincorporated area without home-owners’ associations or city easements, you could order a 1-Gbps wholesale circuit for under $3,000 per month at your home, run Ethernet/coaxial/fiber cabling to your neighbors, and split it out to them on an oversubscribed model where less than the provisioned bandwidth is available to each subscriber at any given time. Maybe you’d charge 40 of them $75 for 25 Mbps “committed” symmetrical bandwidth, or maybe you’d advertise “up to” bandwidth that’s higher than that and split it out to even more neighbors. But you need permits and franchise agreements to carve up the sidewalk, and pole attachment agreements to lash fiber onto utility poles. So think small before you start talking about turning up service in major cities.