Copyright 2001 Federal News Service, Inc. Federal News Service
May 24, 2001, Thursday
SECTION: PREPARED TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 4506 words
HEADLINE:
PREPARED TESTIMONY OF KIRBY J. CAMPBELL CEO - THE ARMSTRONG GROUP OF COMPANIES
MEMBER - AMERICAN CABLE ASSOCIATION
BEFORE THE
HOUSE SMALL BUSINESS COMMITTEE REGULATORY REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
SUBCOMMITTEE RURAL ENTERPRISES, AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY SUBCOMMITTEE
BODY: INTRODUCTION
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Kirby .1.
Campbell, and I am the CEO of The Armstrong Group of Companies, an independent
cable business serving 208,000 subscribers in several states, including Ohio,
Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
Our company is also a
member of the American Cable Association. ACA represents more than 930
independent cable businesses serving more than 7.5 million subscribers primarily
in smaller markets and rural areas across the United States. ACA members serve
customers in every state and every U.S. territory and also in nearly every
congressional district represented by the members of this Committee. Unlike some
larger companies you hear about, ACA members are not affiliated with program
suppliers, big telephone companies, major ISPs or other media conglomerates. We
focus on smaller market cable and communications services, often in markets that
the bigger companies choose not to serve.
Like other
ACA members, our company, The Armstrong Group, specializes in serving
residential and business customers in smaller markets and more rural areas. Our
company today is on the forefront of providing advanced telecommunications
services to customers in these markets, including high-speed cable modem
Internet service and digital cable television. Our customers want broadband, and
we're delivering it to them.
THE ISSUES FACED BY
SMALLER MARKET CABLE SYSTEMS IN THE DEPLOYMENT OF BROADBAND SERVICES
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to you for
several reasons.
First, our company and the members of
the American Cable Association are rapidly deploying broadband services. At The
Armstrong Group, we connected our first high-speed Internet customers in 1997
and today serve 18,000 Internet customers, including 1,100 small businesses.
On the deployment of broadband in smaller markets, we have
a success story to tell. Our company and other ACA members are making
substantial investments in system upgrades and are taking calculated business
risks to launch broadband services in our markets. By the end of this year, we
will offer Internet and digital cable to more than 90% of our 208,000 customers.
In our case, we will have invested more than $130 million and more than $600 per
subscriber to deliver these new services. Our technical platform is superior to
almost all major metropolitan cable systems. When it comes to deployment of
cable modem service in smaller markets and rural areas, our company at Armstrong
and other ACA members are part of the solution, not part of the problem.
We find it ironic that so many attempts are being made to
incent huge conglomerates like the RBOCs to service smaller markets and rural
areas in order to close the so-called "Digital Divide." Our company and the
hundreds of others in the ACA are already there.In December 2000, the American
Cable Association commissioned a study of its members to determine the extent of
broadband, high-speed cable modem deployment in its members' cable systems. The
r esults were impressive. Despite the many challenges faced by my company and
other ACA members to launch broadband, the facts show that we're doing it. The
ACA survey showed the following:
- Current regulatory
and legislative policies have encouraged investment in infrastructure. The
marketplace is working. - The imposition of mandatory open access laws or
regulations would impose significant additional costs and deter investment.
- Current ACA members' expansion plans will double the
number of homes passed by broadband services within the next 12 to 24 months.
- ACA members have invested hundreds of millions of
dollars to install fiber, upgrade plant, and acquire equipment necessary to
offer cable modem services and other advanced services.
- Most ACA members obtained the capital required to upgrade networks
and purchase equipment from sources typical for smaller business - banks or
retained earnings.
- ACA members indicated that they
would not risk the investment necessary for this expansion if burdensome
regulations were imposed on cable modem service in their markets.
- Many ACA members provide cable modem service through
negotiated agreements with unaffiliated ISPs.
Despite
the success story that's taking place in our company and so many other ACA
members' companies, the deployment of broadband services is threatened by
certain facts, proceedings and cost trends. These problems and challenges fall
into four specific areas:
(1) Access to capital. Access
to capital is vitally important to the deployment of broadband in smaller
markets and rural America, but adequate sources for this capital are limited.
Initiatives considered by Congress can address this concern by providing for
technology neutral credits, loan guarantees or low-interest loan programs that
will make capital more affordable and readily available to launch broadband
services in smaller markets.
(2) Forced carriage of
both analog and digital broadcast signals. The effect of mandatory dual digital
broadcast television carriage (dual must-carry of local television stations'
analog and digital broadcast signals) on cable systems with limited bandwidth
will result in lost capacity and lost important broadband services that our
customer want. The substantial costs and adverse effects of paying for a forced
transition to digital will stop or hinder the advancement of high- speed
Internet- particularly in rural areas.
(3) Mandatory
open access in smaller markets. The effect of open access regulations, if
imposed on these markets, will create a chilling effect to hinder or even stop
the development of broadband services in smaller markets and rural America,
where the marketplace is already working.
(4) The high
cost of programming supply and other annual cost increases that far outstrip the
rate of inflation or cost of living. These costs are being borne
disproportionately by smaller businesses in the cable industry. Independent
cable companies pay 2530% more for programming than the larger cable companies
and must absorb significant annual programming increases that far outstrip the
trend in retail cable rates for independent cable businesses. Another
potentially chilling factor is pole rent - the amounts charged by utilities or
cooperatives to independent cable businesses for the right to attach cable to
utility poles.
If utilities or cooperatives, which are
using federal funds to build their infrastructure, are allowed to triple or
quintuple their rates for pole rent, as some have begun to do, the impact on
rural areas would be devastating. In very rural areas with only 10-15 customers
per mile, these new rates could be $10.00 per subscriber per month. The end
result of these increases is that important capital and resources are taken away
from resources that would otherwise fund the development and deployment of
broadband service in smaller markets and rural America.
Before discussing each of these areas individually, it is important to
understand what makes serving smaller markets and rural areas unique and why
certain factors impact us disproportionately. The most basic factor is that it
is much more expensive on a per customer basis to provide expanded bandwidth and
advanced services in rural America. The main factor is the number of homes in a
given mile. While an urban area will have 100 or more homes per mile, we provide
service in areas down to 15 homes per mile. Our company-wide average is only 45
homes per mile. Fewer customers per mile in smaller markets and rural areas mean
a substantially larger investment per customer for all services, including
broadband. This fact alone puts pressure on all other operating factors.In the
telephone and electric business, this fact of operation has been understood for
years, and that's why telephone companies and electric cooperatives providing
service in rural America have been subsidized for years by the federal
government. Smaller, independent cable businesses have not been subsidized. We
have achieved our success through independent risk financing and sweat equity.
However, we are not here to ask for subsidies, but rather only a level playing
field that could easily be tilted against us by any one of the following
factors. And if this field is tilted, it will certainly impact and adversely
affect the deployment of broadband in smaller markets and rural America.
(1) Access to Capital and Technology Neutral Solutions to
Encourage Broadband Deployment are a Must to Serve Smaller
Markets with High Speed Internet, Digital Cable and Other Broadband Services=
Our company and all ACA members face the challenges of
building, operating and upgrading broadband networks in smaller markets and
rural areas. For most of these companies, the capital required to upgrade
networks and purchase equipment came from sources typical for smaller businesses
- banks or retained earnings. In other words, our capital comes from Main
Street, not Wall Street. But this investment is not easy to make or to obtain.
When independent companies like mine and need to raise money to serve smaller
markets and rural America, we sign personal guarantees. My company has taken the
financial risk to make investments in a robust broadband infrastructure in
smaller markets. Far from languishing on the wrong side of a Digital Divide, our
customers have access to high quality cable modem service today. Current
expansion plans of ACA members will double the availability of the cable modem
service within 24 months. In some cases, these markets are ahead of broadband deployment in urban centers.
Compared to RBOCs and the largest cable and media companies, most
independent cable businesses face serious difficulties in finding sources of
capital. Many communications lenders are not interested in lending to smaller
companies serving smaller markets.
This is true because
the loans sought by smaller, independent companies are generally smaller than
loans sought by larger companies, and thus do not produce the same for the bank
in lending fees, interest, etc. In addition, there can be a longer payback and
return on a loan to service a sparsely populated smaller market compared to an
urban market with hundreds of subscribers per mile.
Therefore, many independent companies find themselves seeking loans
from local, general service banks on Main Street rather than the experienced
commercial communications lenders on Wall Street. Moreover, many of these
smaller loans with the local banks are "hit or miss" and may depend on a number
of factors unrelated to the project itself.
The federal
government has already begun to consider a number of proposals that would help
to encourage broadband deployment by providing tax credits,
federal loan guarantees or other federal grant or low-interest loan programs.
These ideas would help independent companies in smaller markets and rural areas
obtain the capital they need to launch broadband services. We support these
ideas.The key to success for these programs would be to ensure that they are
technology neutral and easily obtainable through a streamlined, simplified
application process.
It is important for the programs
to be technology neutral because this would ensure that all technologies (cable,
wireless, satellite, etc.) are encouraged to make use of the funds or credits.
At the same time the competition for the funds would help speed deployment where
it is so vitally needed.
As mentioned earlier, ACA
members are already deploying advanced services in many rural areas, and we are
uniquely positioned to expand into other rural markets. Our company and ACA
would enjoy the opportunity to work with the Small Business Committee in
considering technology neutral solutions that would put capital in the hands of
smaller, independent businesses to encourage broadband
deployment in smaller markets and rural America. (21 The Unintended
Consequences of Mandatory Digital Broadcast Carriage on Cable Systems with
Limited Bandwidth Will Derail Broadband Deployment in Rural
America.
A second issue facing threatening independent
cable's progress is the broadcast industry's campaign to force dual carriage of
analog and digital signals during the transition to digital television. The
forced carriage of both the analog and digital broadcast television signals of
local broadcast stations on smaller market cable systems would absorb most of
the bandwidth we are developing for broadband services. This would undercut our
ability to roll out new services our subscribers want, just so broadcasters
could get a free ride for both analog and digital signals. Mandating digital
carriage would cause the loss of important existing analog and digital
programming and high- speed Internet services. It would also create a
significant chilling effect on the development and deployment of new advanced
telecommunications services to these markets.
The
ability to provide these new services is essential to attracting the capital
necessary to upgrade our smaller market systems in response to marketplace
demand. It is already difficult enough to attract the capital necessary for
broadband, which provides a new revenue stream, let alone finding the money for
a forced transition to digital, which would provide no new revenues.
Mandating digital broadcast carriage on smaller market
cable systems would force other existing important services off our systems in
order to accommodate digital broadcast signals, which few of our customers could
watch now anyway.
An important point is often missed in
this debate: the government has given broadcasters both the analog and new
digital spectrum to transmit both of these signals during the transition period
before digital broadcast signals are mandated in 2006. But the law has not
granted smaller market cable systems additional bandwidth to carry any of the
additional broadcast signals.
We have to pay for our
additional bandwidth through costly system upgrades. We can only pay for these
upgrades by carrying services our customers will pay us for. Currently, our
customers are not requesting digital broadcast signals in our markets.
From a technical, operational, economic and practical
standpoint, we cannot carry all of the digital and analog signals of the local
broadcasters. The reason? Because we are still required to devote up to fifty
percent (50%) of our channel line-ups for other mandated carriage set-asides,
such as analog must-carry, retransmission consent, non-commercial educational
programming, public, educational and governmental programming, and leased access
programming, not to mention the current analog, digital and high-speed data
services our customers now demand and expect. Who will make the choice to tell
my customers what they can and can no longer receive as a result of dual
must-carry or mandated digital broadcast television carriage? And is this the
right thing to do? I think not. But one thing is certain. Our company and other
ACA members like ours will get blamed for it, while dissatisfied switch to
direct broadcast satellite service. This result could threaten the viability of
smaller market cable systems, which would certainly be an unintended consequence
of this policy.
As far as smaller market cable systems
are concerned, the FCC has gotten this one right - no dual carriage during the
transition period.
When you hear broadcasters demand a
legislative fix for their dual carriage demands, we encourage members of this
committee to carefully consider the consequences for smaller market cable
systems and consumers.
The High "Cost" of Converting to
Digital and the Threat to Broadband Deployment
Right now our company is engaged in a competitive race to improve our
systems through the use and deployment of digital cable services and high-speed
Internet. These services are a reality today. They are available now. They are
helping us improve to our systems and provide advanced higher quality
telecommunications services to our customers today.
Our
company is using these services to close the so-called "Digital Divide" in
smaller markets now. These services and the required systems upgrades are
costly. For example, on average it costs about $130,000 to install a digital
cable headend that will enable our customers to receive significantly more
services that they want. But not all customers take these services right off,
and the return on investment for a digital headend like this one is lengthy. In
addition, you can understand how difficult it is to economically spread that
cost across a system that may only serve 500 customers.
We face the same situation with the substantial investment necessary to
deliver high-speed cable modem Internet service. It's expensive, and the return
is a long one.
Still, these services are available now.
They are not on the drawing board or potentially available sometime in the
future. Our company is doing right now what policymakers want - improving our
service, enhancing competition in the marketplace, and closing the "Digital
Divide" by providing advanced telecommunications services.
But what if the significant funds that it takes to launch digital cable
or high-speed Internet are forced to cover the costs of dual must-carry or
mandatory digital broadcast carriage? Plainly, something would have to give.
The adverse effect on broadband
deployment would be more than an unintended consequence of mandating digital
broadcast television carriage. It would be a direct result. (3) The Effect of
Open Access Regulations if Imposed On Smaller, Rural Markets Will Create a
Chilling Effect to Hinder or Even Stop the Development of Broadband Services in
Smaller Markets and Rural America, Where the Marketplace is Already Working.
For smaller markets, the relevant policy goals are: (i)
continued rapid deployment of broadband services, and (ii) maintaining a
regulatory environment that encourages investment in companies serving these
markets. The emphasis by Congress and the FCC to date on regulatory restraint
and marketplace solutions has succeeded in smaller markets and rural America.
Our company has taken a substantial financial risk to bring Internet services to
our customers. Why should someone who has not taken this risk be allowed to come
in and skim off profit? This could stop Internet deployment dead in its tracks.
And why should small rural cable operators be burdened with real open access
when large ILEC's have yet to open their networks in a meaningful way.
By recognizing the unique circumstances and economic
considerations of smaller market providers in rural America, this Committee can
avoid unintended consequences in broadband deployment and
ensure that the desire by some industries to regulate does not drown out the
concerns of independent cable and the smaller market customers they serve.
As we have shown, despite many challenges, independent
cable has accepted the challenge to launch broadband services. But this
impressive success begs one question: With the higher costs associated with
serving lower density markets, what drives this progress? The evidence points to
one consistent answer the absence of burdensome regulation spurs investment in
broadband deployment.ACA members surveyed report that they
developed their broadband business models on the assumption that marketplace
forces would govern their provision of cable modem service. Nearly all ACA
members currently providing cable modem service indicated they would not risk
additional capital at this point if the service were to face burdensome
regulations in their markets.
(4) The Effect of
Uncontrollable Cost Increases which are Being Borne Disproportionately by
Smaller, Independent Cable Businesses Could Have a Major Impact on the Financial
Viability of These Companies and, Therefore, Their Ability to Upgrade Their
Systems and Provide Advanced Telecommunications Services, Like Broadband
Technologies.
Programming costs are skyrocketing. Why?
Because they can. Giant media companies, like Disney, or vertically integrated
programmers, like Time Warner/AOL, own most cable and satellite programming
networks. Aside from the fact that programming costs are increasing by 20% each
year or more, smaller, independent cable businesses pay 25-30% more for
programming than larger cable businesses.
Huge media
content conglomerates, vertically integrated programmers and the unintended
consequences of retransmission consent are major contributors to this problem.
The huge media conglomerates - Disney/ABC, CBS/Viacom, NBC/GE, Fox, Time
Warner/AOL - all use their enormous market power to hold hostage the carriage of
broadcast networks and local broadcast stations they own through the
"retransmission consent" process every three years. Retransmission consent under
the 1992 Cable Competition and Consumer Protection and Policy Act allows the
owners of broadcast networks and stations to withhold the right of a smaller,
independent cable business like mine to carry the network or station unless we
agree to the broadcast owner's terms of consent. With the enormous power wielded
by these conglomerates, we have no ability to negotiate fair terms at all. We
are at their mercy.
As a result, more and more
overpriced programming is being forced on to our cable systems in order to
secure retransmission consent. This takes up precious bandwidth, significantly
increases our costs and expenses and takes away valuable resources for launching
broadband in our systems.
Skyrocketing costs for sports
programming are another major factor. Our costs for sports programming increased
40% in 2000 alone. Our customers must eventually pay for these out-of-control
increases. Smaller, independent cable businesses should be able to buy
programming on the same basis as larger cable companies. There is no cost basis
or economic justification for this discrepancy.
Another
area of growing concern is pole rent - the cost we pay a utility or a
cooperative for the right to attach our cable lines to their poles. While
typical rates to rent a pole are $6-$9 annually, our company recently received
notice of an increase that would increase our pole rent to $47.25 per pole per
year in areas providing telecommunication services. This is a totally
unwarranted increase because no physical aspect of our attachment has changed at
all. As previously mentioned, this could amount to an increase in costs of more
than $10.00 per subscriber per month in rural areas. Who could introduce new
broadband services in smaller markets and rural areas under these
circumstances?
Independent cable businesses are under
enormous pressure to keep rates to consumers within either the rate of inflation
or cost of living. However, suppliers of programming services, pole rents, etc.,
are under no such restriction - either mandated by regulation or the
marketplace. If these costs continue to skyrocket out of control to the point
where smaller, independent cable businesses can no longer afford them, how can
there ever be hope of long-term broadband deployment in
smaller markets and rural America?
What Can Be done?
Some Potential Solutions.
Full deployment of broadband
services, like high-speed cable modem Internet and digital cable service, cannot
be accomplished or even be expected to succeed unless the barriers to further
deployment are removed. While there may be a number of solutions to eliminate
these barriers, we offer several suggestions to address the barriers discussed
in our testimony. Access to Capital
- Provide
incentives to lenders and financial institutions to lend money for broadband
projects in smaller markets and rural areas.
- Consider
"technology neutral" plans that would provide tax credits, loan guarantees or
low-interest loans to lower the cost of capital, increase access to it, and help
spur broadband deployment.
Mandated
Digital Broadcast Carriage
- Refrain from imposing
"dual must-carry" on smaller, independent cable businesses that would be
required to carry both the analog and digital broadcast television signals of
television signals.- Let the marketplace develop solutions to digital carriage
and technology concerns. Imposing dual must-carry won't help if the technology
and digital programming are not available to the consumer on a cost- effective
basis.
- Consider eliminating smaller, independent
cable businesses from the myriad requirements of mandated carriage of certain
types of programming to increase bandwidth that would then be available for broadband deployment.
Open Access
Regulations
- Promote plans that would encourage
marketplace negotiation between independent cable businesses and unaffiliated
Internet Service Providers. The marketplace is already working to solve these
concerns.
- Refrain from imposing mandated open access
regulations, which would hinder or even stop the development of broadband deployment in smaller markets and rural areas.
Increasing Programming, Pole Rent and Other Operational
Costs
- Hold hearings and seek detailed information
from programming owners on the actual costs of programming and the various rates
charged to providers of varying sizes. Find out how the increasing cost of
programming is affecting independent cable businesses and discouraging broadband deployment.
- Prohibit huge
media conglomerates from tying new programming services or digital broadcast
carriage to analog retransmission consent and also from forced bundling of
programming services.
- Extend and strengthen current
programming access regulations from the 1992 Cable Act, as amended. - Consider
applying other principles, such as unfair trade practices, to programming
business practices.
- Tighten the provisions of the
Pole Attachment Act to eliminate huge, unjustified rate increases of utilities,
and extend the provisions of the Act to municipalities and cooperatives.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, our
company's future and our ACA members' future lie in the deployment of broadband
services. We have already embraced it.
Independent
cable companies are responding to marketplace incentives, making substantial
investments in infrastructure. The marketplace is working.
The results are exactly what the Congress intended - delivery of
advanced services to an increasing number of consumers in smaller markets
through market-based solutions.
However, severe
barriers face us if we are to continue to deploy broadband throughout all
smaller markets and rural areas. These barriers could derail the enormous gains
that have already been made. My company and all of the members of the ACA are
concerned that these barriers could stop broadband deployment
cold.
We're committed to working with the Committee on
solutions that will enable us to eliminate these barriers and further encourage
broadband deployment throughout smaller markets and rural
America.
I would like to sincerely thank the Committee
again for allowing me to speak before you today.