COMPTEL, which represents competitive communications network providers, has asked the FCC to deny the Charter/Time Warner Cable merger.

In a petition filed Oct. 13, the deadline for such filings, COMPTEL focused on what it said would be the combined company's market power over video programming and its impact on broadband deployment.

The group argues that combining Charter and Time Warner Cable would mean the company would be negotiating content purchases for 17.3 million video customers, making it the second largest MVPD after Comcast.

That, says COMPTEL, would give it "more bargaining power to elicit favorable terms from programmers and create a substantial barrier to future broadband investment and competition."

They say Charter's claim that the combined company would face competition from competitive broadband providers does not hold up, and they should know.

"The crucial issue for determining whether the Transaction would be in the public interest is whether New Charter would face substantial competition in the future," COMPTEL told the commission. "If New Charter were to face 'dynamic' broadband competition, it would come from the competitive community that COMPTEL represents. The feedback from COMPTEL's membership, however, is that New Charter's cost advantage for video programming would make irrational any thought of investing in broadband to compete against the new firm."

While COMPTEL initially gave Charter props for committing to settlement-free peering, and still calls it a "step in the right direction," COMPTEL said the commitment of the duration too short, and changes are needed if the FCC did decide to approve the merger.

For one, the three-year commitment to settlement-free should be seven years, it said. Plus, it argues that Charter's point that it has never asked for interconnection payments was mostly because it had not had the scale to demand payments. so that rather than being a sign of "benign intent" it was a "reality of its pre-merger market power."

“Charter’s proposed transactions with Time Warner Cable (TWC) and Bright House Networks (BHN) is receiving broad support, " Charter said in response to various petitions to deny the deal. "To date, there are hundreds of  positive comments positive comments filed with the FCC from a broad and diverse array of voices, including Netflix; civil rights groups like the Hispanic Leadership Alliance; independent programmers TV One, Bounce TV Fuse (formerly Nuvo) and One World Sports, as well as from dozens of local businesses and community organizations."

We recognize that there are also parties who challenge the benefits of  the proposed transactions. We are listening to them and have addressed many of the issues they have raised with commitments such as those about expanding access to fast broadband, preserving an Open Internet and investing in interconnection, enhancing customer service by adding more highly trained employees for our call centers and field technician operations. We look forward to continued engagement with regulators, interested parties and members of the communities we serve about the significant public interest benefits of the transactions.”

Charter was not commenting on the specific COMPTEL petition, but it has pointed out that it will be a smaller provider than either Comcast and AT&T, and that rather than subsume the number-two provider as Comcast/TWC would have, the deal would arguably create a stronger compwetitor to AT&T and Comcast.

As to the programming leverage, it has pointed out that TWC already negoaties programing for Bright House, so that adding Charter's 4.5 million subs will hardly create a dramatic shift. Charter is also on the record criticizing volume discounts and supporting wholesale unbundling.

COMPTEL, which represents competitive communications carriers--ISPs, backbone providers and others--is putting its legal money where its mouth is, asking a D.C. federal court for permission to weigh in on the FCC's behalf in the legal challenges to the Title II reclassification order.

COMPTEL Tuesday (May 12) filed a petition to intervene with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia which, barring some last-minute legal maneuvering, will be hearing the appeals by cable and telco associations and others.

COMPTEL, which supported reclassifying ISPs as telecoms under the Title II common-carrier regs, told the court that the rules "will ensure that consumers and businesses can access a competitive network of online content, applications, and services."

The rules, which passed on a pure party line vote Feb. 26,  are scheduled to go into effect June 12, unless the court grants stays being prepared by cable and telco operators and likely to be filed by week's end. The FCC last week denied stay requests from the same folks, promoting the next step of seeking the court stay.

Internet access providers are calling on the lame duck Congress to hurry up and extend the Internet Tax Freedom Act before the current law expires Dec. 11. National Cable & Telecommunications Association President Michael Powell said not to do so would be a "tragic mistake." They also want to make it permanent.

According to the Internet Tax Freedom Act Coalition, that came in a letter signed by the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, the American Cable Association, COMPTEL, CTIA, and USTelecom, and others representing ISPs serving 275 million consumers.

A temporary ban on Internet access taxes has been regularly renewed since it was first adopted in 1998, but the bill would make that ban permanent.

The House passed a bill in July. The expiration date on the ISP tax moratorium had been Nov. 1, but that was pushed to Dec. 11 to give the Senate more time to follow suit.

"we respectfully request you to take action immediately to protect all Americans from new regressive state and local taxation of Internet access and multiple and discriminatory taxation of Internet commerce," the ISPs said in a letter to house and Senate leadership. "If Congress fails to act soon, millions of broadband, cable and wireless consumers will be at risk for new taxes in thousands of state and local jurisdictions. Now is the time to provide all Americans with certainty that their Internet access will never be subject to tax."

“Keeping Internet access free from state and local taxes has been a fundamental principle since the Internet was introduced to American consumers,” said Powell in a statement accompanying the announcement of the letter. “Reversing this course which has sparked such tremendous economic growth and numerous other benefits would be a tragic mistake. We urge the Congress to quickly take up and pass this important, bipartisan legislation so that American consumers and businesses will continue to be protected from any additional taxes and fees that could raise the price of Internet access and slow the rapid adoption of broadband services.”

The bill has bipartisan, though not universal, support, including from the cochairs of the Congressional Internet Caucus-- ranking House Communications Subcommittee member Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Senate Judiciary chair Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Commerce Committee ranking member Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.).

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/internet-tax-freedom-ac...

Passage of the House version came on a voice vote without the representatives having to record their votes. But that easy passage belied some of the strong opposition to the bill in floor speeches before the vote, particularly from representatives of grandfathered states. Arguments for the permanent moratorium included that it was saving consumers from discriminatory taxes that could disproportionately affect the poor and discourage broadband use. Arguments against included that it was preempting states' rights to determine the best way to raise money and to "fill the potholes and clean the streets."