LAKE BUENA VISTA, Florida — With more than $40 billion in federal funding available through state agencies for rural broadband expansion, most small cable operators are hard pressed to know how to navigate the bureaucratic quagmire. But one former Congressman has a simple answer — get to know the decision-makers.

The federal government is making about $42.5 billion in rural broadband grants available to companies through the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program, which will be administered through several states. At the Independent Show Tuesday session “Uncle Sam’s Broadband Bucks, Who’s Holding the Purse Strings,” and moderated by outgoing ACA Connects CEO Matt Polka, former Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) suggested that to win those funds, small operators are going to have to learn how their state government machinery works.

“[E]ach state is going to be a little different, some will be better staffed and ready for this money,” Walden said. “You’re going to have to work and get to know who makes those decisions in your state and how do you take advantage of it.”

That means not just getting to know the heads of the state agencies that distribute funding, Walden added, but local and state legislators as well, who can be supportive in dealing with the various bureaucracies involved with each application.

“The extent to which you can build partnerships when you go in, [is] probably the better,” Walden said. “Most elected officials don’t like to choose among their children, so if you can move up, you’ll have a stronger case to make and they will too to whoever is going to make the decision in the state.”

Legislators on both the federal and state side also will have to work hard to ensure that funds go to the right companies, adding that stringent oversight was not a hallmark of past federal programs. But he was encouraged by the current BEAD structure.

“This is a much better statute,” he said.

Stricter oversight could be in store for the House Energy & Commerce Committee, which Walden chaired for six years before retiring on January 3, 2021. With expectations that there will be big turnover in Congress after the 2023 midterm elections, Walden was confident that friendly ears will abound in the House.

“Watch for Congress,” Walden advised, adding that typically the party in power loses 26 seats in Congress after its first midterm election.

“If your president has more than a 50% approval rating that number changes to 14 seats, if it’s less than a 50% approval rating that’s 36 seats,” he continued. President Biden’s current approval rating is about 38%.

“So I would look for a change of control, which means Republicans will take over,” Walden said.

Walden also had some advice for operators who are considering applying for grants to build out broadband services.  

“I would find out what your state has, if they have any kind of broadband buildout plan already, so they already have an idea about what they want to do,” Walden said. “I would also watch for other unmet needs.”

Walden added that in some large rural states, governors are worried about the overall lack of communications infrastructure in their states and could use the lure of broadband money to improve that. 

“They are going to try to leverage this to improve communications overall,” Walden said. “I think, especially in the big rural states, the Montanas, the Wyomings, they are really struggling to get adequate communications one way or another.” ■ 

Grant Spellmeyer knows that he has some pretty big shoes to fill. 

Named CEO of ACA Connects in May, taking the helm from retiring CEO Matt Polka, Spellmeyer has extensive experience lobbying for the telecom industry: He comes from U.S. Cellular, the mobile arm of ACA member TDS Telecom. 

Polka officially ends his 25-year tenure representing smaller, independent cable operators at ACA Connects this month, culminating in The Independent Show July 24-27 in Orlando, Florida. In the meantime, Spellmeyer has been busy making the rounds, meeting with individual ACAC members and companies, as well as National Cable Television Cooperative CEO Lou Borrelli, learning more about the cable business and listening to what his members feel is most important to the industry. 

Spellmeyer took some time out earlier this week to speak with Multichannel News senior content producer – finance Mike Farrell. Here's an edited transcript of that conversation.  

MCN: What drew you to this job?

Grant Spellmeyer: There are a couple of factors. First, personally for me, it was a good time in my life to make a switch. But more importantly, I have always held ACA in the highest regard as the premier communications association for what I’ll call non-national providers. Many of them have their roots on the cable side, some of them from the telephone side, some from the cooperative side, some from municipalities. And it is certainly a changing industry. I’ve had the opportunity to know Matt Polka and to work with him quite a bit during the last 15 or 16 years that I’ve been active in the telecom scene in Washington. I’ve watched what Matt and the team have done, they’ve certainly had a long series of wins along the way. I came from U.S. Cellular, which [is] a non-national wireless carrier, midsized — they operate in 21 states — kind of a scrappy competitor. That’s what ACA is full of, a lot of small and medium-sized communications providers who are a little bit of the underdog in the world of Washington, D.C. It was a nice fit from who I get to represent at ACA Connects and the fact that they’re just really good at what they do. They’ve got a good team and I’m excited to be here.

Also: NCTC CEO Lou Borrelli Talks Connectivity Exchange MVNO Deals and the New Name 

MCN: It seems like a lot of the issues that are important to telecom companies are important to cable companies — broadband wireless and the like. So it seems that this job is right in your wheelhouse. 

GS: I think it is. I don’t come with an extensive cable background, although I’ve been busy learning and there are no concerns that I can’t get up to speed on those issues pretty quickly. At least right now, and for the next few years, this is all about broadband. That’s issue No. 1 and I have certainly spent a lot of the last 15 years working on broadband issues, universal service issues, government funding of the provision of broadband in hard-to-reach areas. Issues like mapping I was all over on the wireless side, so I’m pretty fluent in those things. The broadband guys want to get into the wireless business and the wireless guys want to get into the broadband business, and so I see it as a good opportunity to help the association navigate whatever is going to come in Washington and around the states in the coming years. 

ACA is working well. I’m not here to fix anything that is broken. I’m here to carry forward the legacy of success that Matt Polka has put in place over the past 25 years. I don’t think I’ll be lucky enough to break his longevity streak. But I certainly hope to take what he’s built and continue it and adapt it as the industry changes and the regulation landscape in Washington changes. Matt and I are friends, he’s been very gracious to me in the onboarding process, helping me get up to speed with learning the members and learning the issues. And of course, we have our show coming up next week, so that’ll be a new opportunity to go down and experience that. I’ve been to Kansas City to meet with Lou Borrelli and the team at NCTC. Those were good discussions and we’ve got our joint show, and I’m looking forward to what the future has to hold there.     

MCN: In your travels to meet the membership, what are the biggest issues on their minds?

GS: In terms of issues, there are a couple of things I have heard. Broadband would be the most important. There are concerns about how governors and federal agencies will distribute money both from an offensive and defensive perspective. Some members want to get a hold of money, other members are very concerned about being overbuilt in areas that already have coverage that meets the standards under the law. We’re going to be working with NTIA and the FCC and the governors and the state broadband authorities about that. 

The second thing I would flag is the issue of the broadband data collection maps that are due to the FCC by September 1. There was a lot of concern over the FCC requirement that a professional engineer certify the maps. We, along with some other associations, were pushing the FCC to produce some clarity to that and to relax the requirement that everybody go out and engage a certified professional engineer in the state, because in many states they’re not there and certified engineers don’t have the skill sets that are necessarily required for telecommunications. The FCC issued a bureau-level order clarifying that provision and we were very pleased with that, our members were very pleased with it. 

And thirdly, there is retransmission consent. It comes up everywhere I go. I don’t think that’s the No. 1 issue right out of the chute in the next couple of months at the FCC, but they do have some proceedings underway that are looking at certain issues related to retrans. 

MCN: Are you optimistic that you’ll get some traction on the retrans side after all these years?

GS: I think it's more of a long-term play. I think as the cable industry continues to evolve, there are going to be a lot of reasons for the FCC and potentially for Congress to revisit the rules associated with it.

MCN: Going into the show, what’s your take on the industry? Obviously things have changed a lot. 

GS: Keeping in mind that I am still learning the industry and I certainly haven’t talked in depth with a good number of the majority of members — although I have talked to companies that represent a majority of members — I think they have adapted well. They were fortuitous enough to see some of this coming and shift focus to broadband. I expect that to continue. Traditional video cable subscribership is dropping and is likely to continue for a while, but I think folks have adapted really well to it and we will see where it goes over the course of the next decade. But nobody has come to me and said “Grant, you’ve really got to fix this for us because we’re all going under otherwise.” 

People are optimistic, people are very excited to be coming together for the first time — this is the first time since 2019 that we’ve done The Independent Show in-person — so there is a lot of pent-up demand, and I think a lot of my members enjoy the opportunities to visit Orlando with their families. I think everybody is going to have a good time, and hopefully learn something about the state landscape at the moment. And we’re going to celebrate a little bit. It’s a farewell for Matt, and a lot of folks have spent the past 20, 25 years working with Matt, so it’s going to be special from that perspective.

Hopefully they will come away [from the show] going “that Spellmeyer guy seems like he’ll do a good job and let’s charge forward to the future.”

MCN: Is this your first Independent Show? One thing that has struck me about this show, in particular, is that there still seems to be a fair amount of business going on, and members see this as an opportunity to share ideas with other operators.  

GS: It will be my first one. I don't have the frame of reference that I wish I did. ACA used to do a Summit in Washington that was more Hill-oriented, and I’ve been to that a couple of times, but this will be my first time at the Independent Show. From everything I’ve heard, it’s a nice size, not as big as the Consumer Electronics Show, where you’ve got 100,000 people running around Las Vegas. I’ve been to 5,000-person and 10,000-person  trade shows and those are challenging to get any real business done because you can’t find anybody. This is different because it’s one hotel, it's a good size and if you want to track somebody down within the course of 48 hours it’s pretty easy to do so. And that facilitates lots of dialogue and I think that’s what Lou Borrelli and I are after, in terms of where we want to take this show in the future. There is a value to it that is significant, part of it is meeting with vendors and part of it is talking with other members and I think a lot of both of those will be going on. 

MCN: At the same time you’ve got to keep your eye on the historical issues in the industry, like retrans and there is talk of another net neutrality bill on the horizon. 

GS: We’re going to keep our eye on that and there are lots of potential changes coming to Washington after the elections this fall, one way or the other. There are a lot of members not seeking re-election, so I expect a new landscape there. I’ve spent a lot of time on Hill-related matters, and I’m not going to take my eye off that or the retrans ball. I’ve got a good team and we’re going to do good things with it. 

MCN: NCTC hired a new CEO in May 2021 [Borrelli], and you started this May. Do you see the relationship between ACA changing as leadership has changed? How do you see it evolving?

GS: I have spent time with Lou and he seems to be a very, very skilled industry veteran. I think he was the right choice to run NCTC. He’s got a 40-year background in the cable industry that I don’t and I think he is doing and will continue to do really good things at NCTC. We have talked about things like ways to work together additionally amongst our significantly-shared membership, educational opportunities, regional meetings. 

We’ve kind of agreed to get through the show in Orlando and have a more fulsome discussion about what 2023 looks like. But I am all in favor of finding ways to collaborate and they serve the members a whole lot from an operational purchasing perspective and I think we do a really good job on the educational policy side. It’s a good team. We’re going to have some fun together next week. ■

The ACA Connects board has tapped veteran communications executive Grant Spellmeyer to succeed current president and CEO Matt Polka, who is exiting the association in July.

Spellmeyer most recently was VP of government affairs for US Cellular, bringing with him wireline and wireless legal issue experience at the local and national levels.

At US Cellular, he was responsible for directing federal and state legislative regulation for the 21-state carrier and was the company's primary contact with Congress and the FCC. He joined that company in 2006 from TDS Telecommunications (TDS) -- an ACAC member -- where he was director of legal affairs and carrier relations.

"Grant Spellmeyer’s indisputable qualifications and his understanding of smaller, independent companies made it clear to me he’s the President and CEO we need at this time," said ACAC Vice Chairman Mike Bowker. "Simply put, Mr. Spellmeyer has a reputation for getting things done – and we like that at ACAC," said ACAC Board Chair Patricia Jo Boyers. 

“Simply put,” Boyers added, “Mr. Spellmeyer has a reputation for getting things done – and we like that at ACAC.”

“I look forward to working with ACAC’s experienced staff, ACAC members, and federal and state policy makers to strengthen the position of independent companies in the communications marketplace,” Spellmeyer said in a statement. “One overarching goal is to ensure ACAC members continue to succeed in providing consumers with a variety of competitive services – regardless of company size or geography – today and in the future.”  

Spellmeyer's resume also includes telecom and corporate law at Axley Brynelson in Madison, Wisconsin. He got his bachelor's in economics and Master's in public policy and administration as well as his law degree from the University of Wisconsin. He was also a legislative staffer in the Wisconsin assembly, and was an intern to Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Jon Wilcox.

“I want to thank Chairman Boyers, Vice Chairman Bowker, and the selection committee for their time and dedication to choosing the right person to be our next ACAC leader,” Polka said of his successor. “Grant Spellmeyer has an impeccable record and the essential experience needed to successfully guide the ACAC team and our members into the next 25 years.”

Polka announced his departure earlier this month, passing on to his successor a legacy of looking for common ground to achieve important goals as well as a willingness to be tapped as a resource going forward. 

"We have always sought to find people in Washington who are willing to work together to solve the communications issues facing our citizens, nation and industry," Polka told Multichannel News following the announcement of his departure. "We haven’t always agreed, but we have never been disagreeable.  It hasn’t been the easiest path, but it has been the right path, and I am very proud that we stuck to it regardless of the political winds that always swirled around us."

ACAC represents about 600 smaller and midsized cable/broadband/telecom carriers.

“I would like to offer my congratulations to both ACA and Grant Spellmeyer on today’s announcement," said Michael Powell, president of NCTA-the Internet & Television Association. "Grant is taking the helm of ACA at a very important time for the industry as we all work on the important mission of connecting every American to broadband. We wish Grant all the best on his transition to ACA and look forward to working closely with him and his team on these important issues.” ■

ACA Connects President Matt Polka is stepping down in July, according to the association, which represents small and midsized cable/broadband operators.

In announcing the leadership change, Polka said that after 25 years at the helm of the organization, he thought it was time to "pass on the privilege of leadership for the healthy growth and future success of the organization,” Polka said. 

There‘s no word on a successor, but ACAC said it has almost wrapped up the search and expects to unveil the name during its mid-May board meeting.

Polka said he plans to spend more time writing, with his family, and serving his local church.

Also: Five Spot with Matt Polka

As for ACAC? “It’s onward and upward,” said Polka in announcing the move. “I will always be there for our members, the board, and the experienced ACAC team, whom I have been privileged, honored and blessed to serve for 25 years. But what is most important is the future success of our members and association, and that’s bigger than any one person. ... I know that new vision and energy will take ACA Connects to even greater accomplishments, built upon our solid foundation of doing things the right way and never backing down or giving up.”

Polka has headed the association since 1997 and before that, was VP and general counsel for Star Cable Associates and a communications attorney.

Under Polka, ACAC grew to be a lobbying force in D.C. for the interests of smaller cable and then broadband operators, including securing collective programming negotiation rights for its members. 

“The cable industry will miss Matt’s leadership, integrity and effective representation, and I’ll miss his friendship and collegiality that makes him such a great advocate for his members," said NCTA-the Internet & Television Association President Michael Powell. "Matt’s 25 years of leading ACA Connects is a remarkable tenure in which the industry faced significant policy battles and he tackled every issue with a calm demeanor and steady hand. Congratulations to Matt on his upcoming retirement and we wish him all the best in the coming months and the next chapter of his life.”

“NAB congratulates Matt Polka on his 25 years of service to ACA Connects, where he has been a steadfast champion for his members and served the organization with distinction," said National Association of Broadcasters President Curtis LeGeyt. "NAB and America’s broadcasters wish him all the best going forward.”■

A new report from ACA Connects and consulting firm Cartesian says it could take up to $179 billion in government subsidies to build out universal, "future-proof" (at least 100/100 Mbps) broadband, more, even than the Biden Administration has proposed in all its broadband subsidies.

The money would be needed to fill the gaps in broadband infrastructure, availability and adoption, according to the report.

A somewhat less costly investment -- still $61 billion-$118 billion -- could achieve gigagit broadband to all locations with less than 100/20 Mbps service that are not part of the FCC's Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) Phase I, with enough left over to boost adoption for about half of the 33 million Lifeline-eligible households over five years.

Among the other key takeaways from the report:

1. "[A]pproximately 12 million households – including 8.2 million in partially served Census blocks not previously accounted for in FCC data – do not have access to 25/3 Mbps broadband [the FCC's current high-speed minimum], while approximately 30 million households do not subscribe to fixed broadband when it is available.

2. "Gigabit service availability has increased by approximately 50% since 2018, while areas that lack at least 100/20 Mbps service have declined by just 3 percentage points in the same period.

3. "Income Remains the Largest Barrier to Adoption, Regardless of Geography. An estimated 30 million households (~25% of U.S. households) do not subscribe to fixed broadband at home for reasons other than network availability, and 36% of non-subscribing households earn less than $20,000 per year. A comparable percentage of homes in rural and non-rural areas (29% versus 28%) do not subscribe even when service is available."

ACAC President Matt Polka says that if the country is going to make a "once in a generation" investment, then it needs analysis like this report to help it get the most broadband bang for its buck.

“We look forward to sharing our findings with all government policymakers, industry sectors, consumer interests, and other stakeholders," said Polka. "It’s a public resource for all stakeholders to use to help ensure the available funding is put to the best use.”

The report's funding model is based on maximizing essential access, which means prioritizing funding in unserved and with the least mature infrastructure.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai was not the only one praising Congress for maintaining/boosting broadband spending in must-pass legislation they have hammered out.

“The COVID emergency has highlighted both the value and importance of broadband connectivity and that all Americans must have access to such service during the emergency and beyond," said ACA Connects President Matthew Polka.

Also Read: Pai Praises Broadband Funding in Hill Legislation

“It is for that reason that ACA Connects urged Congress in the COVID emergency legislation to direct support to help in-need individuals obtain such connectivity, and we commend Congress for adopting this approach. By providing $3.2 billion in direct support for broadband connectivity for low-income families, as well new stimulus checks and additional unemployment assistance, Congress will help Americans stay connected for the months ahead to the reliable, robust broadband connectivity that ACA Connects members and others provide."

"If it wasn't glaringly important before, the pandemic has confirmed the vital need of a broadband internet connection — one that is reliable, affordable, and for some of us, simply available,” said Jonathan Schwantes, senior policy counsel for Consumer Reports, in a statement. “Too many Americans are not able to access or afford broadband. This is especially true for people who've lost their jobs or can't find regular work since the coronavirus shuttered many businesses.

“When all of us are working, teaching and getting our medical care online, it is an imperative to ensure everyone has connectivity,” added Consumer Reports President Marta L. Tellado. “This is a good step, but if we truly want to ensure everyone has an opportunity to reboot the American dream in this digital era, there is far more work that needs to be done in the near term to invest in new and upgraded infrastructure.”

“For years, I have been working to ensure that first responders in Massachusetts and across the country have the resources they need to do their jobs,” said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) of the bill's inclusion of a provision eliminating the congressional directive to auction public safety spectrum. “Every day, brave women and men on the frontlines of the coronavirus pandemic rely on T-Band spectrum to communicate with each other. By passing this bill into law, Congress will say loud and clear to our public safety heroes, ‘We have your back.’"

The FCC is seeking comment on ACA Connects petition to stay the FCC's lump sum election and review its cost catalog for C-Band repack reimbursement.  

The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau put the stay petition out for comment Friday (Aug. 14), with any opposition to the petition due Aug. 19. ACA Connects filed the petition Aug. 13. 

That quick turnaround--five days--is because the deadline for the lump sum election is Aug. 31. ACAC, had asked the FCC to act with dispatch on its request to stay the Aug. 31 deadline until Sept. 14 to give it time to seek a court stay if the FCC does not grant the stay. 

The bureau said oppositions to the ACAC request for review of the cost catalog is due by Aug. 28 and responses by Sept. 8. 

In a petition for stay and for review filed Aug. 13, ACA said that the FCC's decision "is inconsistent with the Commission’s C-Band Order, rests on arbitrary and capricious reasoning, and was developed in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act’s public-notice and disclosure requirements."

“Staying the election deadline now will give the FCC an opportunity to review and correct the Bureau’s determination and will also reduce the risk of future significant disruption that would occur if the Bureau’s lump-sum determination were later set aside on judicial review,” said ACAC president Matt Polka.

In a move last month that ACAC had signaled could land the FCC in court, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau released the final cost catalog for C-band relocation expenses and lump sum elections and it did not include compensating cable operators for integrated receiver/decoders (IRDS), as ACA Connects and other cable operators had pushed for.    

Related: Cable Ops Say FCC Is Lowballing C-Band Payments 

Including the IRD costs would make it easier for cable ops to move to fiber delivery, but the FCC said the lump sum was meant to approximate the cost of moving earth stations, not moving to a new distribution technology.   

The C-Band is used to distribute network programming to broadcasters and cable operators and remote signals to studios.  

IRDs receive and decode satellite signals from programmers and are needed if cable ops move earth stations, but not if they transition to fiber delivery.    

The FCC is clearing the lower 300 MHz of the 500 MHz C-Band satellite spectrum for auction to wireless carriers for terrestrial broadband. The incumbent users, including cable operators, are being compensated for their move out of that spectrum.    

Cable operators wanted the lump some to include payment for relocating all of their earth stations but be free to use it to transition some or all of their earth stations to fiber delivery instead. ACAC urged the commission "to give earth station operators flexibility to pursue alternative technology upgrade strategies if doing so would be more efficient."   

Related: FCC Provides Guidance for C-Band Payment Clearinghouse 

Broadcasters teamed up with TV content companies--broadcast and cable programmers--to ask the FCC not to allow MVPDs to include IRDs in the lump sum.   

They argue, and the FCC agreed, that the expenses are properly assigned to programmers and satellite operators, not MVPDs.   

Cable operators said it is appropriate to include IRD costs in lump sum payments "to the extent an average earth station operator reasonably would expect to pay such expenses itself if it elected to submit actual costs for reimbursement."  

The content companies suggest that would balkanize the process impeding a smooth transition out of the lower C-Band.

In an organizational shift that reflects the growing shift from traditional to over-the-top video, ACA Connects said it will now allow broadband-only companies as members. 

Its members have voted to change the bylaws to allow for that larger tent. Previously, all members had to be defined as a cable operator under FCC definitions. 

The change "makes it possible for broadband-only companies to participate as members in ACA Connects and support its important advocacy on behalf of smaller, independent Internet service providers," the association said. 

The new provision in the bylaws will allow both new broadband-only members, and for members who move from traditional video to broadband-only to maintain their membership. 

In addition to approving the bylaws change, the ACAC board has re-elected Patricia Jo Boyers, president of BOYCOM Vision and current ACAC Chairman, to another two-term. Mike Bowker, COO of Cable One, was re-elected vice chairman. Both are two-year terms. 

Board members elected to three-year terms were: Shawn Beqaj, VP, regulatory and interconnection at Armstrong Group of Companies (Pa.); John Barrett, director, government relations, Great Plains Communications (Neb.); Diana Block, EVP, Block Communications (Ohio); John Cinelli, president, MetroNet (Ind.); Kathy Ford, SVP, legal affairs, WOW! Internet, Cable & Phone (Colo.); and Tom Larsen, SVP, government and public relations, Mediacom (N.Y.). 

ACAC president Matt Polka gave a shout out to the board and its leadership during the pandemic. “Daily business lives have been upended, whether it’s adopting work-from-home policies, installing emergency gear to increase network capacity or establishing new safety procedures," he said. "Our members did it all with great skill and deserve the recognition for such a selfless response to COVID-19. We will report to policy leaders on these efforts." 

"Serving our communities also means ensuring that our workforce is equipped to provide top-notch connectivity while keeping customers and themselves healthy. ACA Connects members provide their employees with the necessary protective equipment and have policies in place to keep our communities safe." -Matt Polka, ACA Connects

These difficult times have presented enormous challenges to all of us, and, as we are urged to stay apart, digital connectivity has never been more important. During this unprecedented period, we have learned just how essential high-performance broadband service is for keeping us connected to our families, jobs, schools, health-care providers, government, and businesses. And we have found that ACA Connects members have continued to provide to their nearly 10 million customers high-quality broadband services while protecting the health and safety of their employees who work on the front lines.

Just last month we completed an exhaustive analysis of how ACA Connects members' networks have managed the huge increase in data demands. Based upon detailed metrics, our Broadband Dashboard demonstrates that, even as traffic has increased by more than 25%, network utilization - the key metric for user experience - has remained within normal operating ranges in virtually all instances. Where a rare network issue arose, it rarely involved an outage, and our members typically dealt with any issue in less than 24 hours. The survey also found that ACA Connects members continue to actively oversee their networks to provide customers with an unparalleled experience, by adding transit capacity, splitting nodes, managing channels, and upgrading hardware. This means schoolwork gets done, video business calls are uninterrupted, patients connect with doctors, and families watch their favorite shows online together, among many other things.

The fact our members' networks have thrived during this crisis should come as no surprise. Our ACA Connects members have invested more than $10 billion over the past decade in their networks, and they continue to invest about $1 billion annually to deploy the most current broadband technologies, including DOCSIS 3.0/3.1 and all-fiber technologies. Those investments have given consumers the high performance they need and have made our networks more resilient.

In addition to managing our networks through these unforeseen circumstances, our members are contributing to their communities in meaningful ways. For example, TDS Telecom is picking up the lunch tab for any public safety official and any essential worker at local restaurants in Idaho. Vast Broadband in South Dakota opened all its WiFi hot spots to anyone who needs access. It also is working with its local school districts to ensure students remain connected. Mediacom in Des Moines is working with the school district to connect 1,800 students. HTC in Conway, South Carolina, donated one ton of food so that local children could continue to receive free lunches.

Our members also are going to great lengths to address the needs of their employees. Many, like Sparklight in Fargo, North Dakota, are hiring to address increased customer demands for service. We even have companies literally feeding their own employees, like BOYCOM Vision in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, where the owners are donating cows from their own herd to take care of their employees. The stories are as numerous as the companies we work with across the country.

Serving our communities also means ensuring that our workforce is equipped to provide top-notch connectivity while keeping customers and themselves healthy. ACA Connects members provide their employees with the necessary protective equipment and have policies in place to keep our communities safe. Members are delivering broadband equipment to homes and then use their phones to talk customers through installations instead of going into homes. They are reworking their offices to ensure customers and employees are protected during their interactions. These are just a few examples of how our members are taking appropriate steps to protect everyone's health.

We are also aware that against this backdrop, policymakers are hearing from consumers that are struggling to deal with the impact of the emergency. Many are faced with the inability to pay their rent or mortgage, their water bill, and put food on the table, let alone cover their broadband and video bills. As Congress and other government policymakers contemplate helping these consumers stay connected, we support programs that will give assistance to our customers who have been financially harmed by the emergency, including by enhancing the Federal Communications Commission's Lifeline program, so they can maintain or obtain the same broadband service that most other consumers receive. We also support Congress providing funding to enable needed connectivity of customer households with students, so they can engage in vital video online learning on par with other students. Further, we support additional funding for the FCC's Telehealth program. The FCC is already working to get the additional funds provided in the CARES Act out the door to health care institutions around the country. Programs like these, which use existing support mechanisms and recognize the value that our members and other communications providers bring to the table, are most efficient and limit waste, fraud, and abuse.

Should Congress decide to consider broadband infrastructure legislation, we recommend the following. First, recognize that private providers and others have built incredibly robust and reliable broadband networks. In other words, policymakers should make sure "to do no harm" and continue "light-touch" regulatory policies. 

Second, Congress should focus on removing barriers to deployment, especially in rural areas. This should include facilitating access to poles, ducts, conduit and rights-of-way at cost-based and non-discriminatory rates, terms, and conditions.

Third, and most importantly, Congress should step up and close the digital divide by bringing high-performance broadband to unserved areas using efficient and effective support mechanisms. Together, these steps will incentivize the free market to raise capital and providers to build out to areas that previously were uneconomic, and efficiently direct taxpayer dollars to those homes and businesses most in need.

This pandemic has shown that our country has built incredibly robust and resilient communications infrastructure that has managed an exponential increase in traffic during this difficult period. We also know that there is more to be done to ensure we have the latest and best networks in the world, and that everyone can avail themselves of all that the connected world provides. Our ACA Connects members are here and ready to navigate through this difficult time together, and believe we can come through this as a more productive, innovative, and connected society.

For the next several articles, “Mixed Signals” reaches out to the Telecom Trade Group CEOs in Washington, D.C., and elsewhere, to find out more about them and their constituencies. Not surprisingly, the longest-serving among our group of telecom execs is also the one to start us off this week. That person is Matt Polka, whose comments below will be followed in the weeks ahead by offerings from the CEOs of the National Cable Telecommunications (NCTA), the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA), and the Fixed Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (FISPA).

Below is an edited transcript of Matt Polka's answers to our 20 questions:

Jimmy Schaeffler: What, in bullet points, are ACA Connects’ core duties and responsibilities?

Matt Polka:

• ACA Connects represents more than 700 smaller and medium-sized, independent companies that provide broadband, phone and video services to nearly eight million customers primarily located in rural and smaller suburban markets across America.
• ACA Connects actively participates in the regulatory and legislative process in Washington, D.C.
• ACA Connects’ members work together to advance the interests of their customers and communities, and to ensure the future competitiveness and viability of their business.

JS: Within that realm, what are your individual core duties and responsibilities, as ACA Connects President + CEO?

MP:

• Lead in the creation of public policy positions.
• Drive the effort to see that ACA Connects’ policy positions prevail.
• Lead the ACA Connects staff and outside lawyers and consultants.
• Consult with, and receive input from, all ACA Connects Board and Executive Committee members, and assure that there is a solid connection between public policy goals and their business priorities.
• Keep current with industry and business trends.
• Keep in touch with industry peers and other trade associations.
• Spend time across the country visiting with members and speaking to them in events for their companies and state associations.
• Work in the development of broadening ACA Connects’ digital and social communications to “Connect and Communicate” in every way on behalf of our members and association.

JS: What is the size of ACA Connects and its core staff positions?

MP:

1. Matthew Polka, President & CEO
2. Robert Shema, EVP Member Services & Finance/Chief of Staff
3. Ross Lieberman, SVP of Government Affairs
4. Ted Hearn, VP of Communications
5. Brian Hurley, VP of Regulatory Affairs
6. Stacey D. Leech, Senior Director of Meetings & Industry Affairs
7. Karen D. Yochum, Senior Director of Administration & Finance
8. Matthew Maraist, Manager of Digital Communications
9. Tomeika Slappy, Executive Assistant
10. Christina Fidrocki, Administrative Assistant

JS: Where is ACA Connects located and how best contacted?

MP: ACA Connects is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pa.

Our address and phone number are:

ACA Connects – America’s Communications Association
Seven Parkway Center | Suite 755 | Pittsburgh, PA 15220-3704
Phone: 412-922-8300 | Fax: 412-922-2110
Email contact: thearn@acaconnects.org

JS: How much of your work time is spent on the road versus in the office?

MP: I would say 30% in the office and 70% on the road.

JS: Which are the places or types of places that you visit the most as part of the job of ACA Connects President + CEO?

MP:

• I visit with many national and state associations and at members’ companies, which takes me all over the country.
• ACA Connects also holds about four or five regional meetings to update members in smaller gatherings. ACA Connects members enjoy those forums because they get a chance to speak to ACA Connects staff at several points during the day, on an issue-by-issue basis.
• We also hold our signature event, our ACA Connects Summit, in Washington, D.C., every March to take our members to Capitol Hill and at the FCC to lobby and share their concerns.
• Finally, every year we co-produce the Independent Show, with NCTC-the National Cable Television Cooperative, which is our joint annual members’ meeting and tradeshow.

JS: What are your typical duties when you get there?

MP: ACA Connects has a broad public policy portfolio. ACA Connects members place a high value on quality information. When I speak to associations and individual members who attend the meetings, my purpose is to describe what ACA Connects is doing in Washington, D.C., as clearly as possible and to explain why we take the positions we do and how we intend to achieve our goals. ACA Connects members are busy people. They are totally focused on their jobs, with little time to stay current with all the twists and turns that accompany policy debates in Washington, D.C. ACA Connects members trust us to act in their best interests and find the path to success.

JS: What would you say overall is the ACA Connects President + CEO most important role?

MP: My most important role is to represent our members in every way to emphasize the critical importance of their companies in solving the broadband and communications needs of their smaller, rural, and competitive towns and communities. Whether I’m speaking across the country, tweeting about our members, meeting with Members of Congress and the FCC, appearing on C-SPAN’s “The Communicators,” being quoted in an article or many, many other things, it’s ALL about our members and telling everyone how they are committed to their communities to meet their communications needs.

JS: How do you spend the majority of your time?

MP: “Connecting and Communicating” in dozens of ways to build and strengthen relationships that help our members and help our association win on policy matters on their behalf in Washington. Whether answering email and members’ questions, phone calls, webinars, in-person meetings, talking to reporters, conference calls on issues, or preparing for events, the job is all about relationships, and putting relationships first. That goes for our team, too, where it’s my job to lead, encourage, and coach them in ways that help them grow and succeed for our members. The job is not about winning first; it’s focused on putting people first. If you put people first and really care about relationships, the winning will come.

JS: Which duties would you deem most important?

MP: Not just for me, but I think all of us at ACA Connects would say that the most important duty we have is to demonstrate an undying commitment to our members above all else, and to have our work on their behalf reflect character, fairness, a willingness to work with everyone, integrity, openness, and thought leadership.

JS: What are your favorite experiences (and memories) coming from your role as the ACA Connects President + CEO?

MP: I love to be up on Capitol Hill lobbying and meeting with congressional staffs and their bosses. I’ve always been a political geek and walking around the halls of Congress has always been a joy. I also love traveling, flying, seeing new parts of the U.S. and visiting with our members. We live in such a wonderful country, and I am always so appreciative of this and seeing the “local culture” of Americans, whether from Alaska to the bayous of Louisiana, and to the rocky coasts of Maine. I also really enjoy communicating by Twitter. Digital media, in general, fascinates me, because as an old newspaper reporter, I know that digital is the way we must get out our message in every way if we are to communicate effectively and reach the people who need to hear our members’ messages. As for memories, there are too many to count, but what they all involve is people who made it a memory. People first!

JS: What are your least favorite experiences (and memories) as ACA Connects president and CEO?

MP: As in any position, there are definitely some, but there also is so much to do moving forward that I choose not to dwell on them much at all. The good FAR outweighs the bad, that’s for sure!

JS: What are a few BIG Time, bullet-point type legal, regulatory, and policy issues ahead for you and ACA Connects?

MP:

• Net Neutrality/Title II regulation of broadband ISPs
• Renewal of Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act Reauthorization Act of 2014 (STELAR)
• Reallocation of the C-Band spectrum
• Internet privacy
• Nexstar-Tribune TV station merger
• Apollo-Cox TV station acquisition
• Sinclair purchase of Disney RSNs

JS: What are a couple of BIG-Time opportunities for ACA Connects and/or the greater broadband industry?

MP: Key provisions of STELAR expire in 2019, allowing ACA Connects to include reforms to the broken retransmission consent rules, that TV station use to stage massive signal blackouts as leverage to drive up the cost of Pay-TV. In 2014, ACA Connects was successful in obtaining provisions from Congress, which banned non-commonly owned TV stations from jointly negotiating retransmission consent with MVPDs.

C-Band policy changes could result in the creation of a government-funded fiber network, that ACA Connects members will join to receive video programming from wholesale vendors that traditionally rely on satellite delivery.

JS: Looking back at your many years as ACA Connects President + CEO, what has been your biggest challenge?

MP: Lawmakers and regulators need quality information on which to base decisions. With that in mind, I have stressed the importance of ensuring that our members’ voices are heard in Washington, D.C., loud and clear. It’s very easy for a message to become diluted or drowned out in a crowded regulatory space. It’s a major challenge for the policy preferences of ACA Connects members not only to be heard, but also to be followed. And I think one other major challenge has been just to spend over 26 years to work hard every day to have a seat at the table in Washington and in our industry, where you can never take anything for granted. But, I think our work and our commitment have spoken for themselves, and we are still fighting! I have no experience whatsoever in running an association, but when I was hired I was determined for our association to succeed and increase slowly and steadily, planting firm roots, and being guided every day by doing what was right for our members. That’s still how we operate today.

JS: What in your prior life (before ACA) has been the best, and conversely the worst, event or occurrence in your professional life that taught or impressed a lesson upon you?

MP: The best springs from the worst, and that was working in places with bosses who had no clue how to lead and encourage people to do their best. I can remember bosses back in the 80s and early 90s who were screamers, and I vowed that if ever I had the chance to lead an organization, I would do everything OPPOSITE of what those terrible leaders did. Fortunately, I have been blessed to lead our team and association here at ACA Connects, and we have proven as I said before that when we focus on each other as people and build strong relationships and commitments together, we know we can accomplish anything, and that’s what we do every day. I also try for us every day to disprove the notion that you can’t succeed if you’re nice. We’ve disproved that silly notion and continue to do so!

JS: Tell “Mixed Signals” about your schooling, focusing on important things you learned?

MP:

• High School — I am eternally grateful to my Mom, who gave me no choice but to take a full year of typing, which was taught in high schools back then! Learning how to type (A S D F J K L ;, etc.) has been the single most practical thing I have ever learned that helped me and my career incredibly. I don’t know if they still teach typing today, but if you master it you will help yourself more than you can ever imagine.
• College — I was a journalism major in news/editorial (e.g., newspaper writing), and I learned the value of writing, grammar, the English language, and how to quickly and effectively express yourself in words, which is so sorely lacking in today’s business world. I have been amazed how so few people take time to master their writing, especially with the negative image it can project. I also learned in journalism school the incredibly important attributes of fairness, accuracy, impartiality and objectivity, which have helped me in my professional life to see and seek the truth.
• Law School — I learned among many other things how important it is to be organized in your thinking, how you can be an advocate in your spoken as well as written words, and what a difference critical thinking and argument can make in evaluating professional issues every day. I’m still trying to learn these things!

JS: Who in your professional background has impressed you the most?

MP: Our members at ACA Connects. They are the salt of the earth. They are why we do what we do. We know how much they appreciate our service to them, and we push ourselves even more each day to do more for them. As small businesses, they face incredible challenges every day, ones we can’t even imagine. They are true “plate spinners,” keeping everything moving forward. And it has been my honor to work with our team, to represent this wonderful group of people who are truly making life msrkedly better for their customers and communities.

JS: Who in your personal life has impressed you the most?

MP: In my personal life I have seen many who have truly and selflessly served others in Christian service without regard to their own needs and interests. Whether pastors, missionaries, or service workers in schools, shelters and community programs, I have been amazed by their ability to “consider it all joy” as it says in James 1:2. I believe we all can and should serve in whatever we do, and I try to do that, but I have always been so impressed by those who have been called in full-time ministry. The truth is that I am blessed beyond measure by the death and resurrection of my savior, Jesus Christ, and the salvation He has given to me through my faith and belief in Him. There is nothing I have endured that could ever match His love, grace, mercy and sacrifice for me.

JS: If you could do your professional life all over again, what you change?

MP: Nope, not a thing. The Good Lord has always been faithful to me, so that whenever one door closed, only one door opened, and I know that nothing I have done professionally as a reporter, lawyer, general counsel, and now trade association exec and lobbyist has been an accident. I have been incredibly blessed, and so much more than I have ever deserved.

Jimmy Schaeffler is the chair and CSO of The Carmel Group, a broadband, broadcast, and pay TV/video consultancy. He has spent nearly five decades studying, writing, researching and analyzing, working with every type of player in the space. If you are a small-to-mid-sized operator looking to expand or better understand the industry, and the financing and funding available, feel free to reach out to him at jimmy@carmelgroup.com.

CHICAGO — The Independent Show is really two shows in one for small cable operators — an opportunity to meet, reconnect and share ideas with other small operators from around the country, and an opportunity to bone up on regulatory issues and trends with the biggest small operator lobbying group in the country, ACA Connects. ACA Connects CEO Matt Polka spoke with Multichannel News about what attendees should expect to see and what sessions could be of particular interest. An edited transcript follows. 

MCN: Going into the show, what should small operators be expecting from ACA?

Matt Polka: There is a lot that we’ve been working on together with our friends at NCTC to make this show stellar and to stand out in our industry, which I think it does, now that there are basically fewer shows. It puts a lot more focus on our Independent Show and our members and what they are doing, which was ironically the goal when we introduced The Independent Show 14 years ago in Chicago.

In terms of the show itself, we expect this to be one of our largest ever for a couple of reasons. There are fewer shows, so you’re getting more participation from operator members, as well as vendor companies that want to come out to support it. The second reason is we’re in the middle of the country in Chicago, where if you draw a 400- to 500-mile circle around Chicago, you can draw a lot of people in who can drive. As we saw a couple of years ago in Indianapolis, a show like this in the breadbasket of the country helps to bring in members.

“Ignite” is a really good term for our theme. Fourteen years ago, it was “Winds of Change,” and that was appropriate then as we were introducing a brand-new show. Now, Ignite is just as appropriate, because so many things are hot, they’re moving, they’re important right now, whether it’s business, technology, policy, operations, over-the-top, 5G spectrum issues. [There is] a lot more that our members are involved in, day to day, than they ever were back in 2006.

MCN: Tell us about some of the speakers you’ve brought in. I see that former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer is scheduled for the Tuesday keynote.

MP: Ari Fleischer is nationally known, former key staff in the Bush White House, someone who has made his views felt on Twitter and in our industry. And while he speaks from a particular political point of view, the one thing that has always impressed me about Ari, particularly when I follow him on Twitter … throughout everything he says are two important elements that are sorely lacking in Washington today: common sense and fairness.

We’re bringing in another keynote on Wednesday, Bill Conner, the CEO of SonicWall. Bill’s been in cybersecurity posts and technology all of his life, from an association perspective and a business perspective. Beyond that, in addition to his work advising clients, he’s an international expert on the threats that today our nation, our government, our infrastructure, our business face from all across the world. After Bill is done, I think a lot of people are going to run out and start changing their passwords.

I’ve been happy to work with the development of our CEO leadership panel this year, which will be Monday morning after we have our kickoff. Bob Gessner, who is our current chairman at ACA Connects, is going to moderate that, along with his daughter Katherine, who is the president of MCTV; Dave Heimbach, who’s the COO of ShenTel; Todd Schurz, the CEO of Schurz Communications; and then Jeff Shook at Buckeye [Communications], who is the operational head of Buckeye in the Toledo [Ohio] area. This has become kind of a tradition for us, but it’s really great to benchmark from some of our top leaders.

MCN: I see there are sessions on the legal track and on state government issues.

MP: Our SVP of government affairs, Ross Lieberman, and our VP of regulatory affairs, Brian Hurley, have been working closely with Jeff Nourse [NCTC SVP regulatory and legal affairs] on developing this very very strong legal track that will certainly attract practicing lawyers, general counsels and legal staff for our members, as well as other interested parties.

MCN: The Independent Show always struck me as one where the members realized maybe more than most that talking to other people in the industry was good for their business. In this climate, is that more important than ever?

MP: Many people say that our show harkens back to what cable used to be like. It’s always one of the top reasons our members give us in surveys for coming to the event, and that is to be able to have lunch and dinner with another member to network, to ask how they’re handling this problem or that problem, to benchmark with each other. I think that’s one of the coolest things our show provides. 

American Cable Association president and CEO Matthew Polka’s members — small cable operators — have an outsized role on the front lines of one of the biggest issues of the day: rural broadband deployment. It has been the subject of hearings, with Polka himself recently testifying; of letters from Congress to the Federal Communications Commission; and of President Donald Trump’s promise of connected agriculture for his between-the coasts constituency.

The ACA this week is hosting its annual ACA Summit in Washington, D.C., where some 350 small and midsized independent cable providers will talk shop and take their concerns in person to Capitol Hill and to FCC officials. On their collective mind: retransmission consent, C-band satellite spectrum management and more.

Polka said the ACA supports bipartisan legislation restoring bright-line net neutrality rules, a big priority, but only if those rules are applied to such edge providers as Netflix and Google as well as ISPs.

Polka paused in his pre-show adrenaline rush to talk with Multichannel News (a media partner of the conference) about the key issues motivating his members.

MCN: Your members are in the vanguard of one of the hot issues of the day, rural broadband deployment. What help do you need from the FCC on that front. Better maps? Improvements to the subsidy process?

Matthew Polka: The first thing I would say is that the FCC has already done the biggest thing for our members, which was to eliminate heavy-handed regulation under Title II, which has encouraged investment in deployment.

That single act by chairman Ajit Pai and the FCC in December 2017 has done more for our members’ ability to deploy broadband and seek and secure investment than anything I could ever ask for, which is why one of the things that we will be talking about with the Hill next Thursday is that the light-touch of regulation on ISPs [under Pai’s Restoring Internet Freedom order] has also worked for consumers, who are receiving greater service in smaller, rural, hard-to-reach areas than they have ever received before. So, “stay that course” would be the first thing.

MCN: And about mapping, which is another hot-button issue?

MP: I do think that better mapping will be helpful in many, many ways. Mapping today is better than when we started this national broadband effort in 2009 because of form 477 [with broadband deployment data], as well as that the challenge process in the Connect America Fund to is more precise about where broadband is. But ultimately, we believe that if broadband is to be included in an infrastructure package, mapping of wired broadband is essential. More of a geocoded map that, once and for all, finally tells us where homes are served and where they are not would be a big deal in helping serve the areas that need broadband the most.

The third thing is regarding funding, whether it is the FCC’s Connect America Fund or [USDA’s] Rural Utility Service programs, we need to continue the helpful trend of laws and regulations that target funds where broadband isn’t, including the most recent definition that funds will be targeted where 90% of an area doesn’t get at least 10 Mbps downstream, 1 Mbps upstream service. That is an unserved area that should receive priority-targeted funds.

MCN: Talk about your members’ unique issues when it comes to broadband deployment.

MP: Our member companies are broadband in every sense of the word. But they do have unique issues. You noted how Washington focuses its attention on rural broadband deployment, saying: “We need to get more out there.” We agree with that focus because of the unique circumstances our members have to deal with in terms of fewer customers per mile, higher cost of technology per customer, higher cost of compliance and regulation per customer, lack of availability of technology versus larger companies with access to technology.

That underscores why we say that what is really needed in Washington this year is a consensus [net neutrality] bill, which would help consumers as well as ISPs, and even extend certain protections and regulations over edge providers.

And we’re talking about a deal I think members of Congress could reach if there is political will to do so. Codifying net neutrality principles of no blocking, no throttling, no paid prioritization, things that our members do each and every day to support their customers, which I think is not a bridge too far.

I was very encouraged by the news of the [Senate] net neutrality working group that has been created. I think that is a very, very positive sign because it shows that Republicans and Democrats can work together to try and find solutions that aren’t necessarily politicized.

MCN: Last time we talked you thought bipartisan legislation would be a steep climb, and, frankly, our takeaway from last week’s House hearing is that there wasn’t a lot of bipartisanship there. Working groups are good, but we didn’t elsewhere see a lot of hope for a bipartisan bill. You do?

MP: I can’t say I disagree with you.

Let’s face it, we’ve been fighting this issue for a lot of years. So, it is certainly hard to reach consensus on such hot-button issues. But I maintain that if we are all interested in insuring consumers’ interests are protected but also insuring that we deploy more of the broadband that consumers want — to residences, businesses, hospitals, institutions — then we have to find a way that meets the needs of both consumer and provider and we can’t be: “It’s either one way or the other.” That just isn’t going to work.

MCN: Would you support restoring a general conduct standard along with the other bright-line rules? That seems to be one of the major issues with any new legislation.

MP: That is a hypothetical I can’t answer. But we know how the general-conduct standard was applied under the previous rules. That was not helpful. It was too vague and uncertain and that was demonstrated. Just the threat of that, as well as the imposition of Title II, even with the possibility of forbearance, was enough from our members’ perspectives to basically dry up their capital, their investors and their ability to deploy more.

So, that is a very difficult question and would have to be worked out together. We would really have to roll up our sleeves in those discussions. So we would be very concerned about a general-conduct standard, but we realize that these are issues that would be on the table that we would have to discuss to reach a deal.

MCN: Have your members all but abandoned traditional video and do you see them cutting that cord entirely soon?

MP: That’s a really interesting question and a shifting paradigm right now. I don’t see our members themselves simply saying: “we’re not in the video business any longer.” Even companies that have been very forthright about it, like Cable One, which will be Sparklight soon, “de-emphasize” video but are still more than happy to provide it to consumers who want it.

I think it just shows the shift in consumer behavior. Most of our members report to us today that it is not by their choice but their customers’ actions. Out of 10 new customers they have, six to eight of them are broadband-only subscribers. And that’s because of what broadband and our members provide that allow our customers to consume over-the-top. I am that way personally. I am a very loyal Comcast subscriber and have the full boat of services. But I watch most of the video I watch on an iPad on an over-the-top service or an integrated service with Xfinity. And I am not alone.

So consumers and their habits are migrating away from cable to more of a broadband dynamic, which I think has a lot to do with the demographics of the younger consumers. But there is still a need for video in many households. It’s just that it is diminishing over time.

MCN: Is that the reason you feel the need for Washington to start regulating the edge, since that is where the video will be coming from? You seem to have a hard enough time getting program-access attention in Washington with traditional video, which does have access regulations.

MP: That’s exactly right. We have always feared that simply because of size. We have fought consolidation on the content side for many years and have seen the ills that have happened when content companies come together and get bigger and own the programming or become vertically integrated.

Now, when you are talking about the Internet and literally two or three companies, maybe four, that control internet traffic and deal with consumer privacy data and access to content with no regulation whatsoever — these things we talked about a few years ago as the “cableization of the internet” — it’s not a stretch to envision that a Google could say to an ISP: “We know, because we have the data, that 92.783% of your customers use Google as a homepage. So, now we want you to pay us $3 or $5 per month per ISP subscriber or we will block access to Google as their homepage.” That is not farfetched.

Same with Facebook conditioning access to its network or Amazon conditioning access to its network. There are many concerns that we have shared, which is why we have said that any solution on open internet policies must include edge providers, given the massive control they have over internet traffic, data and access. If we are going to be talking about a solution that focuses on no blocking, no throttling, no discrimination, no paid prioritization, as well as protection of privacy, it makes no sense, and would not be supportable, if such a plan did not include the edge providers.

MCN: So, are you in the Sen. Elizabeth Warren “break up Big Tech” camp?

MP: It is not necessarily a dodge to say this, but I had [Public Knowledge president] Gene Kimmelman on a podcast recently where he said that breaking up the big companies might be more trouble than it was worth. He cited Ma Bell and an effort that took years to break up, only to eventually result in re-consolidation. So, I am not necessarily convinced a breakup is the best route simply because of the time it would take and the complexity. This is why I think sensible net neutrality/open internet legislation that protects consumers and applies reasonably to ISPs and edge providers is the preferred method.

MCN: What other major issues will your members be focusing on in discussions with Congress?

MP: There are two in particular. One is this year’s reauthorization of the STELAR satellite bill. We have been encouraged by people like Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Roger Wicker — despite broadcasters’ attempts to dismiss it — that there should be a reauthorization [of the compulsory license that allows satellite operators to import distant TV station signals without negotiation individually for them].

Other leaders have said this as well. So there is a recognition that the reauthorization is necessary and important to our members because it is an opportunity to reexamine existing broadcast carriage rules. I am very happy to see people like Congressman Steve Scalise and Congresswoman Anna Eshoo continue to support bills they have introduced before, whether it is Congressman Scalise’s Next Generation TV Marketplace act, which would eliminate outdated retrans and copyright regulations, or Congresswoman Anna Eshoo’s Video Choice bill, which would allow for tiering of broadcast channels and standstills during disputes. These are good ideas that won’t eliminate the retrans regime, but would provide for a meaningful update reflecting a changed marketplace.

MCN: But, traditionally, STELAR-delivered reforms start big, but wind up being more nibbling around the edges. Do you see a political difference this time?

MP: I would disagree with that. I look back five years ago [STELAR comes up for renewal every five years] and, because of ACA’s efforts, we were successful in winning bipartisan language that prohibited joint negotiations by broadcasters in a marketplace.

That was a big deal. At the time we also had limitations placed on some joint services agreements. And even that has been relaxed to some degree, there continues to be great skepticism that, when companies that are non-commonly-owned come together to share services, they could be violating antitrust principles.

So, we definitely believe there could be significant change this year. I think the time has come for bold ideas to be considered rather than living with outdated regulations in 2019.

The fact is that even broadcasters’ distribution world has fundamentally changed. We had members recently involved with retrans disputes, where for example Nexstar blacked them out for more than a month, where our members found ways to give alternative programming to their customers through the [broadcast] networks that allowed for streaming of their content and even sports.

MCN: You mentioned a second big Hill issue?

MP: Yes, we will be talking to Congress and the FCC about the move to 5G and using the C-band spectrum [which operators use to get cable nets from programers]. From a 5G perspective, all forms of broadband deployment to give consumers more choices are good, whether satellite, 5G, fixed wireless, wired, you name it.

As the FCC is looking at the C-band spectrum, there are a couple of things. First, just using C-band for 5G will create interference for our members in receiving programming signals they get using satellite, so there is that issue. The satellite companies say they have filters to fix this, but our members are saying the filters don’t work. So, you have to figure out how to get signals reliably without interference, and maybe one of the ways to do that is terrestrially, but there is a cost to that.

So, our view is that if the FCC, in order to further 5G, is going to auction off C-band spectrum and bring in some $60 billion to $70 billion, it seems reasonable — just as the broadcasters have been reimbursed for repacking — that MVPDs should be reimbursed to ameliorate the negative impact of 5G, whether that is through equipment for satellite delivery or for terrestrial delivery.

MCN: Are you talking about just covering costs, or something more?

MP: It is developing. We are working with the FCC on proposals that would cover out-of-pocket costs for transition to whatever technology means are necessary to avoid the harm. There are some other elements. Broadcasters, in typical fashion, maybe asked for more than they deserve [TV stations use the C-band to receive programming from their networks, too]. We are focused on what would make an MVPD whole for capital outlay to avoid interference.

MCN: What do you hope to hear from FCC chairman Ajit Pai at the summit and how would you handicap his first two years?

MP: I will say this first: we have really enjoyed working in association with chairman Pai because of his depth of experience at the commission and what he has put into practice with his policies. And we have not always agreed with him. I mean, we are not exactly enamored with greater broadcast-ownership relaxation that gives them more power to take advantage of outdated retransmission-consent rules.

But his approach has been one we have been able to trust, rely on, and work together on. I expect him to say: “Thank you for doing what you have been doing since the Restoring Internet Freedom Order.” We told him that if those rules were lifted our members would invest and deploy, and by gosh they did.

And they are working with or without federal funds to connect their communities. Certainly I think he will recognize that what we have done together has worked.

Second, I think he will be focused on how we reach the places that still need to be reached and how we can work together to do that.

American Cable Association president Matt Polka has good news and bad news for Congress.

That is according to his testimony for a hearing on infrastructure Wednesday (Feb. 13) in the Senate Commerce Committee.

The hearing ranges over a number of transportation sectors--railroads, airports, trucking--with Polka the only witness on the transport of bits and bytes over broadband.

The good news is that broadband providers are investing $75 billion annually in infrastructure, fixed and mobile, with no end in sight to that investment. Suggesting a sort of Hippocratic Oath for broadband deployment, Polka said government first and foremost should do nothing to harm that investment. 

The bad news is that 1) unnecessary barriers still exist that hinders deployment and more needs to be done to remove those and 2) the digital divide still needs closing.

But even the bad news wasn't that bad. He said that Congress, the FCC and Rural Utilities Service have all made headway on closing the divide. 

But in the "more can be done," Polka offered up ACA's four principles for a broadband future:

"(1) respect private investment; (2) remove barriers to deployment; (3) before adopting additional programs to close the digital divide, account for additional deployments in unserved areas resulting from the removal of barriers, the recently enacted tax law, and existing federal and state support programs; and (4) provide broadband subsidies efficiently," which it says means in "unserved," "high-cost" areas.

The American Cable Association has taken issue with Nexstar's online effort to sell the importance of its signals to local government and the impact of their absence from Antietam Broadband, with which it is currently at a retrans impasse.

ACA president Matt Polka blogged that Nexstar was pressuring a local government (in Hagerstown, Md.) to take its side in the dispute. While he called the request preposterous, he added that government oversight was in order, specifically the Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission and FCC attention to the proposed Nexstar-Tribune merger, which ACA has big problems with.

By citing the station's role in public safety in calling for local government help, says ACA, Nexstar "wants elected officials to pressure a private company to raise cable bills for their constituents."

For its part, Nexstar's WDVM Hagerstown has posted a series of short stories on its website pointing to the local news, sports, consumer and emergency info and other content Antietam subs are missing during the impasse, a variation on the more common theme of TV stations during impasses, which is that cable subs can access the signals over-the-air—with some stations even handing out over-the-air antennas to make the point.

In the story Polka was citing, WDVM staffers and execs attended a City Council meeting to demonstrate to the mayor and council the station's "commitment to the community." While the council did not appear prepared to weigh in, WDVM VP and GM Andrew Wyatt "wants the city to get involved," WDVM reported. "The city in general has an obligation and a duty here to try to keep the public safe. Our TV station does a great deal to keep this community safe," said Wyatt, according to the station website.

Calling for government intervention is not new. Both sides of retrans impasses have in the past sought FCC help, suggesting the other side was not negotiating in good faith. But as a general matter, broadcasters have fought government intervention in retrans disputes, arguing that it is a marketplace negotiation, while cable ops say that it is, instead, a thumb on the scale for broadcasters.

Polka used the opportunity to widen his criticism to the retrans regime writ large: "Nexstar’s actions confirm our longstanding view that something is fundamentally wrong in the retransmission consent marketplace more generally," said Polka. "As Congress renews key satellite television legislation this year, it should consider Nexstar’s behavior – and commonsense reform to protect the public from such behavior."

The FCC under previous management declined to make blackouts a de facto bad faith negotiation tactic.

San Antonio, Texas — Over the past few decades one of the worst insults you could hurl at a cable operator was that it sold nothing but a “dumb pipe,” a conduit through which vastly smarter content flowed to increasingly sophisticated hardware.

But today, as broadband has become the business of choice for large and small operators — every publicly traded cable operator has more high-speed data customers than video customers — being a dumb pipe, it seems, isn’t so bad after all.

“The trends in pay TV have been absolutely horrible,” New Street Research managing director Jonathan Chaplin said at the National Cable Television Cooperative’s Winter Educational Conference here. “We’ve seen traditional linear pay TV subscribers falling off a cliff over the course of the last few years at an accelerating rate, and we think this trend continues. We think the economics of pay TV for cable companies are marginal at best.”

Cash-Flow Benefits
He then pointed to Charter Communications and Comcast, which he estimated generate $15 and $24 per month per customer in free cash flow from video, respectively.

“When a household cuts the cord and goes broadband-only, the increase in broadband pricing more than offsets the loss in profitability from the video product,” Chaplin said.

NCTC president Rich Fickle said that while some of the co-op’s members have de-emphasized video, it will likely remain in the cable package for a while. “Video is going to be a part of the equation for a long time,” he said. “It’s an established business, customers like the fact that they’ve got a good local operator that they can trust. It’s going to erode slowly over time.”

And the more that base erodes, the more cable becomes a content conduit. According to Chaplin, that’s not such a bad thing. “There is nothing wrong with being a dumb pipe,” he said. “It’s a magnificent business if there are no other pipes and if everybody wants your pipe.”

That last part might seem like a key caveat, but cable has consistently come out on top in the ongoing broadband wars, accounting for more than 100% of high-speed data customer additions for more than a decade. It seems that barring some unforeseeable calamity — like widespread, reliable and affordable 5G wireless service from telcos — cable will indeed remain the broadband pipe of choice.

Preserving that leadership role will be crucial because Chaplin doesn’t see a lot of video growth for cable operators down the road. “The entire future value of cable is in broadband — 80% of EBITDA, 90% of the enterprise value of these companies over the next few years.”

Some operators have already taken the bold move to de-emphasize video all together. Cable One did it a few years ago, as broadband revenue finally exceeded video revenue for the first time in 2016 ($344.2 million vs. $294.8 million for video). And while the big MSOs still reap a big chunk of revenue from video, the gap is closing. Comcast, the largest cable operator in the country, reported video revenue of $21.5 billion in 2015 and broadband revenue of $12.5 billion. Last year that gap narrowed to $23.1 billion for video, and $14.8 billion for broadband.

Not Too Far to Travel
American Cable Association president and CEO Matt Polka said from that perspective, it isn’t a big leap to just providing access to apps or other content sources.

“What’s wrong with giving the consumer access to go wherever they want to go?” Polka said. “We’re trying to enable all of that, our members are trying to get that choice and control more to the consumer to the extent the content companies allow us to do it.”

In the wake of a tsunami of broadband infrastructure-related bills coming out of both the House, the Communications Subcommittee has scheduled a Jan. 30 hearing on "Closing the Digital Divide: Broadband Infrastructure Solutions.

Representing cable broadband providers will be Matt Polka, president of the American Cable Association, whose members are the smaller and midsized operators on the front lines of deploying plant in rural areas.

The subcommittee lists almost two dozen bills and resolutions that will (or at least could) be the subject of the hearing, including two added Friday (Jan. 26), the Connecting Broadband Deserts Act (H.R. 4287), and the Precision Agriculture Connectivity Act, which was also introduced in the House.

The bill referring to broadband "deserts" is from Democrats Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) and Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), is meant to target so-called digital red-lining by defining an urban area census block where less than a third of the residents have access to advanced telecommunications as a "desert" that the FCC must take immediate action to fix by removing barriers to infrastructure investment.

Also scheduled to testify are Brad Gillen of CTIA; Nancy White of North Central Telephone Cooperative, and Jonathan Spalter of USTelecom.

Washington — The policy-driven ACA Summit in the nation’s capital March 28-30 will feature the new Federal Communications Committee chairman Ajit Pai as a speaker before cable and telecom operators spread out over the city to take their message to the agency and the Hill.

In some ways, they will be preaching to the converted.

The American Cable Association is coming off a string of victories at the FCC, most notably Pai and fellow Republican Michael O’Rielly’s successful effort to renew and expand the small business waiver from the FCC’s enhanced transparency rules that kicked in in January.

The ACA, which represents smaller, independent cable operators, had been pushing for the extension and expanding the carveout from systems of 100,000 subscribers or fewer to 250,000 or fewer. It got bipartisan support in Congress, and then Pai and O’Rielly delivered.

The chairman has also circulated an order granting the ACA’s petition that it modify the Charter Communications- Time Warner Cable overbuild condition so that the mandatory buildouts don’t have to include 1 million high-speed overbuilds.

ACA members in the potential path of those overbuilds were not happy about the condition, and the ACA let the FCC know it.

While at press time the item had not been adopted, that may only be because all three commissioners have to vote an item on circulation. Pai is clearly on board, and O’Rielly dissented from that and other conditions when the deal was approved — his office would not confirm his vote, but it almost certainly will be to jettison the condition.

Asked what the ACA will be pushing for in the new administration, Matt Polka, the association’s president, signaled the group would be pushing for “Congress to address government and private-sector barriers that hinder broadband deployment, apply light-touch regulation to the provision of broadband Internet access service and provide targeted support to encourage broadband deployment in unserved areas.”

The ACA would also like to see “new policies that modernize video regulations that also serve to spur broadband investment and deployment.” The ACA has argued for retrans reforms and preventing what it sees as unfair carriage contract provisions, like bundling, but that will be a much tougher ask from the Pai FCC, given the chairman’s past issues with stepping into contract issues.

The FCC’s new majority members will both be in the speakers’ lineup at the ACA event. O’Rielly is scheduled to speak March 29 at 1:15 p.m. and Pai March 30 at 8 a.m.

Also scheduled to be on the dais: Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W. Va.), March 29 at 8:30 a.m.; Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.), March 29 at 10 a.m.; and House Republican Conference chair Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), March 29 at noon.

FCC chairman Ajit Pai says that he thinks closing the digital divide can be something that bridges the current political divide as well.

American Cable Association President Matt Polka got in the final question for the chairman following Pai's speech at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, where ACA is based.

Polka asked whether, given the politically divided country, it would be possible to navigate between consumers needing services and the private networks that will be providing it.

Pai conceded the political divisions, but said he hoped closing the digital divide could be "an oasis from that."

He had yet to hear that people wanted better networks because they were Republicans or Democrats. He said it does not matter who gets credit for closing the divide, which is why before the election back in September he proposed Gigabit Empowerment Zones--providing tax breaks to ISPs to deliver high-speed to low-income neighborhoods. He said it was not about who won the election or who was going to head the FCC, but instead a about a blueprint for digital empowerment.

He also said that was why early on in his tenure he approved letting New York State direct some Universal Service Fund money, saying he had worked with Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer on that effort.

This is an area where we can come together and share the credit, whether public or private, Democrat or Republican.

Pai was asked following the speech why he had not scheduled his appearance a earlier, which would have been March 14, or 3/14, or Pi Day. He joked that it was so he could warn them about the Ides of March (March 15).

Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.) will speak at the upcoming American Cable Association annual policy summit (March 28-30) in Washington, the ACA said Wedneday (Jan. 18).

"Rep. Schrader has a solid understanding of the issues that ACA members care about the most," Matt Polka, ACA president, said in a statement. "ACA members greatly appreciate Rep. Schrader's attendance so they can thank him personally for helping fight unfair set-top box regulations brewing last year at the Federal Communications Commission."

Schrader joined with other legislators to register their concerns with FCC chairman Tom Wheeler's proposed set-top revamp, which was ultimately pulled due to bipartisan pushback, including from within the FCC itself.

Schrader is a small business owner who shares similar perspectives with ACA members, who are small and midsized cable operators and telecom providers.

The first round of comments in the FCC's Connect America Fund (CAF) rulemaking have "strayed from the statute's 'reasonable comparability' requirement," according to the American Cable Association's reply comments on the competitive bidding program.

The responses of the major telecom providers "not only ... downplay the statute, but [also discourage] many parties from participating in the auction, thereby limiting the cost-effective distribution of support,"  the ACA said.

Related: FCC Wants to Fatten CAF [subscription required]

The FCC's final weighting of CAF Phase II bids must be based on the original statute and "an evolving level or service," ACA contended in its reply to the proposed rulemaking, which encompasses Rural Broadband Experiments.  

Many of the companies responding to the FCC "tended to emphasize the need to maximize the number of locations served within the budget," according to a statement from ACA president/CEO Matthew Polka.

"The FCC should weight bids based on the statutory requirement that consumers in eligible areas receive reasonably comparable service to urban consumer preferences for broadband Internet access services over the 10-year timeframe of the program and that, to maximize participation, the deployment cost of bids in different performance tiers be normalized. Both of these factors can be determined using a methodology based on market data and are quantifiable," Polka said.

Related:FCC Approves CAF Bidding Framework for Competitive ISPs

The ACA filing urged the FCC to reject the weighting system proposed by earlier commenters.

"The FCC cannot adopt such weights because they are arbitrary and will skew the competitive bidding process," the ACA argued.  It also stressed that the weighting methodology should normalize costs among assumed technologies for each performance tier to maximize participation and to reflect consumer broadband preferences.

The ACA proposed that to maximize participation and reflect consumer preferences, weighting should account for the significant differences in costs for deploying different network technologies in different geographies among the performance tiers.

The cable industry’s regulatory environment has heated up in the past year, with potential new set-top-box rules and the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to back off on retransmission-consent reform just the latest in a long list of cable-centric rules that could place undue burdens on operators large and small. While limited resources would make it hard for small, independent operators to fight lengthy regulatory battles, they have the American Cable Association to do it for them.

As The Independent Show in Orlando, Fla., drew near, ACA president and CEO Matt Polka spoke with Multichannel News senior finance editor Mike Farrell about how small operators can deal with the changing climate. An edited transcript follows.

MCN Independent Operators of the Year:WideOpenWest Covers Its Bases | Buckeye: Building on Broadband

MCN:What are the biggest issues for small operators going into the show?

Matt Polka: The theme of the show is, “Refocus and Reconnect.” I think that is appropriate in many ways. I would also say recommit. We’ve never had a year like this where we are under such enormous regulatory strain, where the types of important rulemakings that are moving at the commission, each on their own, could have a significant impact on our members’ ability to deploy more broadband service. We’re telling our members to refocus, reconnect and recommit, so you can be strong in the face of this storm.

As part of that recommitting, we’re saying, “Recommit with us at ACA so your voice can increasingly be heard.” We’re also telling our members to look at their customer service as a key differentiator that will help them maintain a strong positon and will also keep them from scrutiny.

A couple of weeks ago, Sen. [Claire] McCaskill (DMo.) and Sen. [Rob] Portman (R-Ohio) had a hearing regarding customer service for primarily the larger MVPDs. And while that hearing wasn’t focused on our members, it’s a good lesson to never ever take anything from a customer-service perspective for granted, [to] ensure that we as cable operators are presenting the best cable customer service we can provide and demonstrating that value that we are a vital connection to the community.

There are four primary issues from a rulemaking perspective: The set-top box rulemaking; the rulemaking on business data services, otherwise known as special access; the broadband privacy rulemaking at the FCC; and then just the implementation of Title II. Each one of these is a specific regulatory effort — although [with] Title II, the FCC hasn’t said what it might do yet — each one of those areas are crucial because of the cost impact to comply with the regulation, man hours, paperwork hours, the diversion of resources from deployment of broadband service to what we see as needless regulatory compliance.

MCN:It seemed like all of the indications pointed to the FCC finally doing something on the retransmission-consent reform front. How will inaction affect the industry going forward?

MP: Based on even as late as late last week [July 15] meetings with the bureau and other commission staff indicated there was going to be an order. For [FCC chairman Tom Wheeler] to say, “Nah, I don’t think so,” we’re shocked by that. I think what it’s going to mean — this isn’t the year when most agreements come up, it’s next year — unless something changes at the FCC or at the Hill, we’re going to see the impact of basically an unfettered broadcast industry that has carte blanche to do whatever it wants. That’s not a result that anybody wants.

Related >It’s a Small World After All: A Q&A With the NCTC's Rick Fickle

MCN:This year is an election year. Does that mean even more change is in store for the industry?

MP: We’re looking ahead to what’s going to happen in 2017. Heavens knows what is going to happen in the presidential elections. We’re going to have to deal with a new administration, most likely an interim FCC chair and then a new FCC chair. There will be a new head of the Energy & Commerce committee in the House because of term limits there; it’s unknown whether the Senate is going to flip from Republican to Democratic and whether [Democratic] Sen. [Bill] Nelson from Florida will be the chairman or [Republican] Sen. [John] Thune from South Dakota will remain the chairman.

We’re telling our members regardless of all of this uncertainty in the political environment, we at ACA are well-positioned because we’ve done the homework, we’ve done the grassroots, we’ve done the groundwork, so regardless of these possible changes we can stay focused on our policy objective moving forward.

One of the big issues that remains is whether [FCC Democrat Jessica] Rosenworcel is renominated and how that could affect the commission, and whether chairman Wheeler, as is tradition, steps down. There could be some bills on the Hill passed during the lameduck session, like an enhanced transparency exemption extension bill.

The Senate not too long ago passed a small-business broadband bill that increased the number of subscribers that subscribe to an ISP from 100,000 to 250,000 to comply with the FCC enhanced transparency requirements. That bill is likely to get passed at year-end. The rest of the Hill agenda for this year is kind of cloudy.

MCN:Small operators have been very outspoken over the years on a lot of regulatory issues. Could consolidation change that?

MP: It remains to be seen what impact consolidation will have on our segment of the industry. I do see some strategic combinations of our members that help to provide maybe better operational control within a particular area. It really remains to be seen whether some of the large interests have any interest in acquiring our members.

The truth of it is, I don’t care who you are, Mediacom, Cable One, WideOpenWest, that’s still really small. Even if you combine some of the larger smaller ops, you’re still tiny compared to Charter and AT&T and Comcast. If there is any consolidation, I tend to think we’ll still be fighting for the same issues.

MCN:One issue that small operators have been especially vocal about over the years has been forced bundling by programmers. Now that larger operators have taken up the skinny-bundle mantle, do you think we’ll see some traction there soon?

MP: I do. We’ve always comically but also seriously at the ACA called ourselves the canary in the coal mine. What has happened is whether it is retransmission consent or problems of cable programming choice or lack thereof, or other issues, is that larger MVPDs have gravitated toward us as they have seen in their own companies with much greater scale the need for relief and reform.

As those companies bring their greater influence to bear, it complements what we at ACA have been doing for years quite well because we compare and contrast on the same track to say the market has changed; the regulations that were once needed aren’t needed anymore with the dynamic, changing marketplace; and that government should release the straps of regulation and let the market decide.

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) will address the Independent Show in Orlando July 25.

Fischer, who is a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, will be interviewed by American Cable Association president Matt Polka.

"ACA is very delighted that Sen. Fischer will be on hand to discuss the key issues that she and her constituents across Nebraska care so much about," said Polka. "Her leadership on providing 21st Century telecommunications services in the hard-to-reach spaces of the State and country mirrors so many of ACA's perspectives."

For example, Fischer was among a group of senators who recently asked FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler to further study the impact of its set-top box proposal on smaller pay-TV providers before proceeding to vote on a final order.

Also on the agenda are remarks from FCC Commissioner and former chair Mignon Clyburn.

The show, which focuses on issues facing independent cable operators, is being held July 24-27 at Walt Disney World's Swan and Dolphin Resort.

Today (Feb. 8) marks the 20th anniversary of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which updated the Communications Act of 1934 let cable into the phone business and phones into cable.

B&C/Multichannel News polled some policymakers and watchers to weigh in on the impact of the principally deregulatory rule rewrite and to offer up a birthday wish if they liked.

Rick Boucher , former chair, House Communications Subcommittee

“My involvement in formulating the ‘96 act began in 1988 when I joined with then Sen. Al Gore in introducing legislation to allow telephone companies to offer cable TV service (multi-channel video distribution services) in their telephone service areas.

“That measure became the first plank in the 96 act, and it was joined by a provision to enable cable companies and other competitors into the local telephone market, a provision to create greater competition in the long-distance market by setting the conditions for the entry of the Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs) into the nationwide long-distance market and a provision enabling the RBOCs to manufacture telecommunications equipment. I was active throughout the committee process in processing the 96 act and served as a member of the conference committee.

“My ‘birthday wish’ for the act is that Congress adopt much-needed legislation recognizing the digital and mobile era into which telecommunications has emerged. The 96 act was about analog services and to a large extent "plain old telephone services.” These provisions will help to modernize the 96 act for the digital era:

1. Congress should pass legislation which declares that broadband is an information service not subject to common carrier regulation. The legislation should also give statutory permanence to strong network neutrality guarantees along the lines of the FCC's 2010 open Internet order. Such a bill allows both network neutrality proponents and the proponents of light touch regulation of broadband to achieve their major legislative objectives and puts to rest the longest standing and most contentious telecommunications debate of the 21st century. It would also remove the uncertainty about future broadband regulation which is restraining broadband investment.

“2. Congress should recognize in legislation the advanced nature of the Internet protocol transition and set a date, perhaps 2020, for the sunset of the old legacy copper network. Every dollar that telephone companies are required by law to expend today maintaining the copper network is a dollar not expended on fiber optics and other advanced 21st-century telecommunications infrastructures.

“3. Another legislative provision should create incentives for government agencies to surrender telecommunications spectrum for auction to commercial wireless carriers. Simply stated, government agencies should be offered a share of the auction proceeds in exchange for a surrender of the spectrum they hold. That approach appears to be working in the case of television broadcasters, and there's every reason to believe it would work well for government agencies. In my mind, that's the best approach to getting large allocations of spectrum onto the commercial auction block quickly and meeting the growing demand for spectrum for mobile data.

“4. Congress should also adopt a Bill of Rights for privacy for Internet users with jurisdiction in the Federal Trade Commission over all telecommunications privacy issues. Providing to Internet users greater assurance that their privacy is protected should result in a greater willingness to use the Internet for commercial purposes.”

Matt Polka, president, American Cable Association

“One of the lessons we should learn from the 1996 Act is that because the communications market is so dynamic and because we do not legislate often, Congress should focus on crafting broader substantive principles, establishing sound procedures to address issues, and letting the FCC handle matters day-to-day with regular oversight.

“American Cable Association members believe any new legislation should be based on the precept that the federal government should permit the communications marketplace to work to the maximum extent possible and intervene only when necessary to ensure the availability of viable and competitive high performance communications networks and advanced services to all Americans.”

FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly

"Today marks the 20th Anniversary of the signing into law of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.  I vividly remember the events leading up to that moment and recall the strong leadership of my then boss, House Commerce Committee Chairman Tom Bliley.  

"The signing represented so much promise of what could be and reflected found trust between legislators.  It is a shame that many of the deals struck in the law were not actually honored and many provisions have since been abused beyond recognition by regulators, the courts and advocates.  My wish would be for the Commission to focus on the future of communications, rather than trying to drag new innovations into old fights."

USTelecom President Walter McCormick:

“With its twin pillars competition and deregulation, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 set the stage for the thriving broadband Internet economy we take for granted today. It transformed the communications industry from a group of isolated monopolies to a highly competitive, diverse, and innovative marketplace.

“Consumers are the greatest beneficiaries of these evolutionary changes. Having achieved its core market-opening goals and achieved a fast-paced, dynamic broadband economy, much of the Act is now obsolete. It is time for a refresh. Congress, as the elected representatives of the American people, must ensure that telecom policy addresses today’s challenges, not last century’s, and ensures that we retain our international leadership. “

Randolph May, president, Free State Foundation

“I followed [the Act] very closely as a lawyer practicing in the field and former FCC Associate General Counsel.

“I am happy to extend ‘happy birthday’ wishes to the Telecom Act of 1996, but, frankly, it’s now long past time to be readying ‘good-bye’ wishes too.

At best, the act was a transitional vehicle to help get us from the analog to the digital world. At worse, the statute was insufficiently deregulatory in direction, or at least sufficiently ambiguous that it could be interpreted in an overly regulatory manner, which is what we have now. We need a new Digital Age Communications Act soon, and, at its heart, it needs to have a silo-less market-oriented, competition-based standard to guide the Commission’s regulatory endeavors.”

Sari Feldman, President, American Library Association

“The Telecommunications Act and the E-rate program it created is the engine powering much of the digital transformation underway in America’s nearly 17,000 public library locations.  In 1996, only 28 percent of public libraries provided public Internet access, compared with over 99 percent who report this today.  Great hanks to Senators [Jay] Rockefeller, [Olympia] Snowe and [Ed] Markey for their foresight in enabling these strides in both public access and innovation!”

National Cable & Telecommunications Association President Michael Powell

Powell was traveling, but in an essay in the Federal Communications Law Journal at George Washington University Law School http://www.fclj.org/reflecting1996/,  Powell said this of the Act:

“When I was FCC Chairman I frequently testified before Senator John McCain’s Commerce Committee. The Senator always began with a pointed question to me: “Was the 1996 Telecommunications Act a success, yes or no?” He wanted me to say no, given that he voted against the Act. I always  answered emphatically, “Yes.…

“Sadly, the exceptional bipartisan consensus that gave birth to the 1996 Act and its liberating regulatory framework is breaking down. Now, the ambiguity of the Act—only getting worse with time—is being used to resurrect a muscular regulatory model that places renewed (and unfounded) faith in regulators to manage the Internet. The trends are ominous and cause me to rethink how I would answer Senator McCain today. I confess, I am wavering.”

Consumer Technology Association President Gary Shapiro

"Twenty years after it became law, the Telecom Act still helps encourage new technology and innovation," he said in a Birthday Greeting statement distributed to the press corps. "As we said at the time, the Act would aid our successful transition to HDTV, move in the right direction on spectrum and enable flexibility in product offering and consumer choice. As we also said at the time, mandating V Chip technology would accomplish little and hinder better parental option technologies.

"But overall, in the last two decades, the Act has not hindered companies from creating new products and services, and thanks to the Internet, new services and business models have benefitted the American people."

With all the government issues facing smaller operators these days, the masses assembling in Boston this week for the Independent Show could very well have their own version of a Boston Tea Party.

Members of the National Cable Television Cooperative and the American Cable Association have gathered to hash out thorny issues facing small, midsized and independent cable operators: retransmission consent deals that have left many in the dark, programming costs that are forcing some out of the video business, and the promise — or threat — of over-the-top TV options. There’s also the distant but persistent threat of cybersecurity. Multichannel News editorial director Mark Robichaux caught up with ACA president and CEO Matt Polka to hear about what’s on his mind, and his members’ (polite) policy demands.

MCN:Just this week you sent out a letter criticizing Media General’s TV signal black out of Mediacom cable customers — 14 markets, three Fox stations. The National Association of Broadcasters says retransmission consent is not broken. You and your members disagree. What will it take to fix it?

Matt Polka: Our good friends in the broadcasting business have their feet firmly planted in the regulations of the ’60s, ’70s, ’80s and ’90s, because it does one thing and one thing only, and that’s benefit them and no one else.

The world is moving on. I mean they’ve become dinosaurs holding onto and using these old rules in harmful, anti-consumer ways.

But the fact of the matter is this, ACA for years has been an effective advocate on the need for retransmission consent reform, which everybody but the broadcasters thinks needs to occur. Look at the facts: Since just 2013 there have been nearly 250 blackouts.

MCN:Who fixes this? Congress? The FCC?

MP: All of the above. The FCC can certainly make some changes, which they are starting to do and they have done over the last couple of years with their good-faith rules prohibiting coordinated negotiations. Congress has wide latitude in its own oversight to change the rules. I mean, they created the rules back in 1992 for a specific reason that does not exist today and hasn’t for some time.

MCN:When do you think Congress will act?

MP: At the beginning of the year, we all were expecting a larger rewrite in both the House and the Senate, and the net neutrality issues that came out of the FCC have had a significant impact on the communications agenda on the Hill. So both the Senate and House committees are looking at more limited, rifle-shot kinds of approaches. We expect to see some more from the committees here after the August recess.

The hope and the intent is to get started this year; start a process that continues into 2016 and into 2017 after the election is over.

MCN:Related to that are increased programming costs …

MP: We have demonstrated this year the harm of the bundle and how that also hurts consumers through price increases, but also limits our members’ ability to deploy more broadband in their communities. It’s a capital question and an operational question. If you’re spending more money on programming, that’s less that you have laying around to basically deploy broadband. So there is a definite effect.

MCN:You say programming costs prohibit smaller players from deploying more broadband — what happened after you filed that petition to the FCC?

MP: It’s still pending; the FCC has to put its report together and report to Congress. But we have shown very clearly there is definitely linkage between higher programming rates and diminished ability to provide the broadband that consumers want.

We have members that are saying to companies like Viacom and others, and I think we’ll see more of it as time goes on, “Your bundle is just not worth it by way of ratings, by way of what you’re asking, by way of your onerous carriage requirements. We are just not going to renew.”

MCN:Are ACA members prepared to compete with new OTT rivals?

MP: Yes. And, at the same time, they are also coming to Boston to really expand their knowledge base as well as to make sure they understand their options.

The first step is they recognize now that we are now broadband providers who also provide telephone and video. We are in a huge transition era right now where consumers as well as providers are sort of weaning themselves from the old linear traditional cable model to the expansive online, broadbandvideo model, where consumers no longer view video on cable by the channel but increasingly view video online by the program. So it is a really dynamic time, and we’re really on the cusp of the new world.

As independent operators settle in Kansas City this week for their annual convention, they’ve got more on their minds than just barbecue and blues. In the group’s hometown this year, National Cable Television Cooperative and American Cable Association members have gathered to hash out the myriad issues facing small, midsized and independent cable operators: the skyrocketing cost of programming, Internet-protocol delivery of video and data, retransmission consent and TV Everywhere.  Multichannel News editor in chief Mark Robichaux caught up with ACA president and CEO Matt Polka to hear what’s on his legislative agenda for members.

MCN: As you head into Kansas City, what would you say are the three biggest concerns for your membership?

Matt Polka: From a business perspective, it is really trying to embrace all things (IP) and all things broadband. With the changing nature of our industry, it's rapidly moving into the Internet of everything, and that makes it incumbent upon our members in their unique markets to provide the same kind of services that a consumer would expect in New York or Los Angeles or Chicago.

 So we're going to be doing a lot at the show focused on [Internet protocol] and broadband for everything, basically, and encouraging our members to be very active in embracing that future. So that's No. 1.

No. 2, on a daily policy basis, it's keep up the fight. After many, many years and a lot of battles in Washington, we are succeeding in moving forward in seeing Congress and the [Federal Communications Commission] act on outdated rules and regulations, primarily broadcast carriage, retransmission, consent regulations. The FCC's actions this year in March on coordinated retransmission-consent negotiations prohibit that collusion by broadcasters; the House passed its version of a satellite extension bill last week that included aspects of retransmission consent reform that set the stage for a larger Communications Act, when these outdated regulations can be eliminated.

The third thing is to begin to encourage, from my perspective at least, Washington to act now, while it can, on important broadband policy issues before they get out of hand and become unmanageable. My example here is, as it relates to the FCC's open Internet proceeding and other consideration by Congress, [is that] while the FCC and Congress talk about regulating Internet service providers and prohibiting any discrimination of blocking by ISPs, at the same time that the blocking and discrimination that's occurring today is happening by content providers — not cable operators, not ISPs.

So whether it's the CBS Corp. blocking Time Warner Cable broadband customer’s access to CBS online programming or Viacom blocking access to some 50, 60 of our member companies and their broadband subscribers access to Viacom online programming because these companies, our members, didn't agree to renew the big Viacom programming bundle. That’s got to stop. This is content that Viacom freely makes available over the Internet to anybody. But they single out and target our members' broadband customers, and deny them access to what they make freely available over the Internet, just because our members didn't want to agree to pay for the big bundle any longer.

MCN:  You recently told the FCC that these new rules wouldn't protect openness unless they extend to content providers, right?

MP:  That's exactly right. And we said any examination of open Internet rules, for the simple sake of fairness, has to include a consideration and regulations and restrictions on content provider's actions to block or discriminate because frankly that's where we see it.

And it's not just Viacom. What is to prevent others, a Google, a Netflix, an Amazon, from doing the same thing? Companies like Google say we fear what Comcast could do to us. Well, we fear what Google could do to us. What if Google came to our  members and said that if you want all of your broadband subscribers to be able to use Google as their homepage, pay us $2 a subscriber per month before we give you access to it — what's to prevent that? The answer is nothing.

So if there is going to be an examination of what the rules of the Internet road should be, it must include similar restrictions on content providers.

MCN: What about net neutrality rules — where do you stand on that?

MP: No Title II. The fact is that because of the FCC's previous policies on Internet deployment and regulation of the Internet under chairman [Michael] Powell in particular, and then under chairman [Julius] Genachowski, the Internet principles basically allowed a relatively light touch of regulation to encourage further broadband deployment without a heavy-handed regulation.

And that becomes increasingly important for small companies simply because we have always complained about — rightfully so — the unique and disproportionate heavy-handed impact of regulation on smaller providers, compared to larger providers. We, as smaller providers, have been able to significantly and successfully deploy broadband in some of the most remote markets in the country because of Congressional and FCC policies to encourage that.

MCN: You recently applauded a Mediacom Communications memo to the FCC that said the market is dominated by these giant programmers, broadcast and cable,who are engaged in a “coercive practice” of bundling and “unjustified volume discounting.”

MP:  Mediacom's letter was right on point. In Washington, everything's a fight, so it takes time. But what will bear out in the instance of what's outlined in that letter are just the facts of what's happening in the marketplace.

Consumers don't want the big bundle, that's why they're cutting their cord or shaving their cord for more Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc. It's a way for them to express their desire for choice, which they can't get on cable, and which we as cable providers, at least independent cable providers, would like to give them.

But consumers are rejecting the big bundle of Viacom and Disney and Fox and Comcast/NBCU because all they get is a big bundle of ever-increasing programming that they have to pay more for and generally don't watch. We support that effort toward reform in that area and we'll keep fighting to try and give our members the ability to give our customers more choice.

MCN: Rupert Murdoch recently made an offer for Time Warner Inc. What do you think the impact of a merged Time Warner Inc. and 21st Century Fox will be in the current marketplace?

MP: Once we saw Comcast announce its acquisition of Time Warner [Cable], which was quickly followed up by AT&T and DirecTV, we predicted that it wouldn't be long until we see the same kind of thing on the content side. And that's going to happen.

So the outcome of that will not be good for consumers. I mean its great for these big companies that have leverage that can negotiate the prices that they want to manage their own economics. But at the end of the day, somebody's got to pay that, and when a Comcast-[TWC] or an AT&T-DirecTV can get a lot and better volume discounted price, that difference in economics has to be made up somewhere.

So our members are going to feel the brunt of that, and our consumers are going to feel the brunt of that, not to mention just the further lack of choice and control consumers will have over what will be an ever increasing bundle now controlled by even fewer hands.

That's why you see, in this most recent Viacom renewal for our members, 50, 60 companies of our members said, “No, we don't want it. We're not going to renew. We're going to put on replacement programming. We don't want it.” That's why you see that happening and you'll see that happening more often.

And No. 2, you'll see operators basically say, “Hey look, cable programmer, you want to charge whatever you want to charge? We're simply going to tell our subscribers that we're just simply passing through the costs every time, that if they have any complaints, here's your number.” They can call you or they can call the FCC, or their congressman and senator.

MCN:  Sinclair Broadcasting has been on your radar this year with the Buckeye CableSystem retransmission fight. Will these continue?

MP: The broadcasters want to sell themselves like a cable channel, right? But we have no choice to get comparative or lower-cost programming either from another lower-cost station or even to say no if we don't want to pay for it, because the law says we have to carry it.

I think if the broadcasters want to be bought and sold like a cable channel, then all of the protection, the monopoly protection that they have that gives them an exclusive right in their market and the ability to keep out any competition, as well as the ability to mandate that we carry them, all of that has to go out the window.

Retransmission consent is not an issue where our members are not willing to pay for a valuable service if delivered but it's about more of a free marketplace for those services and that doesn't exist today. The only reason why a Sinclair can hold Buckeye and its customers hostage for six months is because of these outdated regulations where Sinclair could care less about the customer. All they care is about the bottom line.

And all I hear from the broadcasters about my free TV is garbage because broadcasters do not want consumers to receive broadcast television free over the air. They don't want that. If that happened, where consumers all said we're going to get an antenna, their business would die. Their business is based on extracting fees from cable operators, blaming cable operators and then saying, “Hey we're the free local TV station.”

MCN:  Are you encouraged by the latest movements on the Satellite Television Extension and Reauthorization Act?

MP:  It’s a huge step forward for the House to pass a bill that contains aspects of retransmission-consent reform. People said it would never be done. The broadcasters said it will never be done. They have used their smear tactics, their mud-slinging, blaming cable operators for taking away free TV. It’s just not true.

And frankly, despite the efforts of the [National Association of Broadcasters] and TVfreedom.org, now the focus moves to the Senate. The Senate Commerce Committee is moving forward on a bill that they have been working on on a bipartisan basis.

The time has come for members of Congress and consumers all across the country to say, “We are done with this type of outdated monopoly regulation and we want choice, we want true freedom where we're not forced to carry channels and we can better determine what we want to see without broadcasters telling us what we have to watch.”

MCN: You've got fire in the belly.

MP: Absolutely, we're ready to roll. We are as fired up as ever.

American Cable Association President Matt Polka says Viacom's denial of access to its web sites by broadband Internet subs of Cable One and other distributors with which Viacom is in a carriage dispute violates Internet openness and should raise warning flags in Washington.

Cable One dropped 15 cable networks April 1, and Viacom then decided that its programming would "no longer be available to Cable One customers in any form."

Polka today (May 6) said that broadband Internet customers of both Cable One and Liberty Cablevision of Puerto Rico are being denied access to Viacom Web sites, including customers who have cut the cord on traditional video.

Viacom essentially echoed the earlier sentiment, adding Liberty Cablevision to the list. "“Cable ONE and Liberty Cablevision have chosen to no longer carry Viacom programming and, as a result, it is no longer available to their customers in any form.”

“Viacom’s actions are a flagrant attack on Internet openness and a textbook replay of the vengeful action CBS took against Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks broadband customers during their well-documented retransmission consent dispute last August," said Polka. “All who care about ensuring access to content on the Internet should be outraged that Viacom is selectively blocking access to its public websites by broadband Internet subscribers served by smaller cable companies."

Polka pointed to an op ed in The Hill by FCC Republican commissioner Michael O'Rielly Tuesday, who raised the issueof  CBS blocking, though in the context of warning edge providers that they could fall under the FCC's proposed new network neutrality rules, too. "[C]onsider the contractual fight over programming between CBS and Time Warner Cable last year," O'Rielly wrote. "During its retransmission dispute, CBS pulled its signal off of certain cable TV systems — and also blocked all Time Warner broadband customers from accessing CBS’ Web-based content, even outside the territory of dispute. This is precisely the kind of content-blocking broadband providers are so often accused of but aren’t actually doing."

O'Reilly doesn't support ACA's position on network neutrality regs.

In 2012, Viacom blocked DirecTV subscribers' access to online content in the midst of a nine-day carriage standoff.

A Viacom spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.