After Sunday's announcement that AT&T had entered into an agreement to purchase DirecTV, many parties have rushed to talk about the "media consolidation trend." The usual suspects have expressed their opposition or express their "skepticism." Others have applied an equally superficial analysis to come to the opposite conclusion.
In order to appreciate how the Comcast/TWC merger is different from AT&T/DTV, you have to understand what the two mergers have in common. One, not-so-obvious thing the two transactions have in common is that one party in each transaction--Comcast and DirecTV--is a co-defendant in major consumer antitrust litigation over the foreclosure of sports programming over the Internet to broadband-only consumers.
These cases are significant, because they should have a direct effect on the outcome of the Comcast-TWC merger, but will, most likely, not affect the AT&T/DTV merger. It should be noted that these cases have survived a motion to dismiss (opinion), under the heightened Twombly scrutiny requiring antitrust complaints to demonstrate a "plausible" (vs. merely "possible") claim that would establish an antitrust violation, before allowing antitrust plaintiffs to proceed to discovery. So, we know these cases have some merit.
Equally noteworthy, these cases are being brought by real consumers (not DC interest groups) in reaction to real behavior in the marketplace; behavior that the DoJ and FCC claimed to be fixed by the Comcast-NBCU merger conditions. The D.C. interest groups, on the other hand, supported the feckless merger conditions imposed by DoJ and the FCC.
The plaintiffs are classes of consumers that buy the MLB.TV (or NHL GameCenter Live) online service either by itself or in addition to a subscription TV service. The defendants in the cases (other than the two named sports leagues) are certain individual teams and some regional sports networks owned by Comcast and DirecTV, and the TV providers themselves.
The crux of the complaints is that the sports leagues, and integrated RSN/subscription TV companies, allocate markets through what are, essentially, agreements not to compete with one another. Unlike a typical horizontal territorial allocation scheme, though, these are the result of a series of industry-wide "vertical" distribution agreements with sports leagues and the TV companies' RSNs--the success of the scheme being contingent on identical terms in all agreements.
How the Agreements Work
When the RSN pays all that money for the rights to broadcast all of a team's games, what do they get for their money?
First, the RSN gets the rights to show the games of that team on TV for the home team's "market area". This means the RSN can set the prices that other subscription TV companies in the home market area have to pay in order to give their viewers access to the games. This right is exclusive to the RSN for the market area. Thus, even though when the home team plays away games, the away team also has rights to the game, the contracts are written so that the away team will not sell its broadcasts back into another RSN's "home market."
Second, and most importantly, while the vertically-integrated RSN is technically only buying TV rights, it effectively also gets a promise that the league's online streaming provider (i.e., MLB.TV or NHL GameCenter Live) will refuse to deal--at any price--with broadband-only customers within any teams' home market areas. (If you want to check for yourself, here's the link to the MLB.TV blackout section.) Thus, there is some foreclosure value being offered in exchange for the ridiculously high fees being paid by cable RSNs for regional sports rights.
How Does the Antitrust Litigation Affect Analysis of the Two Mergers?
Knowing this important commonality, we can try to understand how the big media mergers will change things. The Comcast/TWC merger is likely to make things worse for customers and competitors of Time Warner Cable.
According to a study, published last year by Navigant Economics Principals, the "vertical integration premium [the relatively higher fees charged by a vertically-integrated RSN] increases significantly with the local downstream market share of the RSN's affiliated distributor." The paper isn't available for free, but you can access the presentation to the FCC staff here.
So, in all likelihood, Comcast's increased share of certain markets (e.g., New York and L.A.) could be expected to lead to increased prices for TV consumers (of any provider) in those former TWC markets. (Comcast will also increase its L.A. market share through its Charter deal.) Nor would Comcast's accretion of TV market power be likely to change its opposition to the sports leagues making "in market" games available over the Internet.
On the other hand, AT&T's incentives would be expected to change markedly for the better, relative to a standalone DirecTV. DirecTV, only a few weeks ago, questioned why it would even bother creating and promoting an online video package. AT&T, though, just last month, AT&T announced its intentions to get behind over the top content in a big way.
AT&T has different incentives than Comcast with respect to online video, because--according to the Leichtman Research 1st quarter report on broadband additions--AT&T has a much lower share of the market in terms of video-speed broadband than the cable companies. If you massage the information available from Leichtman (which groups T and VZ together), an overly optimistic approximation (which only includes Comcast and TWC in the denominator) gives AT&T and VZ less than a 40% share of video-speed broadband subscribers.
AT&T has already announced plans to dramatically expand its very high speed broadband footprint. AT&T's successful deployment of higher broadband speeds is dependent on consumers having a reason to purchase higher capacity service. This is why AT&T will want to push--more content online--especially linear content that consumers want.
By understanding what has kept linear content--specifically, the sports programming that is so important to consumers--off the Internet, it is easy to see why broadband consumers will be better off with AT&T owning DirecTV than they are now.
I guess everyone that watched yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger had a different opinion on it. I had prepped myself by reading all of those "Comcast owns Washington" and "David Cohen is The Man" articles, but I really wasn't prepared . . . for the awful truth. See and believe (whole hearing here).
Maybe I'm reading this all wrong, but it looked like the Committee Chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) pretty much indicated that he's cool with the deal--just, you know, as long as they include some net neutrality commitments, or something. It was almost as if Senator Leahy was listening to Comcast's radio commercial as he spoke. So, yeah, that pretty much set the tone.
The only Senators that represented my consumer interests, i.e., unchaining broadband Internet customers from the pay-TV business model, were Sen.'s Blumenthal (D-CT), Franken (D-MN), and Lee (R-UT). I've already explained that the real problem here is the accretion of power that cable-affiliated RSNs have over pay-TV/broadband competitors. In other words, this merger will harm the ability of consumers to ever use broadband Internet access--from any broadband provider--as a substitute for subscription TV service.
The rest of the Committee members were distracted--like toddlers chasing soap bubbles--by the agenda of net neutrality "concerns" that we've seen hyped and re-hyped by the press for the last 3 months. The reason that these "distractions" consumed the attention they did is, some believe, a sign of Comcast's power to intimidate the "real" witnesses away.
And, according to this report, Comcast's "casting" of the issues covered in the hearing could not have worked out better for them. Unfortunately, if the only people who are going to speak up about this merger can't pass up a public platform for their "net neutrality/broadband is a utility" shtick--then Comcast really is in great shape.
3 Reasons Why "Net Neutrality" Is Comcast's Best Friend
1. The only "managed service" Comcast needs is the one they already have. I can't say it any simpler than that. When Prof. Susan Crawford went off the handle a couple weeks ago, at the rumor that Apple might have requested a "managed service" from Comcast, she failed to understand that this is precisely what is needed if the Internet is ever going to become a content delivery rival to TV. If Comcast made "TV quality content delivery" available to some third party, then it would be available--and that's the point.
If a "managed" video delivery service is not available for wholesale purchase by Apple, then it's not available to any competitor to Comcast's cable service. The fact is that Comcast will be happy to "swear off" offering managed services, because that's just like telling them to shut the door behind them for all those new markets where they'll be the dominant broadband and subscription TV company.
2. Internet interconnection is not a merger issue (either). Senator's Klobuchar (D-MN) and Franken (D-MN) wasted a fair amount of their time and attention on this little canard. In fact, I'd say this line of questions, more than any other, made David Cohen look like the most reasonable person in the room.
In the media, this issue is hyped a lot by Stacey Higginbotham from GigaOm. She loves this issue--writes about it constantly (see), even when Comcast isn't buying its rivals. Not surprisingly, a few days before the hearing, she writes, "expect more questions about paid peering and the Comcast merger."
The reason this line of inquiry helps Comcast avoid harder issues is that buying transit is a long-established, industry-wide practice, and would exist even if Comcast was a "common carrier." Neither the FCC nor the DoJ, is going to do anything to change this practice in a merger review.
3. Data Caps. The essence of this complaint is that the heaviest users don't like the ISP's pricing structure. This complaint, like the previous issue, is a quixotic attempt to establish price regulation on ISPs.
The "data caps" issue is only an issue for the highest use consumers--who want the lower use consumers to subsidize their consumption. These people share the Reed Hastings view of net neutrality--averaging out the restaurant bill is fair, especially if you're the only guy drinking $100 champagne.
At the hearing, TWC said they deal with this issue in an interesting way: they don't impose caps, but if a customer agrees to not exceed a certain amount of data downloads (and be subject to throttling, if they go over), the consumer gets $5 off their monthly bill. My guess is that Comcast will have no problem offering this one up.
Look, the net neutrality people aren't the "bad guys" here. But, if a significant part of the merger opposition is ceded to the usual suspects--the same folks that seem intent on recycling their same net neutrality arguments, no matter the forum--then that's a shame.
This merger squarely presents the DoJ and the FCC with a very fundamental "crossroads" choice--the future of competition for the broadband Internet versus the cable TV business model. The public interest cannot settle for a bunch of buttercup-and-whipped-cream "commitments" to net neutrality. The consequences are too high.
I wanted to end on a cheerful note, so I'll leave it at this. Remember, kids, while advocacy from 2005 ages poorly, this still-super fly Chamillionaire video never will. Enjoy!
Maybe, I'll send some "Chamillitary" gear over to Prof.'s Crawford/Wu, and Free Press. So, you know, at least the crew can be dressed in the "era-appropriate" pop fashion when they hit the NPR circuit.
In Comcast's public positioning of its proposed acquisition of Time Warner Cable, executives of both companies have chosen to characterize the merger more by what it's not than by what it is. So, we know that the merger is not going to result in any significant efficiencies, because it's not going to reduce consumer prices for cable (even an unconstrained monopoly reduces prices when costs decline).
We also know that the merger is not between two competitors, because--as the companies make it a point to tell us--they don't compete. TWC's CEO says, "[w]hether you're talking about broadband or video, we don't compete with one another." Comcast's CFO goes as far to state, "[w]e don't compete in one single zip code."
Doesn't it kind of seem like they're trying just a little too hard to sell the notion that the combined service territory of Comcast and TWC is not relevant (because, you know, they don't compete)?
Product Market Definition
The last time the DoJ's Antitrust Division ("Government" or "DoJ") looked at a Comcast acquisition, it determined--based on documents from Comcast--that Comcast's "joint venture" (as it was structured at the time) with NBC-Universal would reduce competition in the "video programming distribution" market. See Comp. Impact Stmt. (CES). The Government seemed especially concerned at the ability of post-merger Comcast to destroy nascent competition from online video distributors. CES at C and D.
Based upon the Government's concerns in the previous Comcast acquisition, and DoJ's focus on cross-elasticity of demand in defining a relevant product market, let's focus on some recent information from the Leichtman Research Group to get some valuable insights into how the Government might define a relevant product market.
Consider that, among multi-channel video providers, cable companies lost 1.7 million customers in 2013. But, AT&T and Verizon added 1.5 million MPVD subscribers last year. The Leichtman numbers show that customers are not so much "cutting the cord" (only 105k customers stopped buying from an MPVD in 2013) as they are switching MVPDs--but customers are choosing MVPDs that are also broadband providers. Very high percentages (according to AT&T, well over 90%) of both cable and telco MPVD subscribers are also broadband customers. The Leichtman data confirm this for Comcast and TWC, as well.
Purchasing video service from another broadband provider, allows the customer to purchase services they want from the MPVD, but also purchase services directly from an online vendor, like Netflix. In its earlier analysis of the significant competitive effect of online video distributors, the Government referred to this practice as "cord-shaving." CES, at C.2(b).
Given consumer behavior, it seems likely that the Government will focus on a broadband market--of a sufficient speed to facilitate a competitive MPVD service--as the primary relevant product market. Because it is this market in which the traditional "hypothetical monopolist" test would yield the greatest supply substitution responses. For all practical purposes, we should consider broadband providers offering service at 10-15Mbps as participants in the "MVPD-bandwidth" market.
Geographic Market Definition
If one's primary concern was to look at the area over which the post-merger firm might be able to reduce competition, then that territory would be (at least) the total number of MVPD-bandwidth broadband customers in each geographic market served by Comcast or Time Warner Cable. Within this total subset of homes passed will also include the majority of the customers capable of being served by AT&T and Verizon.
What is difficult to figure out from publicly available data is what percentage of MVPD-bandwidth homes will be served within that area by Comcast, Time Warner Cable, AT&T, and Verizon. For our purposes, just to get a ballpark idea of the type of numbers we would be looking at, we are going to use a datapoint from the Leichtman 1Q 2014 Research Notes that the number of FiOS and U-Verse addressable homes stands at 41 million, giving the companies a video market penetration rate of 26%.
Let's further assume--and this is a generous assumption toward Comcast--that AT&T and Verizon compete with Comcast and TWC in 70% of their combined service territory, but that all of AT&T and Verizon's customers were won in this territory. This would give us a total denominator of about 59 million homes passed (that could receive MVPD quality broadband).
To get useful MPVD-broadband numbers, we are going to work with the Leichtman numbers we used earlier, but, because it is impossible to tell from the telco broadband numbers how many AT&T and Verizon broadband customers are actually U-verse and FiOS customers, we are going to use MPVD customers as a proxy, in order to allow us to get some ballpark market share numbers.
So, we can see that the result of this merger, for anyone that has to depend on getting content, carriage, or online video distribution to these 60 million households will be looking at a market that goes from "moderately concentrated" to "highly concentrated" under the DoJ Horizontal Merger Guidelines at Section 5.3.
The competitive effects on both MPVD rivals like AT&T, RCN, and Verizon, as well as online video distributors like Netflix, are likely to be significant in terms of their ability to get competitive programming. Add to this the fact that Comcast will also control 12 major regional sports networks, and it is easy to see how the post-merger firm could restrict output of the most inelastic, and "linear," of linear programming to broadband and online video competitors.
This last effect is, potentially, disastrous for the future deployment of more MVPD-bandwidth broadband in the area that would be served by the combined Comcast-TWC, because it eliminates what is potentially the biggest source of pent-up consumer demand for MVPD-quality broadband as a substitute for traditional MVPD bundled service--online access to regional sports programming.
How do we know the significance of real-time sports programming to the value of the broadband Internet? Because the first truly linear, all HD, over-the-top channel--the WWE Network--has attracted almost 700,000 customers paying $10/month, in only 6 weeks!
If the DoJ and the FCC value the availability of MVPD-bandwidth broadband throughout the Comcast-TWC territory, then Comcast might have a reason to worry. But, commenters on the political left and right have conceded Comcast's powerful influence over the government; so, Comcast probably does have a decent chance of moving forward with this acquisition. Unfortunately, it just postpones the day when consumers can choose to buy only the video content they want from the vendors they want.
On Sunday, the Wall Street Journalreported that Apple was in talks with Comcast to provide a new type of streaming TV service. The report was vague on the specific service except to note that: 1) the parties were "talking," 2) an Apple device-to-be-named-later was going to be used, 3) the service would involve a "managed" (or guaranteed bit-rate) transmission path over Comcast's ISP, and 4) would require a significant investment by Comcast.
Predictably, the Twittosphere erupted with the swift condemnations due any speculative service that whiffs of net neutrality blasphemy. If the speculation involves Comcast, then it wreaks of blasphemy.
The Meandering Meaning of Net Neutrality
But, what is the "dogma" of net neutrality? Is it the FCC's 2005 Internet "Freedoms?" Is it the Open Internet Rules that were vacated--no blocking and no unreasonable discrimination? Public Knowledge just told the FCC that the two biggest "threats" to the Open Internet are ISP data caps and "peering"/interconnection disputes. PK at pp. 6-10.
If net neutrality can be said to have any consistent premise, it is best depicted metaphorically in this 14 second, Geico commercial.
The ISPs are like "Mr. Tickles." The whole rest of the Internet stakeholders are represented as the man in the portrait holding Mr. Tickles.
Yet, firms like Cisco, who on Monday announced a 2 year and $1 billion commitment to cloud services, as well as competitive over the top companies like Amazon, Hulu, and yes, Apple TV, continue to want to invest in cloud services. In other words the leading Internet infrastructure equipment maker fully expects that--even without rules--the ISP (Mr. Tickles) will continue to "hold still" and not "git all cattywampus" on them.
The Flimsy Factual Bases for "Concerns" About the Open Internet
First, let's acknowledge one point on which everyone should be able to agree. The "open Internet" is valuable to every consumer, and every seller, that touches the Internet economy. In fact, the rise of the Internet economy seems to be proof that the "open Internet" is so important that virtually every aspect of that "openness" is already guaranteed by existing contracts between the thousands and thousands of Internet stakeholders.
But, those that think rules must be necessary to ensure the continued openness of the Internet must have some reasons, right? Well, if we look closely, the concerns that have been advanced in past FCC proceedings have been largely based on theoretical predictions that haven't really materialized.
The first FCC concerns about "peering" (i.e., settlement-free Internet interconnection) vs. "transit" (i.e., "paid" interconnection) were expressed by Internet backbone competitor GTE in the MCI/WorldCom merger. See paras. 147-150. The FCC adopted GTE's concern, which was that the combination of WorldCom's UUNet and MCI's backbone would have had no "peers." Thus, because a combined WorldCom/MCI would have been able to require "paid peering" by any other ISP or backbone seeking to use its network, the post-merger firm could raise the costs of any new entrant.
This disaster was averted when MCI agreed to divest its Internet backbone to Cable and Wireless. In fact, the divestiture to C&W was considered a huge failure, and MCI's alleged bad faith failure to satisfy the concerns of the Department of Justice was a primary concern behind the DoJ's challenge to WorldCom's proposed acquisition of Sprint 2 years later. In short, the remedy didn't work, but was apparently unwarranted, anyway.
"Net Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination"
In 2003, Professor Tim Wu argued, in the above-titled paper, that "[c]ommunications regulators over the next decade will spend increasing time on conflicts between the private interests of broadband providers and the public's interest in a competitive innovation environment centered on the Internet." With the exception of Comcast's protocol-specific BitTorrent throttling in 2007, these concerns have largely failed to materialize. Notably, Prof. Wu never mentions the FCC's previous (and PK's current) concerns about peering as a cause for concern.
Broadband ISP "Incentives" to Discriminate, Circa 2010
In the Open Internet Order, the FCC largely parrots Prof. Wu's concerns that broadband ISPs have the incentive and the ability to discriminate against "over the top" providers offering services that compete with the voice and/or subscription video services sold by the ISPs. The FCC first establishes, using the ISPs' own statements, that consumers view certain online applications as substitutes for voice and subscription TV service. Order, para 22.
Then, the FCC simply assumes from comments of groups advocating rules (and not ISPs or voice/video competitors) that, of course the ISP has incentives to discriminate against online alternatives. Yet, the record contained no data supporting the FCC's conclusion (showing, e.g., higher profits in TV/voice than broadband Internet). Order, paras 23-24.
Public Knowledge expressed no concerns about data caps and peering in the 2010 docket.
The Problem with Apple TV . . .
Supposedly, Apple wants Comcast to help it deliver some kind of super-cool IPTV that will actually make you want to buy video service from Comcast (vs. get it on the Internet). As part of this service, Apple wants Comcast to offer Apple TV a guaranteed quality of Internet access, so that its video content would not be affected by general congestion issues that can otherwise cause videos to buffer. And that higher quality access, even if not exclusive to Apple, is a problem . . .
Is The Problem With "Net Neutrality"
My fear is that "net neutrality" is no longer about just a reasonable set of minimal consumer expectations designed to keep the Internet creepy enough to hold the Interest of consumers and the NSA, while at the same time keeping it wholesome enough to prevent SkyNet from becoming self-aware by 1997 (or whatever similarly-fevered nightmares the rules protect us from).
Without a presumptive tolerance for commercially-reasonable service deviations, net neutrality becomes a fetish devoid of any utility. If we can't limit proscribed conduct to only practices or agreements that unreasonably restrict Internet "output," then how do we know whether rules are serving consumers or requiring everyoneto serve a concept that may have limited benefits?
The first day of March Madness is one of the greatest TV watching days in America, made even better by our special devotion to drinking and gambling. Monday's article on Recode reminds us, though, that broadband-only consumers will be forced to spend this great national holiday watching TV in a bar.
The value consumers place on sports content is as obvious as the rising prices of subscription TV. But, sports content, and its regulation (or lack thereof) can also provide some insights into the FCC's priorities, and the relative value that the FCC places on the sports consumer (vs. the sports programming distributors). It is also interesting to compare how the FCC views sports content distribution practices with how a court might view the same practices under the antitrust laws.
The FCC On Sports Blackouts
A good way to see just how the FCC views sports content consumers, relative to broadcasters and pay TV providers is to look at the FCC's NPRM to eliminate its sports blackout rules. The proceeding began in November of 2011, when a group called the Sports Fan Coalition (Public Knowledge, Media Access Project, and some sports fan sounding groups) filed a petition to eliminate the rules.
The petitioners were absolutely right and reasonable. The FCC should have simply said, "we agree--and we're actually a little embarrassed that the rule was adopted at all, much less still on the books."
In reality, it took the FCC two more years to unanimously approve . . . a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to ask questions about the effects of "repealing" the sports blackout rules (that it had no clear authority to adopt in the first place). To reassure industry that the FCC hadn't found religion, Acting Chairwoman Clyburn was careful to explain that, "[e]limination of our sports blackout rules will not prevent the sports leagues, broadcasters, and cable and satellite providers from privately negotiating agreements to black out certain sports events."
Because, you know, what could go wrong with private blackout agreements between leagues, RSNs, and their MPVDs? It's not like the agreements could be more anticompetitive than the rules themselves, right?
A Year Earlier, In a Court of Law . . .
In December 2012, a federal district court in New York issued an opinion refusing to dismiss antitrust complaints filed by TV and Internet consumers against Major League Baseball, the National Hockey League, Comcast, DirecTV, and other affiliated RSNs. (Yes, the defendants are the same parties the FCC "will not prevent" from entering into private blackout agreements.) The Southern District of New York ruled that the complaints presented a "plausible" claim that blackout agreements between the baseball and hockey leagues, and Comcast, DirecTV, and their RSNs were being used to eliminate Internet competition, require customers to purchase from MVPDs, and generally increase prices to consumers.
Here are some excerpts from the court's opinion describing how real consumers view the types of agreements the FCC "will not prevent" (internal quotes refer to the plaintiffs' complaints):
Plaintiffs challenge "defendants' . . . agreements to eliminate competition in the distribution of [baseball and hockey] games over the Internet and television [by] divid[ing] the live-game video presentation market into exclusive territories, which are protected by anticompetitive blackouts" and by "collud[ing] to sell the 'out-of-market' packages only through the League [which] exploit[s] [its] illegal monopoly by charging supra-competitive prices." Opinion, at 2. Emphasis added.
The Complaints allege that the "regional blackout agreements," made "for the purpose of protecting the local television telecasters," are "[a]t the core of Defendants' restraint of competition." "But for these agreements," plaintiffs allege, "MVPDs would facilitate 'foreign' RSN entry and other forms of competition." Plaintiffs argue that the "MVPDs also directly benefit from the blackout of Internet streams of local games, which requires that fans obtain this programming exclusively from the MVPDs." Id. at 8.
Back at the Commission . . .
Public comments on the FCC's sports blackout NPRM were a filed a few weeks ago. Major League Baseball does not typically blackout telecasts in response to gate sales. But, realizing that its own private blackout agreements may soon be illegal, the MLB, predictably, argues the FCC rules are still needed--as an anticompetitive backstop to the anticompetitive agreements the FCC "will not prevent." Of course, the MLB doesn't tell the FCC why it might not have as much access to private blackout agreements in the future.
In its comments, the Sports Fan Coalition devoted a several pages of its comments to explaining (as then Acting Chairwman Clyburn noted) that, even without the FCC's rules, anticompetitive private blackout agreements will still be available to the leagues, the RSNs, and the big cable and satellite companies. But, the SFC is simply responding to the FCC's primary concern in the NPRM.
FCC Priorities: TV, TV, and TV
The contrast between the federal district court's skepticism and the FCC's comfort with private blackout agreements could not be clearer. It is notable, but not terribly surprising, that there is no reference to the two year old consumer antitrust cases anywhere in the sports blackout docket; not in the original petition, the FCC's NPRM, or in any party's comments. It's almost as if the FCC and sports consumers are in different worlds.
If you just read the FCC's press releases, and the speeches from the Chairman and other Commissioners (and their tweets), you might think broadband Internet was a huge priority. Yet, it's difficult to reconcile the FCC's statements with the fact that the Commission tolerates agreements by regulated TV distributors (broadcast, cable and satellite) that require sports leagues/teams to refuse to deal with broadband-only consumers on any terms for "in market" games.
The Chairman says that he will target legal restrictions on the ability of cities and towns to offer broadband service. I'd be more impressed if he targeted restrictions in sports content distribution agreements that intentionally reduce the value of the broadband Internet to all consumers.