From the Washington Post article:

“What Aereo is doing to bring broadcast signals to its customers is interesting,” Time Warner Cable chief executive Glenn Britt said in an interview with The Washington Post. “If it is found legal, we could conceivably use similar technology.”

That’s a big admission from Britt, and illustrates both how rapidly the internet is changing the television industry. But what would be an even bigger admission would be if Britt would consider delivering that public broadcast package beyond its existing subscriber base.

A modest proposal

In short, would Britt be willing to break the unspoken agreement that has kept the telcos and cable providers from infringing on each other’s turfs even as IP technology has made it possible for them to deliver their TV packages over the top?

If Time Warner Cable were to implement an Aereo-like business model and offer it to anyone, it might hurt Aereo but it would set off a war between the telcos and cable companies to deliver their services over the top. In many cases, the technology isn’t stopping this revolution, but the business implications would give them pause.

If Comcast’s Xfinity service were available everywhere and so were Verizon’s FiOS packages, then pay TV will have been decoupled from the entwork. All you would be left with are dumb pipes and whole lot of companies offering to provide the same channels of television. Would we need 20 “premium cable offerings?”

My hunch is no, which would have trickle down effects on the money the networks make as well as hasten the rise of a la carte pay TV packages, or even simply paying for a show. However, all of this speculation is premature as Britt cushioned his statements by telling the Washington Post that his company is only watching Aereo’s legal battle and that it doesn’t have concrete plans.

Taking action on this sort of talk would hugely piss off the broadcasters that own some of the channels that Time Warner Cable depends on to keep its subscribers happy, and may just be a feint in the ongoing fight between cable providers and content companies about retransmission fees.

Back in the real world

But Britt is clearly a fan of shaking things up. Unlike many ISPs that view Netflix as a threat to their triple play bundle, Time Warner Cable sends out advertisements touting Netflix as a reason to upgrade broadband speeds. He’s also letting consumers stream live TV to their Roku boxes with a Time Warner Subscription (that might come in handy should it elect to make an Aereo-style over the top offering). And he’s also been more vocal about the need for more flexible packages of channels for consumers.

He reiterated that to the Washington Post:

“The structure needs more flexibility,” Britt said. A customer shouldn’t have to pay for less popular channels like VH1 Honors in order to get Nick Jr. and MTV. “There are fellow citizens who are struggling financially and can’t afford large programming packages. We want the ability to offer those customers smaller, more affordable packages.”

It’s better to keep a customer paying you something, rather than decamping because they don’t want to pay for a $150 cable bill. Britt seems to get that, and wants to find a middle ground before the internet and over the top TV offerings take that ground out from under his feet. I wonder if he’s willing to take it even further.

As part of its investigation, the regulator is also probing three other unnamed companies. The perception is that ISPs in France are either under-investing in infrastructure or violating the spirit of network neutrality, the idea that ISPs should not discriminate on traffic traveling over their pipes. Yet, in France, it seems that at least some in the government are willing to make Google pay for the ability to guarantee that ISP customers can receive its bits, turning the internet into Gulliver in the land of the Lilliputians, with ISPs and governments tying it down. The question is, will what happens in France happen elsewhere?

The ARCEP investigation and user complaints

Early this year, communications regulator ARCEP will rule on an investigation it opened on November 22 following complaints that video streaming services including YouTube are often too slow to watch. Now three French senators are also calling on the country’s digital economy minister to take action.

ARCEP stepped up when a survey of over 16,000 ISP customers by French consumer group UFC Que Choisir found 83 percent of Free customers, 47 percent of Orange customers and 46 percent of SFR customers were unable to use YouTube properly.

Since the investigation began, many users have reportedly noted an improvement in connection quality, but connections remain patchy.

And this issue is not limited to Google. “The quality of connection is inadequate in almost all operators,” said UFC Que Choisir’s survey, which found that France’s native Dailymotion, ironically, is slowest to access through France Telecom’s own Orange ISP, which owns almost half of the YouTube rival. And 25 percent of consumers reported slow-downs while watching broadcaster TF1′s MyTF1 catchup service.

Is it under-investment or a desire to make content companies pay?

UFC Que Choisir says these symptoms may be caused by under-investment in infrastructure as well as commercial tensions between ISPs, which deliver web services to the end user but which don’t pay for the infrastructure. It has called on the government to define quality-of-access rules, in part by allowing the competition regulator ARCEP to build a quality-of-service observatory. Similarly, in the U.S., the Federal Communications Commission is also trying to figure out how to measure the quality of a broadband connection beyond just looking at speeds.

Inter-company tensions do appear to be at play. A case before another public agency — France’s competition regulator, the Autorité De La Concurrence — in September illustrates how ISPs eager for revenue from web content companies can hold the user experience hostage.

Cogent, which handles YouTube’s peering interconnections, had complained to the competition authority that Orange had refused its connections, wanting more money to add ports to connect Cogent traffic to its networks. Much of the interconnections between large ISPs, CDNs and web content companies are negotiated by private deals, so it’s rare to see the government get involved, or even to hear much about them publicly. In the U.S., when Level 3 and Comcast became embroiled in a public peering fight after Level 3 started sending Netflix traffic over its connections with Comcast, the FCC refused to get involved, and both parties settled the disagreement.

But in this case, the competition regulator said one ISP was within its rights to charge more money from services hoping to reach its subscribers. This so-called double-sided business model has been sought by ISPs who argue that companies such as Google are freeloaders making huge profits off the pipes of owned by the ISPs. In contract, Google and other content companies argue that their services are the reason customers upgrade to higher speeds and continue paying ISPs money.

And in France the ISP argument has gained at least one supporter in the Autorité De La Concurrence. The authority says France Telecom is offering interconnection prices significantly below market value, and it has accepted the telco’s undertakings to ensure transparency.

French policymakers generally are generally in the mood to extract more money from Google. They have already set such wheels in motion around taxation and copyright fees. Now infrastructure could be the next arena. But its unclear how far France will go.

It’s one thing to try to ensure that consumers have an acceptable connection to support online video, through implementing some kind of standards. It’s another to get between participants in peering disputes, and to possibly start setting rates.

The U.S. fight is bigger than France’s

But such fights are becoming more common as the stakes over the internet and web video get higher. ISPs are worried about the cost of delivering video traffic over their networks, while also losing out on the ability to charge users for pay TV packages that significantly boost their revenue. Meanwhile, consumers are demanding more video online because they can choose what to watch, when they want to watch it, on any device.

The French competition authority’s earlier investigation referred only to two individual companies at loggerheads in a specific peering fight. But the new inquiry by the communications regulator is much wider, looking at industry-wide practices around infrastructure and interconnection. And it comes following consumer outcry — identified in UFC Que Choisir’s survey — to which politicians may be keen to respond.

The outcome will be important because Google is already facing having to pay to re-use news content in some parts of Europe through both commercial agreements and possible new legislation that suggest excerpting is chargeable. That could set new precedents for the online content economy.

The French broadband outcome will be important because it will set up a precedent for other telecom regulators who are struggling with similar issues. Creating standards to ensure that customers have a quality online video experience is no simple task and may well require investment by ISPs, especially those on older technologies or oversubscribed networks.

As for the peering issues, if the government decides to step into the fray there, it could be setting the internet up for regulations that put governments in the role of determining who can connect to whom and how much they can charge. The OECD recently made a convincing argument that such regulations and government involvement would hurt the web and the economic development of companies dependent on the web. So what France does here might have influence far beyond its borders.

CEO Marissa Mayer is slowly making her mark on Yahoo, and the addition today of Levchin to the board can probably be seen as a testament to Mayer’s faith in engineers and entrepreneurs. From the get go, we’ve heard Mayer, who was a former executive at Google, asked for more engineering talent at the beleaguered web portal. Just this last week some of her changes at the product level associated with adding new features to Flickr and other changes are coming to light. Levchin fits right in.

Yahoo had apparently been courting Levchin for a while, and it certainly needs a blast of innovation from someone known in the Valley for being thoughtful and well-versed in developing social startups. For more on Levchin, check out this post from 2010 featuring a video interview Om did with Levchin while he was still at Google.

Levchin also serves as chairman of the boards at Kaggle and Yelp and is a director at Evernote. Yahoo also said that Intuit CEO Brad Smith and Weather Channel CEO David Kenney are stepping down from the board, leaving Yahoo now with 11 directors.