FCC Concerned At Trend Of Pay-TV Rate Hikes

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — The Federal Communications Commission expressed concern as several cable companies discussed plans to raise their rates for next year, including Cablevision Systems Corp., which on Wednesday announced an average hike for cable TV service of 3.5 percent.

Cablevision noted that the price increase on video services falls below inflation and said it's also building a Wi-Fi network that its Internet subscribers will be able to use for free.

An FCC spokeswoman said the trend could hurt already-battered consumers.

"Over the last decade, average cable rates have more than doubled. And now cable companies are charging consumers more but consumers are receiving less," said spokeswoman Mary Diamond, referring to cable moving some analog channels to more expensive digital-only tiers.

"This is an unfortunate trend for families facing increasingly difficult economic times," Diamond said.



Read more: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jDJbuwH6EVN2wyNRLXcjzLanxA7wD944ESI01

[liberal N proud]

1. We received notice that ours is increasing $5.95

And the High Speed Internet is also going up $5.95

[Just-plain-Kathy]

2. To think we use to get a tv picture with bunny ears, and we could now watch tv on our cell phones...

...but we need to pay crazy prices for cable.

[napi21]

3. I so HOPE congress demands the cable co's offer the cafeteria plans.

There are 700+ channels available on my service right now, and only watch 20 of them, and of that 20 I only watch maybe 5 most of the time. I really don't CARE if channels like "the golf channel" or "the Catholic channel" can't survive on their own! That's called an unviable business as far as I know!

[Salviati]

5. I so can't wait until Verizon puts fiber optic in my neighborhood.

I've got my tv hooked up to a computer, and just watch everything online these days. Olberman, Maddow, Hulu, and Veoh provide most of what I want to watch, and for the rest there's always torrents :)

When I can stop paying comcast for broadband internet, I will be very happy. Not that Verizon is without problems, but it is definitely the lesser of two evils here...

[napi21]

6. Why would fiber optics enable you to eliminate your broadband cable?

I have my broadband through Charter, and they installed fiber optics a number of years ago. Are you referring to switching to something like DSL?

[Salviati]

39. Well, it would let me swtich from cable internet to FIOS

and at least currently, I don't belive that verizon caps their monthly downloads. comcast currently does cap downloads at 250 GB a month, and while that is generous, it is easy to run up close to that limit when you're streaming all your TV over the net.

[onenote]

8. two points to consider:

First, as the article indicated, Verizon's rates are going up as fast or faster than the incumbent cable company rates.

Second, telephone companies like Verizon and AT&T donate more heavily to repubs while Comcast and other cable companies tend to donate more heavily to Democrats. You can look it up.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00186288

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00248716

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00010082

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00000984

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00197863

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00339291
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00109017

[melm00se]

11. getting rid of the

ability for localities to offer de facto monopolistic franchises to cable companies would pretty much put an end to this.

Imagine having TWC, Cablevision, Comcast and Charter all offering their services to your home and having to compete against each other based upon things like price, content and (gasp) customer service?

the days of arm sized cables carrying 13 channels to the home are long gone. offering 5 pencil thick (or 1 DWDM) fiber optic cable to a central box and then split out the selected provider would be, in the long run, good for the consumer.

[onenote]

15. its been illegal for a municipality to grant an exclusive franchise for 16 years

Since Congrss passed the Cable Act in 1992. Pretty much everyone has at least three ways to get subscription television -- an incumbent cable operator, DirecTV or Dish. And verizon and, to a lesser extent, AT&T are quickly entering the video market in competition with cable/satellite as well.

At this point, I'd rather have more choices for telephone service...

[Dumak]

17. It's not at all clear to me that competition exists

any time you have only a handful of sophisticated companies providing the same service. They'd most likely have an agreement to keep prices high, to virtual monopoly levels.
Competition only works when you have a lot of smaller, less-sophisticated entities vying for the same customers.

[onenote]

18. so I guess there is no competition in, for example, the automobile market

And if there is an agreement between and among Verizon, DirecTV, Dish, and a bunch of cable companies, why do they go to such lengths to convince consumers that they've got a better price deal than the other guy?

[yy4me]

13. Ditto, mine is just as bad. Dropped to basic because of price,

get about 20 channels. 3 shopping, 3 evangelists, 2 kids, 3 Spanish, 2 PBs, ABC, CBS, NBC, plus a couple of others. The only one I really care about is the occasional PBS. I'd rather MSNBC but that has been dropped from even the expanded per Comcast's information. Getting ready for Digital. Sure!

We should all be demanding "a la carte" programming. I would gladly pay for the channels I want but Comcast had chosen to bundle our town with many in the area with a large Spanish speaking population. I can't even speak Spanish. I certainly will not but from a TV promo, and the evangelists are another story altogether. Don't get me started on that!

Comcast says it is a case of demographics. I say it is a ploy to get us to buy the extended service because the basic is so awful.

[dysfunctional press]

27. it probably won't save you any money...

there are a lot of stations that PAY to be carried on cable systems- they help subsidize the service for everyone.

[prolesunited]

4. I thought deregulation would benefit consumers.

That's what they told us when they spent millions to get rid of regulation.

[heliarc]

31. Yeah and they told us that there wouldn't be commercials...

because we are paying for the service... Load of crap. Nationalize the whole cable industry. That's what I want. Pipe in my C-Span for free. The networks can live off of their ad money.

[onenote]

35. who told you there wouldn't be commercials?

[heliarc]

37. I stand corrected...

Turns out Advertising has been a part of cable from the beginning. Except for HBO and the other "Pay channels" Not that we don't pay for the Basic cable too? Frankly I'm just about to get rid of my cable service because of all the shitty advertising.

[Occulus]

7. Well, who didn't see this coming? The FCC:

-Auctioned off our airwaves

and

-MANDATED we get HD signals if we want TV.

Yes, some few are over-the-air... and these signals die in a drizzle (as I discovered at my mom's place last Thanksgiving). No snow, no fuzz on the screen, just BOOM- out like a light.

Who didn't know cable rates would go up? I predict higher rises than what they're reporting. Just wait and watch.

[onenote]

9. the FCC didn't mandate HDTV - Congress did.

actually, to be precise, neither mandated "HDTV" -- rather, COngress mandated that broadcasters switch from analog transmission to digital transmission. There is no requirement that the programming be high def (and in fact many smaller, independent stations are not switching to HD -- just to standard def digital).

[depakid]

10. The wonders of deregulation at work

Higher prices, poorer quality.

Anyone with half a brain knew that was going to happen when Clinton signed the Telecommunications legislation in 1996.

Thanks Bill.

[mac56]

12. The Telecommunications Act sucks in so many ways.

I work at a small-market family owned radio station. It's been hell on us.

[onenote]

14. poorer quality? not from my experience.

The quality of my cable service has improved measurably as they've upgraded their facilities with fiber and digital technology. I now have far more channels, tons of video on demand choices, high definition, a digital video recorder -- all good stuff. Not without problems here and there, but better than it was 10-15 years ago. DOes it cost more? Yes, but I'm trying to remember what doesn't cost more than it did then.

Also, while I have one set with all the bells and whistles, I pay nothing extra (a change from days gone by) for other sets in my house to be connected to expanded basic service and I don't even need a box for that. That may change eventually, of course -- but by then, I'll probably be ready to upgrade my old sets to a set that can receive the new two-way services without a box.

While there are plenty of problems with the 1996 Act, I'm not sure that deregulation of optional cable services is one of them (the 1996 Act didn't change the law for the introductory basic level of cable which remains subject to regulation in many places.0

[depakid]

16. A lot of that has to do with advances in technology

What I've seen on the West Coast at least, is (tons) more spam channels, and less watchable content- with the lower tiered services being becoming increasingly impoverished.

When this passed, I told my ex wife- you just watch, despite the promises of "lower prices" our cable bill will go up within 6 months- and sure enough it, basic cable went up by 30%.

Nowadays, basic cable is joke around here- no sci-fi, no MSNBC, etc. That tier now is over $65 per month (higher if you don't keep using "special offers" that expire every 6 month).

[heliarc]

32. And how many more ads are on the cable networks since back then huh?

Since they promised us we wouldn't see as much advertising because we pay for the service? Are you seeing any of that ad money?

The Telecommunications act also enforced a media consolidation that was unprecedented. Now you have one company owning most of the news outlets in one market. If they don't want to cover a story about the local chemical company spewing toxic fumes into the neighborhood -- no problem -- they just tell all the subsidiaries not to run the story. Less competition. Plus, it allows for the companies to broadcast encrypted proprietary messages over the PUBLIC airwaves. got that? PUBLIC airwaves...

The service may appear to be higher quality empirically, but we are effectively getting less variability in our news gathering agencies and we're getting shut out of our rights to the service.

Welcome to the Minot derailing scandal. Haven't heard about it? Maybe that's because clearchannel has choked the story out of the news cycle.

http://cei.org/articles/minot-line

PBS Bill Moyers is one of the few people who reported the story. A chemical leak in a small community went Unreported because Clear channel ran all the local media outlets and had automated all of them so when the emergency happened there was no one on call to tell the population.

I understand your disclaimer about the problems of the act, but the Telecommunications act was one that Clinton should have VETOED... it was a disgrace. A republican Boondoggle. We've been had.

[onenote]

38. I remember the "good old days" too

I grew up in the late 50s/early 60s -- an era where there typically were at most four television options: an ABC affiliate, an NBC affiliate, a CBS affiliate, and an indpendent station that did no local or national news. The ABC, CBS, and NBC stations offered only 15 minutes of nightly news until 1963. BEginning in 1961, we got a PBS affiliate. And I grew up in one of the 50 largest TV markets in the country. We had three daily newspapers, one of which was basically a joke. And we had a bunch of AM radio stations (FM was basically unknown until I was in high school), most of which offered top 40 music or country music or classical music and minimal, canned news reports. Even the one or two that were "news" oriented did no "investigative" reporting.

Today, I have the same broadcast stations, except that the independent is now a Fox affiliate that offers considerable news and local public affairs programming. There are two additional independent stations (neither does much in the way of news coverage). I have over 100 additional cable choices including several 24 hour news channels, channels that allow me to watch coverage of Congressional debates and hearings, channels that provide documentary programming that does not, and has not, existed on broadcast television for decades, premium channels that give me access to programming that would never be allowed on broadcast television and theatrical movies without commercial interruption or editing.

Is there two much concentration in certain aspects of the media today, particularly radio? Absolutely. Was the situation really that much better in the past? Not really.

[w4rma]

19. How else can stock prices continue to rise? (nt)

[NBachers]

20. I refuse to give my money to these reichwing pigs

and that's all these companies are. I watch broadcast with an antenna, and it works fine. The less time in front of the TV, the better.

[Kolesar]

22. Time Warner sold their majority interest in Time Warner Cable

I especially despised the CNN of a few years ago. We have TWC. They dropped cspan2 from our x-basic package. I wrote to them and they ignored me.

[Kolesar]

21. Dishnetwork AMERICA'S TOP 200 Monthly Price: $44.99

Including MSNBC Keith Olbermann!

http://dishnetwork.com/content/whats_on_dish/programming_packages/at_200/packages.aspx

[durablend]

25. Until THAT goes up

And you can guarantee it will go up come February (like they always do)

[Kolesar]

30. I can guarantee anything because I don't work there

Dishnetwork has always been a bit cheaper than cable. And it has better documentary channels

[customerserviceguy]

26. Is that a "teaser" rate?

I've seen a lot of so-called "deals" that sound cheap, but when you read the mouse type, you find that six months or a year later, they jack the rate up to a full price that is way more expensive than the advertised rate.

[Kolesar]

29. I don't think it's a teaser.

go see the url

[librechik]

23. In Denver Comcast moved all the C-span channels up to pay digital only

way to help the public, you fuckers!

[heliarc]

33. All of them!!!

Ugh... I can't believe that... that's insane.

I'm mad enough that Time Warner took away my C-Span 3.

Glad that its on a constant stream from the internet now. Seriously, what's to keep me from moving to Internet only when the streaming is fast enough and good enough. There's a whole lot of content available online now.

[Purveyor]

34. Our Comcast moved Cspan-2 to digital. Never did get C-3 and last weekend I thought they moved C-1

also as the channel was snow for days. Lo and behold C-1 came back to us Tuesday.

I will not pay to rent a box just so I can access these digital channels, if fact...cable is at the top of the list to be cut after the first of the year 'household budget review'.

We had a bad storm back in the summer when the cable was out for a couple of days. I was surprised to see the variety of channels now really 'on the air' and available for free.

I never did take down the old antennae tower and will most likely back it back into service.

[yy4me]

41. You just gave me an idea. I think I'll go to the attic and find the

old rabbit ears. I wonder just what stations I would get without this awful basic Comcast cable.
I hope I am pleasantly surprised. I don't have the coupon for the converter box any more. I sent for it early, just in case and it expired. I bet you can't dip into that pot a second time.

[go west young man]

24. American programming is crap these days.

20 channels of religious BS on Sundays, no investigative journalism, tiered programming offering military propaganda, crappy cop car chase shows. Hell even Discovery and National Geographic show sensationalist violent BS now. Try Joost for free tv over the internet. At least you don't have to pay for it. http://www.joost.com/ Cool internet TV from the same guys who gave us Kazaa and Skype.

[djg21]

28. Why the x-tra charge for HDTV?

I can't figure that one out, given that broadcasters wills soon be required to broadcast in HDTV rather than in analog. Yet Time-Warner charges me extra $$$ for an HD tier. What will it do after 2009 -- install down converters in its boxes that must be deactivated at additional cost to use a new HDTV?

[onenote]

36. actually, TW doesn't charge extra for the HD television stations

If all you wanted was NBC,CBS, FOX etc in HD, you can get it from any cable company for no additional service charge over what you would pay to get those signals in analog. HOwever, you probably will have to pay for an HDTV converter unless you have a new set with a digital tuner built in.

Now, if you also want to get other non-broadcast channels in HD -- such as Palladia (formerly mTVHD) or CNNHD, or ESPNHD, etc., that probably will cost you extra, just as it costs you extra to get those channels in analog over the price you would have to pay to simply get "lifeline" basic service with just the local broadcast signals.

In some cases, there isn't an extra charge to get an HD version of a non-broadcast cable channel. For example, I have an HD box and I pay for HBO. I automatically get HBO in HD as well is in standard definition for no additional charge over what I was paying for HBO before I got my HD set.

[Trillo]

40. Just disconnect the fuckers.

Tell them that if the channels have advertising, you expect it to be delivered to your TV for free.