First cable companies insisted that people canceling TV service weren’t real. Then, as companies began noticing the last two quarters that people were actually canceling TV service due to cost, they began insisting those consumers really don’t matter all that much (which is only true when looking at the relatively massive size of some companies). The reality is that you can’t continue to impose rate hikes twice a year and not see some consumer response; the cable industry just doesn’t care because they feel these consumers are little more than a statistical blip.

The seriousness with which cable companies take consumer concerns about high prices is reflected in the way they continue to gleefully impose rate hikes on not only cable TV but DVR rentals and other services. When they do try their hand at the unfamiliar idea of lowering prices, the end result is often somewhat insulting, like Time Warner Cable’s new entry level cable tiers that offer no consumer value and are loaded with restrictions like the inability to bundle it with additional services, or even use a DVR.

Following in Time Warner Cable’s footsteps, Charter is illustrating what they think about cord cutters and those struggling financially, by sending out notices saying they’ll be hiking the price of, well, everything:

effective with your January Statement pricing will be adjusted for TV Install fees: New Primary Outlet Installation and Reconnection will be adjusted from $29.99 to $39.00; Change of Service Special Trip from $23.62 to $30.00; Additional Outlet with Initial Install from $9.87 to $9.99; Additional Outlet with Special Trip from $29.86 to $39.00; Labor Charge (formerly Hourly Service Charge) from $34.85 to $39.00; Inside Wire Service Call from $35.00 to $45.00; Ancillary Equipment Install with Initial Install from $5.99 to $9.99 and Ancillary Equipment Install with Special Trip from $27.15 to $35.00.

Public Access Fee will change from $0.52 to $0.55, Franchise Fee will change from $1. 13 to $1.17. Basic Service Tier from $12. 85 to $16.21 an increase of $3.36; Expanded Service Tier from $48.14 to $44.78 a decrease of (-$3.36). Customers in a promotion will not see this immediate price change; however, new pricing will apply at the end of your promotional period.

While Charter jacked up the price of essentially everything, they did reduce the price of their “Expanded Service” tier from $48.14 to $44.78. However, they actually increased the price of their entry-level “Basic” service tier $12.85 to $16.21. Why? As Charter customers in our forums correctly note, Charter was seeing more customers downgrading to their cheapest TV tier due to the economy, so they raised the price and lowered the price of the next level tier in the hopes they’d upgrade. Cable’s borderline disdain for cash-strapped customers couldn’t be any more clear, and it will be a historical cornerstone when the story of the inevitable (but glacial) Internet video (r)evolution is told.

Link to the original article…

With Comcast and NBC’s immense lobbying firepower, there’s virtually no chance their merger will be denied by regulators and while there will be some conditions, recent history suggests the conditions may only give a quick nod to substantive consumer protections. According to the Wall Street Journal however, these conditions will be “significant” focused largely on preventing Comcast from withholding, or threatening to withhold, NBC Universal’s programming from competitors. The Journal also claims that the FCC is considering imposing some kind of network neutrality requirements on Comcast’s network:

The FCC is looking at all parts of Comcast and NBC Universal’s combined online-video distribution chain for ways Comcast could promote content over its rivals. The agency is considering imposing a “net neutrality” condition on Comcast’s Internet network, banning it from deliberately slowing or blocking legal traffic. FCC staff members are meeting twice a week with commission Chairman Julius Genachowski about the deal and have set an internal deadline of circulating proposed conditions by mid-December, according to a person familiar with the review.

Given the contentiousness of network neutrality and the FCC’s seeming unwillingness to seriously tackle this issue, any neutrality language will likely be very vague and focused on simple transparency if it even survives the final cut at the FCC. According to the Journal, final DOJ approval could come within weeks, though Comcast is apparently kicking back at any proposed conditions that would cover Internet video.

Link to the original article…

Ars Technica directs our attention to a new New American Foundation report that found that United States and Canadian consumers consistently pay significantly more for wireless service. The study tracked prepaid, unlimited, and postpaid plans in 11 countries, and found that the U.S. and Canada were consistently the most expensive for complete plans (SMS/Voice/Data) and SMS. The U.S. fares slightly better in mobile data, ranging from thoroughly mediocre to very pricey:

In the case of unlimited data plans, the U.S. is in the middle tier of service rates. The U.S. offers a plan of $29.99 per month which is cheaper than Canada ($72.90/month), Japan ($52.60/month) and Hong Kong ($38.00/month). On the contrary, Sweden offers much cheaper unlimited data plans for $13.80 per month, followed by India ($19.00/month), and Taiwan ($26.60/month). For prepaid data plans, the U.S. has the most expensive rate at $10.24 per MB, whereas India offers $0.0004/MB, $0.43/MB in South Korea and $0.50/MB in the U.K. Several other countries that also have cheaper rates are $1.64/MB in Taiwan and $1.70 in Denmark.

It’s not entirely clear what guided the Foundation’s 11-country selection, or why countries like France and Spain were left out of the analysis. It’s also not clear how much a broader sample base would help, given that several studies have shown that Canadian and U.S. consumers tend to pay consistently more for lower quality wired and wireless service than many developed countries. We’re going to go out on a limb and guess that these prices don’t include all of the assorted fees, taxes, and “unfees” carriers tack on below the line.

Link to the original article…

As noted back in June, companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast started indicating they were actually looking for Congress to begin enacting telecom law “reform.” Why? These three companies have such immense influence over Congress, they’re the ones that are usually ghost writing new laws. Not surprisingly, Politico notes that AT&T, Comcast and Verizon outspent nearly every other major tech giant in lobbying during the second quarter, spending a combined 11.3 million.

What is that money buying? Bills like Sen. Jim DeMint’s (R-S.C.) “Freedom for Consumer Choice Act,” which essentially bogs the FCC down in red tape at AT&T’s behest (AT&T is DeMint’s third largest campaign contributor).

As a South Carolinian, this affects me in more ways than just a few. Fight it, if you can, vote accordingly.

Link to the original article…

Fairpoint Communications utterly imploded after regulators rubber stamped their acquisition of Verizon’s unwanted New England (Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire) DSL and landline networks, though the company insists they should be able to exit bankruptcy by the end of the summer. With everyone watching closely to see if the company can overcome its own dysfunction and provide things like reliable 911 service, Fairpoint has decided that now’s a good time to ask for government favors. After missing their broadband expansion commitments completely, Fairpoint recently stated they wanted to weaken previous broadband expansion promises.

Fairpoint is also now asking regulators to weaken their oversight of the company once they emerge from bankruptcy.

Link to the original article…

According to an FCC announcement (warning: pdf link), the FCC will officially unveil our first ever national broadband plan at an FCC meeting next Tuesday, March 16, at 10:30 EST. That’s one day earlier than the plan was supposed to be unveiled before Congress, though technically it’s about a month behind its originally-scheduled unveiling date.

The plan is expected to put a heavy emphasis on delivering more spectrum to incumbent wireless carriers, the construction of a national wireless emergency network and “digital literacy” efforts. However, early glimpses indicate the plan does little to shake up a stagnant U.S. duopoly market or to seriously tackle limited competition and high prices.

Link to the original article…

Rumors began circulating late last year that the FCC was considering making line sharing part of their national broadband plan. Line sharing, as most of you know, involves requiring that incumbent carriers lease their networks to new entrants. The idea is that those ISPs then grow into larger carriers, capable of competition with incumbents. While we discarded the idea here (more accurately it was lobbied to death by major carriers and bungled by incompetent regulators), it has worked in markets like France, where consumers now see 100Mbps/50Mbps fiber service, VoIP and IPTV bundles for $40 a month.

Obviously carriers don’t like the idea because no giant incumbent carrier wants eroded revenues or added competition. Incumbent carriers spent literally hundreds of millions of dollars attacking the plan at every turn, and are in no hurry to have to fight this particular fight all over again. While rumors of a return to line sharing blossomed last fall, broadband plan boss Blair Levin (who was primarily responsible for line sharing in the 1996 Telecom Act) seemingly harpooned that idea in an interview with the Wall Street Journal last December:

“There are certain things where what s going on in other countries really isn’t germane for where we go from here. As to (line sharing rules), the courts threw that out and we re not that terribly interesting in moving toward things that will just freeze capital investment and have long, drawn-out court battles, he said. “That doesn’t strike me as that productive.”

In other words, Levin suggests that the FCC will avoid a return to line sharing because the agency will just wind up in the courts indefinitely fighting AT&T, Comcast and Verizon lawyers and their bottomless pocketbooks. But while Levin seemed to kill the idea, Business Week interviews an aide to FCC boss Julius Genachowski, who seems to think that line sharing remains very much on the table:

Letting competitors lease lines into businesses may boost Internet adoption, help small businesses grow and aid job creation, said Colin Crowell, an aide to Democratic FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, in an interview. “That is certainly something that we ll look very closely at, and has a lot of appeal as part of a national strategy,” said Crowell. The change may be proposed as part of the FCC s national plan for increasing the use of high-speed Internet, or broadband, that is to be delivered to Congress in March, Crowell said.

It still seems unlikely that the agency will take such a bold step, given that early glimpses of the plan by consumer advocates seems to indicate the plan doesn’t really do much of anything to seriously address competition. That of course would be a huge mistake, given that competition can cure all manner of problems in the sector (network neutrality, overly expensive metered broadband plans) without the need for additional, potentially dysfunctional regulation. We’ll see if line sharing is part of the equation with the FCC unveils their plan to Congress in 33 days.

Link to the original article…