dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
13627
share rss forum feed

rebus9

join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·Bright House

Brighthouse Tampa Bay Rate Increase (March 2011)

Here we go... BHN Tampa Bay price increase effective March 2011.... including internet service. For example, that 10/1 "standard" service which cost $47.95 is going up to $50.00, even though everyone and his brother knows the ISP's cost to deliver that service has decreased significantly in recent years.

Costs of acquiring TV content may be on the rise, but INTERNET (and phone) costs are continually dropping. I can buy a 10-Gig port today for less than I could buy a 1-Gig port a few years ago or a 100 Mbps (Fast-E) port a few years before that.

On the phone side, BHN delivers VoIP, and we know wholesale VoIP costs have already reached dirt-cheap commodity status. $49.95 for residential voice is obscene. I can get Business VoIP service with a larger feature set, for less $$ from other providers.

With the internet price increase, they have now priced themselves higher than Clear Wi-Max. I only keep a Road Runner connection as a backup in case my FIOS pipe goes down, and I don't particularly care which provider I use for the backup. I can get 1.5 Mbps service from Clear for $35, or the $45 plan that runs in the 10-12 Mbps range. Both Clear plans are cheaper than 10/1 Road Runner now. I currently have iSpot service from Clear and get full rated speed at home (their tower is line-of-sight from my house).

The $50 greed-grab for 10/1 is most likely going to turn me into an ex-BHN subscriber after 9 continuous years with them. (sorry, ispgeek)


BHNtechXpert
BHN Staff
Premium,VIP
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL
kudos:153
Howdy Rebus...

I totally understand where you are coming from but you make the common mistake that most others do when it comes to cost. Cost isn't just one thing. It's a combination of many things and it isn't as easy as just lumping all the costs on one product...it can't be done like that. Instead the provider spreads the increases in costs to conduct business across all relevant products. Some products will see no increases or decreases while others may see modest increases or decreases.

In case nobody noticed fuel prices have skyrocketed lately and this being a travel intensive business well...pretty obvious on this one. Let's not forget the costs of programming and license agreements, maintenance of existing infrastructure and re-investment in new technology and of course there's labor.

It's also no secret that the costs to maintain an employee with benefits has skyrocketed (much in part to our (cough) wonderful new health care system). Support and customer services are also very expensive and the demand on these services increases exponentially as the technology advances (it's supposed to work the other way but that hasn't happened). Customers expect to have a live and friendly voice to assist them 24 hours a day...it's not cheap to offer such services.

While there are certainly cheaper alternatives to some services you will be making a sacrfice somewhere. It might be in service quality, customer service, billing...something will suffer because you can only cut costs so much before it impacts the customer experience.

As you mention VoIP services...oh yea there are cheaper solutions out there. They come and go about every 6 to 18 months and many leave a wide path of destruction behind them. Most of these "cheaper" ventures are nothing more than resellers of service and when it comes down to real issue resolution it's non existent. Been there...done that...it's one area of telecommunications where you need to be very careful especially if you own a business. A disconnected phone line even for a few minutes can cripple a business long term. But you already know all of this.

Rebus I guess my next question is do you own a business or have you owned a business within the last five years or so? If so then you know the costs of conducting any business are insane right now....cable is no different.
--
"I can’t give you a surefire formula for success, but I can give you a formula for failure: try to please everybody all the time."
~ Herbert Bayard Swope


mikepd
Discovery
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-26
New Port Richey, FL
reply to rebus9
I saw the same notice on my bill and I too have Bright House as a backup to my FIOS line.

I was a partner in a mobile CT scanner business back in the 1980's where we leased mobile CT scanners to the NYC Health and Hospital Corporation's NYC hospitals and other places. We took in over 4 million per month and our outgo was equally high what with our lease costs and usual business expenses.

While I do not like to pay more for a service, I can see the reason for it and as long as I am not hit with too large an increase or too often then I will stick with the devil I know rather than go with the devil I don't.
--
Always Reach Beyond Your Grasp

rebus9

join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·Bright House
reply to BHNtechXpert
said by BHNtechXpert:

Howdy Rebus...

Howdy geek.

said by BHNtechXpert:

Rebus I guess my next question is do you own a business or have you owned a business within the last five years or so?

Yes I do, very much so. My costs of datacenter colocation plus the SPLA fees to Microsoft, by themselves, add up to several mutliples of the salary many people earn in a year.

But there is one group of CapEx and OpEx that has continued declining-- the cost of my transit circuits ("bandwidth" for those who don't speak the lingo) and the cost of equipment to terminate those circuits. Ten years ago our bill for a single Fast-E (100 mbps) transit pipe was $17,000 on a 3 year term, and that was considered an excellent deal. Today a full Gig-E is under $12,000 for a really good carrier, and budget carriers are less than half of that even. So my transit costs (per megabit) have decreased by more than a full order of magnitude.(**)

Equipment costs have roughly followed suit-- faster interfaces for about the same money.

Server costs have also declined, relatively speaking. Our average per-server expenditure is about the same but we get SUBSTANTIALLY more processing power and storage capacity for the same dollars spent: 16 cores (4 cpu x 4 cores) and 64 GB RAM, for about the same price as 2 cores (2 cpu x 1 core) with 2 GB RAM in the past. We spend less for a Seagate Cheetah 600GB SAS 15k RPM disk today than we did for a 72 GB 10k RPM SCSI. Virtualization has further multipled our savings.

Power (per amp) costs have increased, but not dramatically. Employees cost more, but the savings mentioned above have roughly balanced it out.

Telephone service-- definitely cheaper today, and considering the nature of services we purchase from (big carriers), we're playing in a league that doesn't mess around with sketchy VoIP providers. I'm willing to bet you a Big Mac with large fries, that BHN's cost of providing dialtone to a residence is lower today than in 2005.

Bottom line is, my company has not issued a price increase any time during this 10 year period I've been discussing, because we haven't needed to. At the same time, our clients have actually benefitted from higher levels of system peformance and storage capacity.

Note that I've focused on transit and equipment costs for sake of this discussion, because I'm focused mainly on the Road Runner price increase. I understand TV/programming costs are going up, but that shouldn't affect the internet side of BHN's business. If BHN wants to subsidize their escalating TV/programming costs by sticking it to their Road Runner subscribers, that's their choice, but I find it a distasteful one.

(**) For those who don't know what an order of magnitude is, it's a multiple of 10. One order of magnitude is 10x. Two orders is 100x. And so on. So if something drops by an order of magnitude, its resultant value is 1/10th the initial value.


BHNtechXpert
BHN Staff
Premium,VIP
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL
kudos:153

4 edits
I wasn't speaking in BHN specifics here but in general terms meaning all providers. I get the feeling you want to isolate out just the internet costs and it doesn't work that way in any business.
Also I think you mis-understood my exponential statement. I was referring to support costs meaning costs associated with customer support of new products and technology. The natural assumption is that new products are fundamentally easier to operate than previous generations of the same. Not the case.

Look at HDTV's. While the technology has improved greatly so has the complexity of the average television. Most people are clueless as to the majority of settings on their HDTV's but often feel the need to go in and mess with them. When their TV goes wonky because of it who do they call? Their provider?

--
"I can’t give you a surefire formula for success, but I can give you a formula for failure: try to please everybody all the time."

~ Herbert Bayard Swope

Nick123456

join:2009-12-27
Satellite Beach, FL
reply to rebus9
12K for a Gige, Even from the big guys thats expensive.
You can talk many carriers into less then $4.00 per Mb/s range.
And the cheap guys will enter even under a dollar.

And I'm willing to bet a Big Mac with Large Fries, That it costs BHN less money then that very same Big Mac and Large Fries to deliver VOIP per line. VOIP really, really is Dirt Cheap.


BHNtechXpert
BHN Staff
Premium,VIP
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL
kudos:153
said by Nick123456:

12K for a Gige, Even from the big guys thats expensive.
You can talk many carriers into less then $4.00 per Mb/s range.
And the cheap guys will enter even under a dollar.

And I'm willing to bet a Big Mac with Large Fries, That it costs BHN less money then that very same Big Mac and Large Fries to deliver VOIP per line. VOIP really, really is Dirt Cheap.

Grrr why you guys bettin forbidden friut food. Can't we just make it some carrots or something
--
"I can’t give you a surefire formula for success, but I can give you a formula for failure: try to please everybody all the time."
~ Herbert Bayard Swope

rebus9

join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·Bright House
reply to Nick123456
said by Nick123456:

12K for a Gige, Even from the big guys thats expensive.
You can talk many carriers into less then $4.00 per Mb/s range.
And the cheap guys will enter even under a dollar.

That's why I said "a really good carrier". It's hard to drive skinny deals out of Verizon (701), AT&T (7018), TWTC (4323), Sprint (1239) and some others we all know and love/hate. Cogent at $4 is a no-brainer, as is $1 for Hurricane. Some resellers like Bandcon will get you well down into single-digit pricing on a decent commit.

I still have vivid memories of $40,000 DS-3's and $2500 T-1's.

Nick123456

join:2009-12-27
Satellite Beach, FL
LOL, I had ATT quote me 10K for 50mb/s on-net Ethernet Handoff, I laughed at the lady.
TWTC you can talk down pretty good, The rest though i don't know.
Cogent goes way under 4 and HE i've never dealt with, But I hear they go dirt cheap.

Now that I've steered this completely off the BHN rate raise topic. I do agree that they should pass cost down the line in the area it originates.


BHNtechXpert
BHN Staff
Premium,VIP
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL
kudos:153

2 edits
said by Nick123456:

LOL, I had ATT quote me 10K for 50mb/s on-net Ethernet Handoff, I laughed at the lady.
TWTC you can talk down pretty good, The rest though i don't know.
Cogent goes way under 4 and HE i've never dealt with, But I hear they go dirt cheap.

Now that I've steered this completely off the BHN rate raise topic. I do agree that they should pass cost down the line in the area it originates.

Look up Nick. Rebus took part of my post out of context in error. I clarified it after the fact. I wasn't being internet specific..apparently he was.

But since you brought it up. Lets go ahead and start passing these costs down just like you say so...

Next time you have a tech out for any reason you will pay the cost to the company for that tech including equipment costs. Now of course you will you have to pay the tech before he leaves.

Now keep in mind costs encompasses all costs for that visit including associated paperwork, processing, labor, parts, benefits, liability insurance...etc.

So Nick before tech Randy can leave today for that modem install you will need to cut him a check for $155.00 plus tax at 8% or $167.40.

Alrighty then two days later your kid is out edging the walkway and slices your cable but because of where it's located the entire run will need to be replaced. Ohh this is bad...cost to the company on this one was $195.00 plus eh $19.00 in parts oh but they have to bring the driveway bore guy back for another $85.00 so this time before the tech Bruce leaves you get to pay $322.92 including any associated taxes.

90 days later you kid complains of slow browsing bla bla bla and you call in for support. Tech can't find anything wrong over the phone but you insist on having someone out to check anyway.

Two days later PC tech Larry comes out and determines your kid has been surfing adult sites and got himself infected with a nasty virus. Tech says no problem...I can't fix this for you as we are not responsible for such things however I do have a bill here for you today. Please pay $125.00 before I leave. Thank you!

Total paid by you year to date (90 days) was $615.32 Nick under your plan of passing it down.

------

Nick you are looking at the life of just one customer over just 90 days as it applies to costs to your provider. BHN like many providers does not charge for MOST installs, service calls, pc tech calls and calls to replace the battery in your remote control etc etc etc. You get the idea right? (and this was only from the service call perspective...we didn't even touch the other stuff)

Now which plan do you really want? All inclusive or pay as you go?

--
"I can’t give you a surefire formula for success, but I can give you a formula for failure: try to please everybody all the time."
~ Herbert Bayard Swope

Nick123456

join:2009-12-27
Satellite Beach, FL
I understand completely ispgeek, I understand there are many costs. I'm not saying literally pass the charges down. But keep them in the same category.


BHNtechXpert
BHN Staff
Premium,VIP
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL
kudos:153

1 edit
Nobody said they wern't in the same category. Rebus was being internet specific, I wasn't. So I guess thats my fault for assuming he realized it wasn't just internet that increased in cost. I was responding to the increase generally speaking. Sorry if I left any confusion there.

The only way your model works is if they pass the costs all the way down and everyone pays their fair share. Sorry man but thats just the reality that we live in.
--
"I can’t give you a surefire formula for success, but I can give you a formula for failure: try to please everybody all the time."
~ Herbert Bayard Swope

rebus9

join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·Bright House

4 edits
said by BHNtechXpert:

Rebus was being internet specific, I wasn't. So I guess thats my fault for assuming he realized it wasn't just internet that increased in cost.....

The only way your model works is if they pass the costs all the way down and everyone pays their fair share. Sorry man but thats just the reality that we live in.

Have no fear, I know the rate increase affects all services. Now in a friendly and good-natured turnabout, let's look at your argument from a slightly different perspective.

First, let me preface this by reiterating that equipment costs for BHN have gone down. Modems are dirt cheap now. So is fiber. And the SFPs. And that nicely equipped six-figure Juniper M-series router will route tens of Gigabits/sec more than the last six-figure router they bought.

Their transit costs have decreased by virtue of (a) more favorable pricing with Level3, and (b) use of the T-bone network.

Now, to the meat of the subject. Let's pull the TV service out of it for a moment and focus on internet operations. Consider the typical NSP that is NOT a content provider. Cogent. Hurricane Electric. InterNAP. Level3. TWTC. Savvis. UUnet (a/k/a VZB). These companies shuttle bits locally, regionally, nationally, globally. And they do so in an environment such that their fees have been declining steadily. The price reductions are real, justifyable, necessary. How is it they can drop prices, while BHN needs to raise them for basically the same service-- carrying data packets?

The difference between BHN and, say, Level3 or Global Crossing, is BHN has significantly fewer competitors in the neighborhoods they serve. At the datacenter, I can exchange traffic with just about any NSP in the country. If I can't pick them up directly in Tampa, I can backhaul (L2 transport is cheap) to NoTA or Telemark in Miami, or 55/56 Marietta in Atlanta. Just about every carrier that matters has a POP in Miami or Atlanta. So guess what... they have to compete for my business, and if I don't like what I get, I turn down my BGP session and drop my cross-connect with them at the end of the term, and XC with another provider.

BHN on the other hand, has me as a (relatively) captive audience. Their sole competitors are Verizon DSL or FIOS, and a few miscellaneous DSL providers riding VZ dry loops that are becoming less relevant every day. They know they can raise rates with far less chance of losing me as a customer, than they could if.... say for example... I was picking up a Gig-E from them at 400 N Tampa St. (For those who don't know, you can buy commercial transit with a full BGP table from BHN just like you can from the carriers you know-- Level3, AT&T, InterNAP, Sprint, Cogent, et al.) Now to add another twist, BHN's prices for "enterprise-class" internet service have come DOWN, while prices for their "consumer" grade internet service are going UP. Sound contradictory? Just consider where the "real competition" exists. Hint: in the datacenter, not the residential subdivision. I'll let the reader draw his own conclusions.

When it comes down to it, what percentage of customers require truck rolls each month for repair to internet service? That's already priced into the service. I agree that employee costs, benefits, fuel, etc., have gone up-- but I'm hoping you'll admit the backend costs (transit per Mbps, equipment at the POPs, premises, and in between) to carry the bits have gone down. It costs BHN a lot less today to carry a Gbps of customer traffic than it did 5 years ago.

Geek, you and I have a friendly relationship on these forums and I'm sure it will remain so.... whether we agree, or agree to disagree. Tone is sometimes hard to discern from the written word, so rest assured I'm typing this with no malice... just somewhat of a bad taste in my mouth from BHN's decision to include internet (and phone) in their latest money-grab. If TV/programming costs go up, pass them on to video consumers. That's fair. But if your voice and data costs go down or even remain level, DON'T increase rates on them to subsidize the latest cash-grab from ESPN, Fox News, or whomever.

That's the foundation of my argument-- tying price increases to the actual services where BHN's costs have actually increased. Don't subsidize Service A by raising rates on Service B or C.


BHNtechXpert
BHN Staff
Premium,VIP
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL
kudos:153

4 edits
As always I enjoy a lively and respectful conversation with you Rebus. You're the only one I know besides myself that can sit down and write a book for a forum post :) so here goes and I'll try to go down your very good list.


First, let me preface this by reiterating that equipment costs for BHN have gone down. Modems are dirt cheap now. So is fiber. And the SFPs. And that nicely equipped six-figure Juniper M-series router will route tens of Gigabits/sec more than the last six-figure router they bought.

Their transit costs have decreased by virtue of (a) more favorable pricing with Level3, and (b) use of the T-bone network.

Now, to the meat of the subject. Let's pull the TV service out of it for a moment and focus on internet operations. Consider the typical NSP-- take your pick-- that isn't also a content provider, other than offering CDN services. Cogent. Hurricane Electric. InterNAP. Level3. TWTC. Savvis. UUnet (a/k/a VZB). These companies shuttle bits locally, regionally, nationally, globally. And they do so in an environment such that their fees have been declining steadily. Some would argue they've gone too low. But nonetheless, the decline is real, justifyable, necessary. How is it they can drop prices, while BHN needs to raise them?


I will generally concede that fees for said services have come down significantly. How that applies to BHN or any other carrier for that matter I can't say. I don't know.

You ask how BHN or any other provider needs to raise them but you leave out the rest of the equation. It's not just about transport costs. Yea they probably have gone down (one would hope) but other costs have gone up and while some of the savings offset costs there still is that carryover that we must agree exists and needs to be paid for. Providers are businesses and as such they are in business to make money.

In a Star Trek world money is meaningless as everyone has everything they need or want provided. This is not the society we live in and as such our economy is driven by business. Businesses that don't make a profit don't remain in business very long. I don't think that you nor I are in a position to question what is a fair and equitable profit for a specific provider. I can't do that because I come from a business owner background and I sure as hell wouldn't sit around and let others dictate what my profits would be. Not gonna do it.


The difference between BHN and, say, Level3 or Global Crossing, is BHN has significantly fewer competitors in the neighborhoods they service. At the datacenter, I can exchange traffic with just about any NSP in the country. If I can't pick them up directly in Tampa, I can backhaul (L2 transport is cheap) to NoTA or Telemark in Miami, or 55/56 Marietta in Atlanta. Just about every carrier that matters has a POP in Miami or Atlanta. So guess what... they have to compete for my business, and if I don't like what I get, I turn down my BGP session and drop my cross-connect with them at the end of the term, and XC with another provider.

BHN on the other hand, has me as a (relatively) captive audience. Their sole competitors are Verizon DSL or FIOS, and a few miscellaneous DSL providers riding VZ dry loops that are becoming less relevant every day. They know they can raise rates with far less chance of losing me as a customer, than they could if.... say for example... I was picking up a Gig-E from them at 400 N Tampa St. (For those who don't know, you can buy commercial transit with a full BGP table from BHN just like you can from the carriers you know-- Level3, AT&T, InterNAP, Sprint, Cogent, et al.) Now to add another twist, BHN's prices for this enterprise/datacenter-class service have come DOWN in recent years, while prices for their "consumer" grade internet service have gone up. Go figure.


I'm not a great follower of the competition is king mantra that permeates certain halls of DSLR. This applies especially in the Florida market because there is plenty of competition in most areas and prices continue to rise across the spectrum of providers (hell Verizon raised their core prices 5 times in less than two years here).

What does that tell you? Well...either they are all in collusion with each other and involved in the grandest price fixing scheme of the century (and an ice cube has a better chance of surviving in hell than that happening) OR costs of doing business have increased at ever increasing levels for all providers AND the market appears capable of bearing the additional costs.

Notice I just said something key here...the market seems capable of bearing the additional costs. I'm a firm believer in market driven economics. The consumer in time will dictate prices and so far this has held more weight than anything the guys chanting competition is king have managed to produce. Prices will get to a tipping point where the consumer will say enough. I can't afford this and will either drop the product altogether or subscribe only to the lowest price tiers regardless of product or provider. This will force all involved (programmers, providers etc) to sit down and get realistic about their expectations. This hasn't happened yet but it's coming...can't tell ya when...but it's coming. The alternative which is lose lose for everyone is government involvement and we sooo do not want to go there now do we.

One thing you must consider. Generally speaking the cost of internet in our area is lower than most parts of the country and the offerings are far superior to say the least. So for us to complain too loudly about things might be akin to shooting ourselves in the ass. We're pretty damned fortunate compared to many parts of the country. I have relatives in California who would kill to have the speeds and prices we do right here. Right now they're stuck on DSL because the local cable provider who does have a monoply and happens to be Comcast charges almost 4 times what the local telco does.

Contrary to myth BHN is not a monoply here there are options in every market. Now you may not like those options but they are options and we have to agree this is fact...not fiction. That said ...prices haven't come down now have they. So much for that competition is king mantra.....pooof...gone :)


When it comes down to it, what percentage of customers require truck rolls each month for repair to internet service? That's already priced into the service. I agree that employee costs, benefits, fuel, etc., have gone up-- but I'm hoping you'll admit the backend costs (transit per Mbps, equipment at the POPs, premises, and in between) to carry the bits have gone down. It costs BHN a lot less today to carry a Gbps of customer traffic today than it did 5 years ago.


You're making assumptions I can't make. I don't know. I'm coming from the perspective of any business owner. I happen to know certain costs because I ask AND from a previous business of my own I have a firm understanding of what it costs to send a tech to your home. Backend costs have come down but to what degree for BHN or ANY provider I can't tell you and I don't think its realistic for us to pass judgement when we don't have all the facts.


Geek, you and I have a friendly relationship on these forums and I'm sure it will remain so.... whether we agree, or agree to disagree. Tone is sometimes hard to discern from the written word, so rest assured I'm typing this with no malice... just somewhat of a bad taste in my mouth from BHN's decision to include internet (and phone) in their latest money-grab. If TV/programming costs go up, pass them on to video consumers. That's fair. But if your voice and data costs go down or even remain level, DON'T increase rates on them to subsidize the latest cash-grab from ESPN, Fox News, or whomever.


I think you are still holding on to my previous response to you that I posted a clarification to. When I answered your post I was speaking generally not specific to any provider actually because every single one of them raised rates this year in case you didn't notice. I can't tell you if they (BHN) actually spread the operating cost increase cost across all operating units because I just don't know the answer. I will point this out though. In case you hadn't noticed BHN core internet service rates had not increased in many years and considering that one thing alone...it was due.

As for the last sentence there. Speaking hypthetically what would you do in a situation like that. You are obviously aware of the cash grab al a networks this year. If you were faced with the same situation of being forced to raise video product pricing to the point that it literally priced people out of being able to afford cable (in other words breached the market willingness or capability to pay) what would you do?

(Keep in mind that you still have to make a profit and remain viable...no cheating here)

1). Raise the video prices and take your chances on losing subscribers at least in the short term until the competition re-trans agreements come due and they are faced with the very same situation and hope your customer would come back to you realizing that all things considered you were a better provider.

2). Tell the networks to stuff it where the sun doesn't shine and let them go dark facing the wrath of angry consumers who don't care and don't want to know that what you did was in the best interest of all and would jump ship in a heartbeat if you dared let this happen.

3). Spread the increased costs over your other operating units in an effort to soften the blow to consumers in the hopes that some sanity will prevail in retrans pricing sometime in the near future.

How would you handle this oh wise Rebus because I know one thing...I don't have an answer. I could follow my gut and that would be option 3.

As always sir I enjoy your lively and spirited debates and I do understand how you feel please don't mistake my intentions here. I'm a consumer and right now everything I buy or need is going up in price and it sucks. Right now I'm making buying decisions based on what I need vss what I just want to have.

I suspect we all are in the same position...whether we're talking about individuals or businesses

--
"I can’t give you a surefire formula for success, but I can give you a formula for failure: try to please everybody all the time."
~ Herbert Bayard Swope

willzzz

join:2007-05-23
SE MI
BHN is probably happy to have my family as a good customer because our house's loop length for AT&T U-verse is simply too long for their VDSL2 (People across the street can get U-verse). Also AT&T's ADSL2+ CO based IP-DSLAM doesn't reach me because apparently I'm 19k from their CO. I'm not kidding, this is in a nice suburb and apparently AT&T took the wise decision to instead of build a NEW CO, they took their existing CO in the city south of US and used that instead. So certain city blocks like mine, their ONLY option for broadband is BHN unless you count capped Verizon LTE or other forms of 3G.

willzzz

join:2007-05-23
SE MI
reply to rebus9
Yeah again internet costs are reasonable for now with BHN and all the providers. What really irks me is the networks and the rising cost of cable. ;(

Hopefully the good thing is that technological change is forcing the networks to adapt faster than ever!

Nick123456

join:2009-12-27
Satellite Beach, FL
reply to willzzz
Interesting, Here in FL they have the ADSL2+ DSLAM's outside the CO, Sure some are in the CO. But you can see the lawn fridges around here literally labeled "DSLAM". This is also where they have been loading up the VRAD's for U-Verse.


BHNtechXpert
BHN Staff
Premium,VIP
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL
kudos:153
reply to willzzz
said by willzzz:

Yeah again internet costs are reasonable for now with BHN and all the providers. What really irks me is the networks and the rising cost of cable. ;(

Hopefully the good thing is that technological change is forcing the networks to adapt faster than ever!

This network thing really gets me pissed off every time I think about it. It's bad enough we're pelted with ads every 12 minutes but then to also get paid on the backend which ultimately comes out of our pocket as well...way over the top. Cable co's are doing these networks a favor by extending their reach. I never have been able to grasp how they come off demanding this that or the other thing. If I were big cable I would start pulling the plug and see how long they last on DTV alone. It won't take long.

Anyway....off my soapbox for now....
--
"I can’t give you a surefire formula for success, but I can give you a formula for failure: try to please everybody all the time."
~ Herbert Bayard Swope

rebus9

join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·Bright House
reply to BHNtechXpert
said by BHNtechXpert:

As always I enjoy a lively and respectful conversation with you Rebus.

Makes life interesting, even if we don't always agree.

said by BHNtechXpert:

I'm not a great follower of the competition is king mantra that permeates certain halls of DSLR.

I am... BUT there has to be true competition. A duopoly is not competition. The presence of Knology, for example, doesn't really count because their reach is limited. In my 'hood the only players are VZ and BHN, again with the exception of a few dry-loop DSL providers limping along at 2002 speeds. Clear Wi-Max has the potential to make things interesting in a year or two, IF they manage not to shoot themselves in both feet. I'm hopeful, but not quite holding my breath yet.

said by BHNtechXpert:

(hell Verizon raised their core prices 5 times in less than two years here).

I have no hard data to back it up, but my gut tells me it was because they could. Hook users, cheap. Generate buzz. And once everyone's addicted to (a rather outstanding product), raise prices knowing there's nobody else in town that can get near some of the things FIOS does. I'll be honest, now that I've lived with uploads that peak out around 31 Mbps (we both know I telecommute and have legit reasons for doing multi-GB uploads) there's no way I could live without them. If FIOS doubled in price, I'd still keep it even though I'd scream and cuss every time the bill came due.

said by BHNtechXpert:

either they are all in collusion with each other and involved in the grandest price fixing scheme of the century (..snip..) OR costs of doing business have increased (..snip..) AND the market appears capable of bearing the additional costs.

BINGO.... the market will bear the costs. In the 21st century, the internet is almost as important as electricity itself. If Progress Energy raised rates to 25-cents per kWh, we wouldn't shut off service; we'd just have to make some adjustments in other spending.

BHN and VZ know that most people would give up a LOT of things before disconnecting from the 'net. Just consider the millions of collective shrieks and mass panic when Facebook has an outage. Raise the price-- people will still pay.

It's similar to $4 gasoline-- we try to conserve, but can't go cold turkey. Or cigarettes. When I was a kid, they were 50-cents a pack. Today, what are they?... something like $4 a pack? And people keep smoking.

said by BHNtechXpert:

I'm a firm believer in market driven economics. The consumer in time will dictate prices and so far this has held more weight than anything the guys chanting competition is king have managed to produce.

Mmmmm.... let's agree to disagree, over shades of difference. That assumes consumers have an alternative, in order to force the provider's hand. What's my choice if I decide to vote with my wallet? Drop VZ and BHN? Then what? What other viable choice is there at this very moment? None really.

said by BHNtechXpert:

The alternative which is lose lose for everyone is government involvement and we sooo do not want to go there now do we.

I'm a Libertarian-leaning registered Republican who loves certain parts of the Tea Party platform.... so that should make it clear how I feel about government. But I will say that in the complete absense of corporate conscience, there are some instances when gov't regulation is necessary. Think open access to copper for competing DSL in the 90's-- and the highly positive effect that had for consumer choice.

And I don't know how old you are, but if you're a little grey on top like me, you'll remember what happened when Jimmy Carter deregulated the oil industry in the late 70s. I vividly remember gasoline jumping from 69.9c to 87.9c literally overnight the day the new rules took effect. Then the windfall profits tax went away. And all these years later, what do we have? Oil companies setting record profit levels in the midst of the worst rececession in 80 years. Not records for the company itself-- records for the highest profits, of any company, in the history of the world.

Certain industries which are so critical to our society-- and which have failed, in the absense of regulation, to act in good faith-- unfortunately need to be more closely regulated. (insurance, utilities, energy....)

said by BHNtechXpert:

I have relatives in California who would kill to have the speeds and prices we do right here. Right now they're stuck on DSL because the local cable provider who does have a monoply and happens to be Comcast charges almost 4 times what the local telco does.

Because they can. See my point?

said by BHNtechXpert:

Contrary to myth BHN is not a monoply here there are options in every market. Now you may not like those options but they are options and we have to agree this is fact...not fiction. That said ...prices haven't come down now have they. So much for that competition is king mantra.....pooof...gone

But look what happened when Wilson, NC, and Lafayette, LA, (and others) plumbed themselves with community fiber. The local cable operators had no choice but to get more competitive. I do realize muni-fiber operators (like GreenlightNC) are not in business to deliver profits to shareholders, but it goes to show that IF a provider can charge "that much less" and cover all costs, then whatever the cableco charges on top of that is tasty profit. A sensible portion of gravy on supper tastes pretty good. Too much gravy, and it becomes quite distasteful.

said by BHNtechXpert:

You're making assumptions I can't make. I don't know. I'm coming from the perspective of any business owner. (..snip..) Backend costs have come down but to what degree for BHN or ANY provider I can't tell you and I don't think its realistic for us to pass judgement when we don't have all the facts.

I'm more sensitive to the issue, because my dayjob has me dealing with (among other things) transit purchases and the chain of costs-- CapEx, OpEx-- incurred to offer network (cloud) based services. And my hard costs to deliver the "same" services have not, in aggregate, increased in the past 10 years. Therefore we have not increased our prices. We've grown our profits by increasing our service offerings and the size of our customer base.

said by BHNtechXpert:

As for the last sentence there. Speaking hypthetically what would you do in a situation like that. (..snip..) If you were faced with the same situation of being forced to raise video product pricing to the point that it literally priced people out of being able to afford cable (in other words breached the market willingness or capability to pay) what would you do?

1). Raise the video prices and take your chances on losing subscribers at least in the short term until the competition re-trans agreements come due and they are faced with the very same situation (..snip..)

2). Tell the networks to stuff it where the sun doesn't shine and let them go dark facing the wrath of angry consumers who don't care and don't want to know that what you did was in the best interest of all and would jump ship in a heartbeat if you dared let this happen.

3). Spread the increased costs over your other operating units in an effort to soften the blow to consumers in the hopes that some sanity will prevail in retrans pricing sometime in the near future.

That's a good question, and I don't have an answer right now. I do know that softening the blow with option (3) means no steep video price increases, so consumers don't get as angry, there won't be a major outcry, networks will never get the message and retrans costs will only go up. Remember the adage about putting a frog in water and turning up the heat SLOWLY until he unwittingly cooks to death? IMO, consumers need to see exactly WHAT is driving these increases. Don't shield them from the truth by asking (internet-only customers like me) to subsidize the cost of Joe Sixpack's ESPN subscription. This is like adding to the national debt to delay cutting services. If you don't make the tough unpopular decisions NOW, it will only get worse.

So it would be either (1) or (2). My gut tells me that (1) is the best option as long as you make the effort to be transparent with consumers. If Network X raises rates $3.15 per subscriber, make it VERY clear-- in bold print on Page 1 of the monthly billing statement-- that the $3.15 increase is due to a Network X. That brings 2 advantages. First, you focus the wrath of the customers where it belongs-- Network X. Second, other operators will follow suit. When VZ sees BHN is doing it, they'll do it too. Monkey see, monkey do. And this will serve to reinforce the first benefit-- collective rage against Network X. I'll let you fill in the blanks on what happens next.

said by BHNtechXpert:

As always sir I enjoy your lively and spirited debates


Ditto.


BHNtechXpert
BHN Staff
Premium,VIP
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL
kudos:153

4 edits
reply to rebus9
Oh my god you had to bring Jimmy Carter up.. Please warn a guy before you invoke that name (especially when I was just preparing my midnight snack) I lived through all that nightmare and lately I've been getting that same sick feeling all over again. I'm sure you will remember this... "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"....so true it is. **--And no Jimmy Carter didn't say that!!!

see: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," (hence, "Santayana's Aphorism on Repetitive Consequences") from Reason in Common Sense, the first volume of his The Life of Reason. - »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Santayana


I knew I tossed ya a bone when I included that California Comcast story in the mix (it was intentional )

There are several really good cable companies out there (BHN, WoW, Cox and yea TWC) and then there's Comcast "Home of the ComCraptastic Experience"....I can tell you one thing...nobody wants to be compared to Comcast. Comcast defines all that is wrong and evil with cable and trust me when I say this...none of the good guys want to be associated in any way. Cable guys are a real tight group...UNTIL Comcast comes to the party. It's sad that many people have created their opinion of cable purely on Comcasts reputation or their own personal experience with Comcast. It really isn't fair that an entire industry is labeled because of the misdeeds one company and this indeed has happened.

As for the muni cable thing...cmon Rebus. You know as well as I that prices for muni cable are totally bs. First of all we pay in multiple ways with muni cable not just monthly cable bills.

Despite all claims there has yet to be a single profitable muni cable project anywhere. End result is the taxpayer foots the initial costs and then continuously bails them out over and over and over again until they either go bye bye or end up bought by yes....a provider. When they get bought does the taxpayer get a single dime back...NOPE.

I love your answer to my last question and I thought long and hard about it myself. To some degree I do agree with you but there is something you didn't consider ( I don't think you did anyway). And before I say this I want to make one thing perfectly clear...my next statement is not to insult anyone but to merely point out the obvious. I'm sorry in advance if anyone is offended it is not my intent.

Rebus have you worked with the public at any level? If yes what have you discovered about their habits, thought processes and general ability to just "get it". Generally speaking it's frightening.

Many don't have a clue, a large number of them even never read their bills and you could send them each a certified letter detailing all the reasons why their bills went up and they still wouldn't get it and this applies to all businesses....it dosen't matter whether it be cable or something else they just don't understand what makes a business thrive or fail.

People are generally disconnected from the real world around them. Many have no clue as to basic economics, how to run a business and scary but true...many can't even read or write beyond a 6th grade level and significant number have no clue of history whatsoever.

But one thing they do know is you had better not take their True Blood or Monday Night Football off the air and by god if you do there will be hell to pay.

Providers could lay it all out for them in black and white and even hold public meetings explaining in great detail and it wouldn't matter because they just won't get it assuming of course people even attended the meetings. If it doesn't go straight over their heads because they are a product of our failed public school systems the other thing kicks in, that nasty narcissistic gene that was somehow bred into the last three generations of our children and you get the "I don't care what it costs everyone I still want it" response. I want it ...I want it...I want it and to hell with the rest of you attitude. You know what I'm talking about.

Then of course you have the fine folks who do get it and want to help make a change and are willing to sacrifice if need be to make a point but they are the minority these days and unfortunately they aren't the ones getting through on the phone lines because the phones are too clogged with the other two groups during retrans fights.

I think your idea is a great one and I have a hunch cable providers would agree with you but unfortunately in the world we currently live in I don't know how you could successfully implement item 1 without going out of business or taking one hell of a hit....one in this economy that could be back breaking.

We don't have a majority populace of hard working, unselfish, honest, educated and morally driven 1950's ethics people anymore.... you know...the ones who were willing to get involved and if needed sacrifice a little for the greater good.

It just doesn't exist anymore and no matter how many times we click our heels together it isn't coming back and in order to make item 1 work we need those people again in the majority.

Instead we have a significant number of uneducated, instant gratification craving, me first, unmotivated, game the system (whatever that may be) anyway you can selfish people out there. These people loathe organization or cooperative solutions, self sacrifice and the exercising of patience, planning and lack a fundamental understanding of how things really work in the world. Everything is a government or big business conspiracy and they are out to game before being gamed. That's the attitude. How do you reason with that? Impossible...

While the above group MAY not be a majority they are extremely vocal and easily manipulated by ads of all types targeted at their specific paranoia of cable, business or government in general. Somehow the networks have creatively figured out a way to cloak their real size, power and motivations (actually it's not too creative it's just that these people are relatively clueless and believe virtually anything flashed in front of them on TV, the internet and radio). Take the NFL network as prime example of the master manipulator networks.

I don't think a provider could go to it's customer base and honestly say "We need your help...please help us keep costs down and stand your ground...tell the networks not just no but HELL NO we aren't taking it anymore and if that means your station goes dark...then sobeit." and get it to last the duration of time needed to make an impact. I just don't see that happening with the people we have today and the networks know this. I hope I'm wrong...prove to me I'm wrong...somebody please.

For the record (in case you didn't already know) TWC (see: »www.rolloverorgettough.com/) and even BHN to some degree have reached out to their respective communities during retrans negotiation fights in an effort to educate and enlist their help in sending big networks a message. When you saw the ads in your local papers did you make it a point to get involved? Cmon now...be honest.

For those who want to get involved and make a difference here is a good place to start »www.americantelevisionalliance.org/ and let's not forget your local provider the next time one of these fights kicks off. They will be able to provide you with ways you can get your message to the right people and make a difference.

--
"I can’t give you a surefire formula for success, but I can give you a formula for failure: try to please everybody all the time."
~ Herbert Bayard Swope

willzzz

join:2007-05-23
SE MI
reply to rebus9
You guys in Tampa Bay are even LUCKY to have FiOS while the majority of the country doesn't. (And mostly stuck with Verizon, AT&T, CenturyTel/Link, QWest DSL etc...).

You see my copper loop is so shitty I can't get ANY DSL services from AT&T.

Not that I don't need it either, I would only consider U-verse since it's AT&T's only product that delivers the bandwidth I need.

rebus9

join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·Bright House
reply to BHNtechXpert
said by BHNtechXpert:

Oh my god you had to bring Jimmy Carter up.. Please warn a guy before you invoke that name (especially when I was just preparing my midnight snack)

Sorry, next time I'll run a disclaimer first.

said by BHNtechXpert:

I knew I tossed ya a bone when I included that California Comcast story in the mix (it was intentional )

I thought that seemed a little too easy.

said by BHNtechXpert:

Comcast defines all that is wrong and evil with cable

But the good news is, they just merged with NBCU and got even bigger (he said, sarcastically).

said by BHNtechXpert:

As for the muni cable thing...cmon Rebus. You know as well as I that prices for muni cable are totally bs. First of all we pay in multiple ways with muni cable not just monthly cable bills.

I'm holding the door open for some longer term results. I do think they can last long-term, and still be more competitive than cable. But I have another opinion-- internet delivery NEEDS to eventually go the way of competitive utility delivery. The physical medium, and the service provider, should be separate. There are many states in the country where you can choose your power company. The volts/amps ride the same copper lines and each power company pays for access to those lines, but the end-user has the choice of which provider to use. Just like DSL in the 90s. It all rode Verizon (then known as GTE) copper, and VZ/GTE was paid for the usage, but I could choose from a variety of ISPs... and hint, hint.... my provider was not GTE. And it was not because of price; GTE was a little cheaper. My chosen ISP cost a little more, but it was worth the price to get good old fasioned hometown customer service.

So in the vein of community fiber-- I'm in favor of what Wilson and Lafayette have done-- but I'm ALSO in big favor of them opening the fiber to competing ISPs. (The Dutch have done this very successfully, and their citizens are the winners.) So build community-OWNED fiber, and open it to any ISP (for a modest fee) to compete. It shouldn't matter WHAT service is delivered over that fiber-- IPTV, internet, phone-- the service provider is simply renting some capacity to transmit packets. And if the incumbent/duopoly players want to still have their own proprietary fiber/coax running alongside the community owned pipes, so be it. But at least the customer can choose.

Now cablecos and telcos will oppose that to the death. And if you force them to open their networks (like DSL in the 90s) they will argue the (thinly veiled) argument it will kill incentive to innovate. I scream B.S. Innovation is only stifled when there is no competition, and carriers are happy to milk their existing infrastructure until it turns to dust (cough... AT&T... cough).

And it infuriates me when cablecos (like Time Warner) fight persistent court battles to block muni-fiber. They DO NOT have the customer's best interest at heart. They are ONLY trying to block competition from getting a foot in the door, because it spells the end of their (currently very profitable) exclusivity.

said by BHNtechXpert:

Rebus have you worked with the public at any level? If yes what have you discovered about their habits, thought processes and general ability to just "get it".

They don't get it. You have to speak to them in tweets, because anything longer than 140 characters bounces off their little rubber heads. And then, their brains are so preoccupied with American Idol and texting their BFFs, they don't have any brain capacity left to pay attention.

said by BHNtechXpert:

Providers could lay it all out for them in black and white and even hold public meetings explaining in great detail and it wouldn't matter (..snip..) I want it ...I want it...I want it and to hell with the rest of you attitude. You know what I'm talking about.


It DOES take the heat off to blame the true source for price increases. My company has never raised ITS prices-- BUT, most of our customers HAVE seen their monthly bill go up due to price increases by Microsoft. Service providers must do self-audits and pay Microsoft monthly for licenses consumed. It's the only way we can legally offer Microsoft products, and Microsoft changes prices every year. When Microsoft's annual price increase sends our customer's bill up (for example) by $150, it's very clear where the incrase came from-- because we show Microsoft licensing fees as separate line items on their monthly invoice.

And quite honestly, the customers are not angry at US when it happens. The anger is deflected to the actual source of the increase (Microsoft).

said by BHNtechXpert:

I think your idea is a great one and I have a hunch cable providers would agree with you but unfortunately in the world we currently live in I don't know how you could successfully implement item 1 without going out of business or taking one hell of a hit

One word: Un-bundle. Well first, let me ask you a question. Does the cableco pay the retrans fees based on how many TOTAL subscribers they have, or on how many people GET a certain channel? Assuming the latter, then how about this for a solution-- if Network X takes a price increase, let customers drop THAT channel from their lineup.

But you see, cablecos are unwilling to break bundles because that can incrementally decrease revenue. And I'm sure the cablecos will complain about being too difficult to implement. Oh Please!! My company does not bundle-- everything we offer is a la carte, and our billing system has NO problem generating an invoice based on individual services provisioned. Ditto for our provisioning system-- we can add as few/many features as needed. Ditto for our network management systems-- we can monitor and control as few/many services as our customers want us to manage. We have granular control over EVERYTHING. So I do not believe for one instant that a cableco is unable to develop a billing and provisioning system where channels can be added and deleted, as desired. If they can click a button and activate HBO, they can certainly click another button and deactivate Network X. (Or do they still control channel access by rolling a truck and installing a filter? If so, there's yet another reason to migrate to IPTV-- granular control.)

And if the retrans fees are indeed based only on the number of subscribers with access to the channel, then Network X will see a decline in # of subscribers after a rate increase-- which not only cuts its retrans revenue, but ALSO cuts the fees Network X can charge its advertisers due to lower viewership. So Network X will think twice before it rocks the boat next time around, right?

said by BHNtechXpert:

I don't think a provider could go to it's customer base and honestly say "We need your help...please help us keep costs down and stand your ground...

Don't ask for help. Provide an opt-out mechanism. Customer objects to the price increase. Let them drop the channel. My point is, you HAVE to focus the blame squarely on the source. Hiding these bs rate increases by "spreading them out gently" across multiple services does what? It just raises the total bill a few bucks here, a few bucks there, and everyone blames the cableco. Make it clear that Network X or Channel Z is *THE* cause of their $8 rate increase. You'll always have the clueless morons, but there will be ENOUGH people who DO understand and you might be surprised how willing they are to vote with their wallets on the specific offending channels (as long as they have the ABILITY to opt-out).

And THAT my friend, clearly enables the CONSUMER to drive change all the way back to the source of the problem.

said by BHNtechXpert:

even BHN to some degree have reached out to their respective communities during retrans negotiation fights in an effort to educate and enlist their help in sending big networks a message. When you saw the ads in your local papers did you make it a point to get involved? Cmon now...be honest.

Hah!! I'm not a cable TV subscriber. I've never subscribed to cable TV in my life, anywhere, ever. It's not that I dont' want to watch any programming-- I've simply refused to became a mindless cable sheep. I have a very large antenna nicely hidden inside my attic and get 30-some channels over the air, and I have Netflix streaming. Before Netflix, we watched a lot of DVDs and VHS tapes. Point being, I've voted with my wallet for my entire adult life-- and it's certainly NOT because I can't afford a lousy hundred bucks a month for cable. I've simply refused to play the game, and couldn't be happier. Just think how many tens of thousands I've saved over the past 30 years by NOT spending $100/month for TV.


solarX

@rr.com
Right now I would bet that BHN customers are more angry at BHN for the increase than they are at the networks. Now this is not to say all of the increase was due to network charges, surely some of the increase is BHN's included increases. There are many good things that BHN does, but one they don't do well is communicating to their customers. How many times have I noticed changes in programing or changes in the Digital guide that BHN never sent out any thing covering the changes. And, before you ask, I not only read my monthly bills, I also read all the included notices, advertising included that is packaged with the Bill. Let the customer make the decsion if they want to pay higher prices when a Network raises their pricing...they can accept the increase or drop the channel(s). When customers drop network channels and viewership decreases, the networks lose....they get less revinue, advertisers will be less likely to pay for commercials.....and the real loser here will be the networks. Company never listen to customers when they are "Flying High"..... they seem to always feel they can do whatever they want and the customers will just sit back and take it. I just feel that the customers have been short changed here.

Bundling channels and requiring customers to pay for channels they never watch is not fair. Worse yet is increasing Internet or Phone charges to cover increasing Cable costs. Each service, Cable, Phone and Internet should be charges based on is costs to operate. Its like making me buy Candy in order to buy a loaf of bread. One I don't need, the other I do. Ask most people with Cable of 100 plus channels they get from BHN (and this goes to ALL Cable providers)....how many channels they really ever watch. I can tell you without giving it much thought I would say there are at least 50 channels I get in my Bundle I never watch. Give customer the opportunity to select which channels they want.....and a reduced monthly Bill...and just see how fast they jump at that opportunity. A successful company listens to its customers base.....BHN should send out a survey on this subject...and let the customers be heard. When I think of all those channels that BHN has forced placed in my Bundle that I never ever watch...it upsets me that whether I watch them or not...I am paying for them. Well, I for one don't want to be forced to buy the Candy to get the bread.


BHNtechXpert
BHN Staff
Premium,VIP
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL
kudos:153
said by solarX :

Right now I would bet that BHN customers are more angry at BHN for the increase than they are at the networks. Now this is not to say all of the increase was due to network charges, surely some of the increase is BHN's included increases. There are many good things that BHN does, but one they don't do well is communicating to their customers. How many times have I noticed changes in programing or changes in the Digital guide that BHN never sent out any thing covering the changes. And, before you ask, I not only read my monthly bills, I also read all the included notices, advertising included that is packaged with the Bill. Let the customer make the decsion if they want to pay higher prices when a Network raises their pricing...they can accept the increase or drop the channel(s). When customers drop network channels and viewership decreases, the networks lose....they get less revinue, advertisers will be less likely to pay for commercials.....and the real loser here will be the networks. Company never listen to customers when they are "Flying High"..... they seem to always feel they can do whatever they want and the customers will just sit back and take it. I just feel that the customers have been short changed here.

Bundling channels and requiring customers to pay for channels they never watch is not fair. Worse yet is increasing Internet or Phone charges to cover increasing Cable costs. Each service, Cable, Phone and Internet should be charges based on is costs to operate. Its like making me buy Candy in order to buy a loaf of bread. One I don't need, the other I do. Ask most people with Cable of 100 plus channels they get from BHN (and this goes to ALL Cable providers)....how many channels they really ever watch. I can tell you without giving it much thought I would say there are at least 50 channels I get in my Bundle I never watch. Give customer the opportunity to select which channels they want.....and a reduced monthly Bill...and just see how fast they jump at that opportunity. A successful company listens to its customers base.....BHN should send out a survey on this subject...and let the customers be heard. When I think of all those channels that BHN has forced placed in my Bundle that I never ever watch...it upsets me that whether I watch them or not...I am paying for them. Well, I for one don't want to be forced to buy the Candy to get the bread.

Changes in the digital guide are beyond the control of any provider as almost all of them depend on what essentially amounts to a clearing house for this information. While every effort is made by that clearing house to keep the guide current it's almost an impossible task because networks will make changes to programming with little or no notice. In a perfect world your request would be a no brainer but we aren't living in a perfect world and until such time as networks can stick to their submitted programming schedules...it isn't always going to be 100% accurate.

As for other changes such as channel lineup changes and so on by law providers must make this information available to the public for a specific number of days prior to the change. BHN and all providers make this information available through a number of sources including newspaper, television ads, billing statements, mailers, email and yes even their own websites prior to making such changes. There is no excuse for you not getting this information because it's out there and out there in big bold print. Sorry...I'm not too sympathetic on this one because I can't count the number of times I've seen the notifications myself.

As for the other points raised I'm going to be responding to Rebus with similar information so look there for my response as it's relevant to you as well. It won't be posted immediately because if you hadn't already noticed...we like to write book posts.
--
"I can’t give you a surefire formula for success, but I can give you a formula for failure: try to please everybody all the time."
~ Herbert Bayard Swope

rebus9

join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·Bright House
said by BHNtechXpert:

As for the other points raised I'm going to be responding to Rebus with similar information so look there for my response as it's relevant to you as well. It won't be posted immediately because if you hadn't already noticed...we like to write book posts.

Credit my mother for encouraging me to take typing classes in high school. She said I'd be glad to have the skill when I went to college and had a lot of reports to write. (she was right) This was in the days before PCs, and now that my life revolves around a keyboard, I'm double-glad she suggested it.

It was a bonus that I was the only guy in a room full of ridiculously cute girls. The uggos must have taken German or Home Ec or wood shop as electives, because they sure didn't take typing!!


BHNtechXpert
BHN Staff
Premium,VIP
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL
kudos:153
said by rebus9:

said by BHNtechXpert:

As for the other points raised I'm going to be responding to Rebus with similar information so look there for my response as it's relevant to you as well. It won't be posted immediately because if you hadn't already noticed...we like to write book posts.

Credit my mother for encouraging me to take typing classes in high school. She said I'd be glad to have the skill when I went to college and had a lot of reports to write. (she was right) This was in the days before PCs, and now that my life revolves around a keyboard, I'm double-glad she suggested it.

It was a bonus that I was the only guy in a room full of ridiculously cute girls. The uggos must have taken German or Home Ec or wood shop as electives, because they sure didn't take typing!!

LOL and I got stuck with the French/Typing teacher combination who smelled like rotten V8....yea that about figures....

I'll respond back to you later tonight. I have to ponder all that stuff before I type.
--
"I can’t give you a surefire formula for success, but I can give you a formula for failure: try to please everybody all the time."
~ Herbert Bayard Swope


solarx

@rr.com
Actually, I wasn't as clear as I should have been regarding Notifying customers of changes with the Guide. I realize the schedules are driven by others than Cable providers. I was referring to software changes. As an example, holding down the FF\FR button moves you 15 mins thru the show being watched. To me this is a nice feature but I learned about when I was speaking to a BHN Customer Service rep. There have have been other software changes never reported publicly.

I am sure you will have solid reasons as to why customers cannot pick channels....instead of paying for many they never view. Companies need to stop saying they can't when in fact they can. The technology is there that Cable providers can program their systems to where customers can pick their channels and pay for only those they need. Its like when you buy a new car, you want the Power seat but in order to get that you are required to purchase a package of options you didn't want. It is easier for cable providers to leave it as it is then to make the required changes. If Customers drop channels.....the companies providing those channels will be impacted......less viewership.....advertisers will either stop paying for commercial time, or demand lower advertising rates. Any way you look at it would be a WIN...WIN for the Customer.....but here's the issue; the customer is the easier part to deal with.....companies simply pass the increased costs down to them. Here's the Customers problem, we can't pass the increases to anyone.....

tim tim tim

join:2010-08-14
Lutz, FL
kudos:2
I think alot of people agree with you. The problem is the networks dont. Part of there agreements are to be in such and such package. I doubt brighthouse has a problem with letting you pick the channels you want. I can assure you that espn, abc, nbc, fox, mtv, etc. all do have an issue and THAT is where the issue is, not with brighthouse.

rebus9

join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·Bright House
said by tim tim tim:

I think alot of people agree with you. The problem is the networks dont. Part of there agreements are to be in such and such package. I doubt brighthouse has a problem with letting you pick the channels you want. I can assure you that espn, abc, nbc, fox, mtv, etc. all do have an issue and THAT is where the issue is, not with brighthouse.

If that's true, then that's where BHN, VZ, Comcrap, Charter, Mediacom, TWC, et al, need to collectively push back and Just Say No. Who do you think has more leverage? The networks? Or the cablecos that service a hundred million households?

But I stand by my assertion that cablecos like using the "networks make us do it that way" excuse to inflate their packages for more revenue.

Does anyone really believe they HAVE to include all 100 of those channels? I don't. But they have to throw in come junk to pump up the size of the package, to justify the monthly pricetag. Nobody would be willing to pay $60 for 25 channels, so they fluff it up to 100 channels to make it "seem" like a better value.

Basically your cable burger contains some beef, with a lot of filler mixed in to inexpensively bulk it up.

itnoles

join:2008-04-20
Melbourne, FL
reply to tim tim tim
Some day, I wish I have la-carte model.