dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
10
BHNtechXpert
The One & Only
Premium Member
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL

4 edits

BHNtechXpert to rebus9

Premium Member

to rebus9

Re: Brighthouse Tampa Bay Rate Increase (March 2011)

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/Ge ··· antayana


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.americantelevisional ··· nce.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.

rebus9
join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay

rebus9

Member

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

solarX

Anon

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
The One & Only
Premium Member
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL

BHNtechXpert

Premium Member

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.

rebus9
join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay

rebus9

Member

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
The One & Only
Premium Member
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL

BHNtechXpert

Premium Member

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.

solarx
@rr.com

solarx

Anon

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

tim tim tim

Member

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

rebus9

Member

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

itnoles to tim tim tim

Member

to tim tim tim
Some day, I wish I have la-carte model.
BHNtechXpert
The One & Only
Premium Member
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL

BHNtechXpert to rebus9

Premium Member

to rebus9
said by rebus9:

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.

Actually with many of the networks it is carry all or nothing. Not exactly a square deal if you ask me but tis the world we live in.
BHNtechXpert

4 edits

BHNtechXpert to rebus9

Premium Member

to rebus9

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).


Tell ya what, I'll meet you half way and lets see if the existing muni projects are around or self sufficient in five years. (yea ya got to wait that long...sorry).

Now as for the other part of your answer here. I like what you're on to and I don't see too many cable co objections especially the small ones. Let me explain. If the cable co's are given free (leased) access to compete on the same muni fiber this isn't all bad. For cable co's it means less infrastructure they need to maintain (yep cause the city is responsible for that part) and technically there is more than enough bandwidth for the cable co's to manage their own content distribution and contracts aling side the city offerings that's technically one less headache cable co's need to worry about. They can focus on content and customer service and let everything up to home be the responsibility of the city.

But of course you and I know this won't work well because cities are notorious for mis-handling things like this. So STRIKE 1!


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).


While this works for business we're talking the general public. Two different beasts and I don't have a ton of faith that they will get it.


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?


Okay lets go down the list here on this one.

Unbundling this late in the game is going to be very difficult for the following reasons.

1) Existing contracts are staggered sometimes by years. In order to unbundle literally overnight (which would be required) these contracts would need to be severed. While I'm sure there are severability clauses for things like government regulatory change I doubt there is anything shy of just mutual agreement that will allow that to happen (and networks will hold out as long as they can). This is a huge problem!

2) Negotiating new unbundled contracts voluntarily will be next to impossible with networks unless all cable co's adopt the same model. This is all or nothing. If only one cable co does it you can count on there being a significant majority of networks that say f you and walk out the door. There is nothing forcing them to play nice and hell it's only one cable co so screw em. Thats going to be the response at least for a while. Let's not forget the time involved in negotiating those contracts.

3) Developing an intuitive platform by which consumers can select the channels or channel groups and other services easily is going to take a very long time...as in years. Tell you why. As it stands now the average call handle time is between 6 to 8 minutes. If you unbundle that means that the customer is going to need to be on the phone with a rep deciding on which channels, bundles and services they want for an unreal amount of time. Rarely can people make up their minds OMG this would be a nightmare. Sooo handling things that way is an unacceptable solution.

The only solution to this problem is to develop a box based platform by which a person may select either bundles or al a carte services via the box when they are installed or want to make a change. Easier said than done. I've just spent the last two days pondering this and based on everything I know MAYBE only the latest generation of boxes would be able to handle the memory and speed requirements just to run the selection interface and it's a big maybe. This would mean great expense to the provider just in box replacement costs and that's assuming you could get that many boxes. Several times throughout the year boxes are difficult to obtain already....so ramping up manufacturing on a nationwide level would take a significant undertaking.

A bigger issue would be how to manage the changeover. Since you can't change peoples boxes out overnight the rollout process would take months maybe years which means you need to run dual billing platforms front and back-end ...now that will be one hell of a trick...and damned expensive.

Of course there will also be increased time for techs in the field showing people how to run the platform so they can get TV because the boxes will come with no channels selected.

Now there will have to be a similar modification to the reps billing systems to allow them to assist customers with making channel, package and service selections so they will without a doubt need to hire additional people to man the phones.

4) There is one thing you have forgotten about the channel concept. Americans have been bred to think that more is always better and early on in cable this was the primary selling point between two cable co's. We have more channels than the next guy. Customers are conditioned to buy with their stomachs so to speak. While there are a few wanting al a carte...you aren't the majority and there are going to be significant numbers of people unhappy with this type of buying and many just won't get the concept. We're talking about re-educating millions of people to learn how to appreciate quality content vss quantity content and if the cable co down the street isn't offering al la carte....well that's bad.

So with that said I think we have Strike 2

Now before I go any further with this I want to say the more I think about it the more I like an a la carte model for providers from a financial aspect. If done right this could actually mean more money in their pockets for following reasons.

1) On an al a carte basis everything gets expensed. This means each channel or channel groups, install fees, change of service fees, repair fees, box fees. No longer is it all inclusive...you must now pay for everything. Repair costs will be charged for anything inside the home no matter how trivial the visit (I like this one a lot). Everything up to the home is the cable co's issue but inside that door and the customer pays. The customer has two ways to avoid such costs. Either man up and go get the remote control at their local office and fix their own inside wiring or pay the per visit or hourly rate or subscribe to an inside service plan. This will motivate the customer to be more cost aware before they insist on a tech coming out for trivial things. In the end this wall save cable co's millions.

2) The on box select your own channels platform gives the customer the ability to change channels or channel groupings on a whim giving the customer ultimately more exposure to channels they might not have otherwise considered. Since everything is automated they can add or subtract channels by the day, week, month or year (with appropriate discounts for longevity). They can also opt out of a la carte and go with all inclusive packages offered by XYZ provider instantly through the box which ultimately will save customers money and reward the provider with locked in subscription for the term of the package (because they pay up front).

For the provider that masters this interface and model the rewards could be many but I just don't think consumers are there yet and there are way way too many unknowns for the provider as it applies to the other issues I've raised.

As for your concerns about the billing systems and head end changes. I'm not worried about that because it won't be that difficult. I think you've heard that a lot because honestly it's really difficult to explain the real issues why it's next to an impossible task. I've just touched on a few of the lite ones...and they aren't exactly whimpy problems if ya know what I mean.


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).


With the current retrans contracts this is not an option. It would take years to renegotiate these things so that this was a seamless process for the customer (remember we have to always use the KISS approach "Keep It Simple Stupid") otherwise you will have nightmare with this issue.

I think that makes Strike 3

Unless of course everyone can come up with a solution that is universal meaning all television providers adopt it, they can manage the intial expenses involved, develop an entirely new box/customer interface platform, renegotiate existing retrans contracts and last but most important customer buy in (this is huge). It means totally changing a customers expectations from a more is better model to quality is better model perspective. That's like taking the Big Mac off the McDonalds menu and replacing it with a McHarvest Burger...good luck with that one.

rebus9
join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay

rebus9

Member

If not muni-owned fiber, then how about a good old fasioned co-op? Some oversight body (we'll leave the definition of who that is for another day) does the fiber buildout, and handles the ongoing maintenance, repairs, and upgrades. Initial buildout is financed by a bond issue. Members pay a fixed fee per premises they serve, which covers the bond payments plus costs of maintaining the fiber plant.

Member ISPs colocate their servers at the fiber POP(s), and cross-connect into the exchange.

At the customer premises, the fiber is terminated as a Gig-E handoff. The ISP puts its own gear inside the premises, connecting it to the Gig-E port. That gear could be anything-- internet router, VoIP, IPTV, whatever service(s) the customer has purchased.

So what have we accomplished? We've simplified outside plant costs for the ISPs. We've made it easy for new ISPs to come into the region and have EQUAL ACCESS to all households and businesses. No nasty battles to force the incumbent to open its network. All players pay for access on equal footing-- the playing field has been leveled. That means COMPETITION (something the mono/duopoly players HATE) because providers will have to win the customer's business-- not force it because the customer has no alternatives. It also adds transparency to the actual last-mile delivery costs. As I said, the Dutch use this model and it's been a big win for consumers.

Now, as for a la carte packages..... If the cableco wants to sell bundles, that's fine. But for those who want a la carte, make it MANDATORY to use the website for channel selections. (Vonage forces me to use their website to enable/disable features on my phone service-- the phone reps WILL NOT do it for me.) The key is to make the interface INTUITIVE and simple.

Ok, next question is HOW to deliver these channel selections. Answer: IPTV. If Netflix and Amazon can deliver programming over IP, in beautiful vivid detail, using a Plug-and-Play box so simple even old people can use, so can $CABLECO.

Seriously, why haven't cablecos gone this delivery route? Why continue investing so heavily in proprietary gear, when it's "all about the packets" these days?
BHNtechXpert
The One & Only
Premium Member
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL

BHNtechXpert

Premium Member

said by rebus9:

Now, as for a la carte packages..... If the cableco wants to sell bundles, that's fine. But for those who want a la carte, make it MANDATORY to use the website for channel selections. (Vonage forces me to use their website to enable/disable features on my phone service-- the phone reps WILL NOT do it for me.) The key is to make the interface INTUITIVE and simple.

Ok, next question is HOW to deliver these channel selections. Answer: IPTV. If Netflix and Amazon can deliver programming over IP, in beautiful vivid detail, using a Plug-and-Play box so simple even old people can use, so can $CABLECO.

Seriously, why haven't cablecos gone this delivery route? Why continue investing so heavily in proprietary gear, when it's "all about the packets" these days?

I can tell you why they won't force people to a website for a la carte...because there are still people who don't use the internet. Give it two more generations and that will change but there are still plenty of people out there without computers or access to the internet.

rebus9
join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay

2 edits

rebus9

Member

said by BHNtechXpert:

I can tell you why they won't force people to a website for a la carte...because there are still people who don't use the internet. Give it two more generations and that will change but there are still plenty of people out there without computers or access to the internet.

Bingo!!! They are your package/bundle customers. People like us (with internet access + clue) will have the option to buy a la carte.

One more thing that co-op owned fiber with a standard Gig-E interface would do.... make switching providers as simple as unplugging ABC's box and plugging in XYZ's box; no different than swapping out your old Roku box in favor of the PS3 to stream Netflix. This, the mono/duopoly players will HATE, because it'll erode their ability to lock in customers. (But it will make capturing a new account as easy as shipping your new customer a box to plug in, just like self-install DSL.)

Solarx
@rr.com

Solarx

Anon

As long as cables providers can continue to pass along Price increases as easy as Pushing a Button and the next Bill customers receive reflect the Increases (I'd rather be the one pushing the Buttons on a Al-La-Cart Channel selection).....nothing will ever change. In 1996 Basic\Standard tier Cable was $26.99 (included all Taxes), today its $52.00 plus Taxes. I just happened to have an old TV Channel Line up....and when I compared channels to what is offered today, there is not a new Channel I would select....

Change has always been slow to take place because it is easier to say we can't then it is to say we can.....it putting up Barriers; the companies that move ahead find ways to jump over those barriers.....

rebus9
join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay

rebus9

Member

said by Solarx :

Change has always been slow to take place because it is easier to say we can't then it is to say we can.....it putting up Barriers; the companies that move ahead find ways to jump over those barriers.....

Because the old/closed/proprietary/captive way is almost always more profitable than open systems.

The best non-cable example of closed/proprietary/captive that comes to mind is Apple (followed by Microsoft). And look how immensely profitable they are.

The key is locking in customers and keeping them on a very short leash. Telcos/Cablecos don't WANT to innovate and compete. They want to maintain the status quo and milk every last drop of revenue from their existing cash cows. (most glaring example: AT&T)

They only move off top-dead-center when there's sufficient force applied, either in the form of outside competition, or when consumers are carrying torches banging on the castle doors (and only then, when there is sufficient profit incenitve).
BHNtechXpert
The One & Only
Premium Member
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL

BHNtechXpert

Premium Member

said by rebus9:

said by Solarx :

Change has always been slow to take place because it is easier to say we can't then it is to say we can.....it putting up Barriers; the companies that move ahead find ways to jump over those barriers.....

Because the old/closed/proprietary/captive way is almost always more profitable than open systems.

The best non-cable example of closed/proprietary/captive that comes to mind is Apple (followed by Microsoft). And look how immensely profitable they are.

The key is locking in customers and keeping them on a very short leash. Telcos/Cablecos don't WANT to innovate and compete. They want to maintain the status quo and milk every last drop of revenue from their existing cash cows. (most glaring example: AT&T)

They only move off top-dead-center when there's sufficient force applied, either in the form of outside competition, or when consumers are carrying torches banging on the castle doors (and only then, when there is sufficient profit incenitve).

Sorry I take issue with lumping cable with telcos. They aren't the same beast at all contrary to what many might think. Different cultures for one. Cable has always been the trail blazer in the bunch. It is after all cable that created everything you enjoy today. Telcos only became involved when they thought there was money in it. To even suggest that cable lacks innovation is misguided. Now it might not be at the pace you want or expect BUT you can't deny the obvious.

rebus9
join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay

rebus9

Member

said by BHNtechXpert:

Sorry I take issue with lumping cable with telcos. They aren't the same beast at all contrary to what many might think. Different cultures for one. Cable has always been the trail blazer in the bunch. It is after all cable that created everything you enjoy today. Telcos only became involved when they thought there was money in it. To even suggest that cable lacks innovation is misguided. Now it might not be at the pace you want or expect BUT you can't deny the obvious.

Ummm.... okay, I'll give you some credit on that point, and I think the not "at the pace you want or expect" is also correct.

But, if the fiber was co-op or muni-owned, and outsiders full of innovative ideas had exactly the same access to the premises as the incumbents, just imagine how much faster the old guard would bring those innovations to market. (innovate or die)

Witness the VoIP providers-- primarily Vonage-- circa 2004. They had a REAL product that not only did everything the incumbent copper did, but they did it cheaper and with a gazillion more features included for free which the "copper crowd" nickeled/dimed/dollared us to death for. And you could switch and keep the same phone number you've had for 20 years. (which is exactly what I did)

THAT is what happens when eager competitors with great new ideas are given equal access to households. Innovation thrives when it's not suffocated by years of litigation whose only intent is to squeeze out competitors.
BHNtechXpert
The One & Only
Premium Member
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL

BHNtechXpert

Premium Member

said by rebus9:

said by BHNtechXpert:

Sorry I take issue with lumping cable with telcos. They aren't the same beast at all contrary to what many might think. Different cultures for one. Cable has always been the trail blazer in the bunch. It is after all cable that created everything you enjoy today. Telcos only became involved when they thought there was money in it. To even suggest that cable lacks innovation is misguided. Now it might not be at the pace you want or expect BUT you can't deny the obvious.

Ummm.... okay, I'll give you some credit on that point, and I think the not "at the pace you want or expect" is also correct.

But, if the fiber was co-op or muni-owned, and outsiders full of innovative ideas had exactly the same access to the premises as the incumbents, just imagine how much faster the old guard would bring those innovations to market. (innovate or die)

Witness the VoIP providers-- primarily Vonage-- circa 2004. They had a REAL product that not only did everything the incumbent copper did, but they did it cheaper and with a gazillion more features included for free which the "copper crowd" nickeled/dimed/dollared us to death for. And you could switch and keep the same phone number you've had for 20 years. (which is exactly what I did)

THAT is what happens when eager competitors with great new ideas are given equal access to households. Innovation thrives when it's not suffocated by years of litigation whose only intent is to squeeze out competitors.

You can't use Vonage Holdings Rebus. They haven't posted a profit since day one. I suspect the only reason they exist today is that they are huge money black hole. Great for investors needing a good tax writeoff. Now I'm not sure about this but I've always been puzzled how Vonage still exists today. By all stretches they should have been gone long long ago. I'm sure it's covered in one those economics lessons I missed opting to go to the beach instead.

rebus9
join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay

rebus9

Member

said by BHNtechXpert:

You can't use Vonage Holdings Rebus. They haven't posted a profit since day one. I suspect the only reason they exist today is that they are huge money black hole. Great for investors needing a good tax writeoff. Now I'm not sure about this but I've always been puzzled how Vonage still exists today. By all stretches they should have been gone long long ago. I'm sure it's covered in one those economics lessons I missed opting to go to the beach instead.

Actually, they turned profitable in 4Q'09.

They spent HUGE sums on advertising, which smoked through a few rounds of VC and destroyed their bottom line. I'm still undecided whether that was unbridled stupidity halted in the nick of time, or if it was a well-played calculated risk, because they gained a huge number of subs-- and that never would have happened without the sustained advertizing blitz they waged on all media fronts.

One thing I do know is, I've been extremely satisfied with their service since I ported over from Verizon six years ago.
BHNtechXpert
The One & Only
Premium Member
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL

BHNtechXpert

Premium Member

said by rebus9:

said by BHNtechXpert:

You can't use Vonage Holdings Rebus. They haven't posted a profit since day one. I suspect the only reason they exist today is that they are huge money black hole. Great for investors needing a good tax writeoff. Now I'm not sure about this but I've always been puzzled how Vonage still exists today. By all stretches they should have been gone long long ago. I'm sure it's covered in one those economics lessons I missed opting to go to the beach instead.

Actually, they turned profitable in 4Q'09.

They spent HUGE sums on advertising, which smoked through a few rounds of VC and destroyed their bottom line. I'm still undecided whether that was unbridled stupidity halted in the nick of time, or if it was a well-played calculated risk, because they gained a huge number of subs-- and that never would have happened without the sustained advertizing blitz they waged on all media fronts.

One thing I do know is, I've been extremely satisfied with their service since I ported over from Verizon six years ago.

Now see...I told ya I hadn't followed up with them recently...so they finally showed a profit..only took them what ....7 years

rebus9
join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay

rebus9

Member

Yeah it took several years, but now they're a profitable dialtone provider with a few million subscribers. That's why I think their huge, sustained, hideously expensive, radio/tv/web/directmail advertising assault that put them in such a dire cash crunch, might not have been so dumb after all. They went all-in, stood their ground when critics panned them, and it looks like the gamble actually paid off.

eded
@rr.com

eded to BHNtechXpert

Anon

to BHNtechXpert
The "increase", however small or large that BHN passes on to ALL their customers is unfounded. The same package for an increased fee? It makes NO SENSE!
BHNtechXpert
The One & Only
Premium Member
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL

BHNtechXpert

Premium Member

said by eded :

The "increase", however small or large that BHN passes on to ALL their customers is unfounded. The same package for an increased fee? It makes NO SENSE!

What part of all of the above did you miss or fail to read? Just curious...or maybe didn't understand it. I'll be happy to answer or explain anything that left you scratchin your head...just ask
BHNtechXpert

BHNtechXpert to rebus9

Premium Member

to rebus9
said by rebus9:

Yeah it took several years, but now they're a profitable dialtone provider with a few million subscribers. That's why I think their huge, sustained, hideously expensive, radio/tv/web/directmail advertising assault that put them in such a dire cash crunch, might not have been so dumb after all. They went all-in, stood their ground when critics panned them, and it looks like the gamble actually paid off.

Check your PM Rebus. It would appear that Shaw has decided to be the grand experiment in a la carte effective today. They used the website activation model we discussed btw. What happens at Shaw could pave the way for a la carte everywhere or nowhere so it's worth watching to see how this all pans out.
botld92z9
join:2006-07-14
Winter Springs, FL

botld92z9 to eded

Member

to eded
said by eded :

The "increase", however small or large that BHN passes on to ALL their customers is unfounded. The same package for an increased fee? It makes NO SENSE!

I bet you're the same guy who whines when Fox plays commercials about how you'll miss your precious Magic games and when Nickelodeon tells you about how your child's precious Dora is going to go off the air unless the big bad cable monster agrees to their terms....

/facepalm.
BHNtechXpert
The One & Only
Premium Member
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL

BHNtechXpert

Premium Member

said by botld92z9:

said by eded :

The "increase", however small or large that BHN passes on to ALL their customers is unfounded. The same package for an increased fee? It makes NO SENSE!

I bet you're the same guy who whines when Fox plays commercials about how you'll miss your precious Magic games and when Nickelodeon tells you about how your child's precious Dora is going to go off the air unless the big bad cable monster agrees to their terms....

/facepalm.

What Nick did during that retrans fight was unacceptable. They took the first page out of the NFL Networks playbook and it disgusted me. If I had children they would not be watching anything on that network now...that you can be sure of. I vote with my wallet on a regular basis and they lost me on day one of that nonsense when they posted the full page ads in our local paper here.

rebus9
join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay

rebus9 to BHNtechXpert

Member

to BHNtechXpert
said by BHNtechXpert:

Check your PM Rebus. It would appear that Shaw has decided to be the grand experiment in a la carte effective today. They used the website activation model we discussed btw. What happens at Shaw could pave the way for a la carte everywhere or nowhere so it's worth watching to see how this all pans out.

I'm questioning why the cablecos haven't embraced the Netflix method of delivery. I look at my Roku box setup and see dozens of channels available for subscription (free or paid). All I have to do is add it to my lineup. If it's a paid-for channel, I click in my credentials.

Boom.... done.

So okay, you get a Roku type device with $CABLECO firmware installed. Sell them anywhere.... Best Buy, Walmart, Amazon.com, Walgreens, CVS. Customer takes it home, visits $CABLECO's website, signs up for a subscription, joins the box to his household LAN, and voila, instant customer.

And you know what? Territory and franchises no longer define your reach. Delivered via IP, I could sell to Joe Latte in Seattle, and Joe Redneck in Pensacola, and Joe Blow in the windy city.

And lest someone ask about commercials.... you have the local affiliate stations, and there's this little gimmick called geolocation based on IP. Geolocation isn't perfect, but it's gotten reasonably reliable-- close enough to be useful.

Of course you'll still operate in your local markets with more traditional delivery methods (for now) but I'd love to know why the major cable players aren't actively pursuing expanding their subscription base, Netflix style.