Comcast XFINITY TV → Re: [Price] Rate Hike and new Additional Outlet Fee

Nobody said I was holding Comcast responsible, oh wise one (except you).

that fee is paying for your local access channels, plus to wire government buildings, schools and libraries with cable.
My city is against a franchise fee as is the county.

Each franchising authority does whatever it wants with the money- it is not necessarily going to anything cable related. My township has a typical situation- we negotiated with Comcast to build the infrastructure to the schools and libraries, and provide some level of free service to them. The franchise fee goes directly to the township's general fund- just like any other tax. Again, this is a very typical arrangement- we are not alone in this- by any means.

No, the topic was about a rate increase. A franchise fee is in no way a rate increase. You ARE the one that came in and said a rate increase is a rate increase when it is no such thing when that company being comcast ISNT the one increasing it. Its like complaining that postage went up one cent to mail your cable bill in. Its something comcast has no control over.

My bill is higher now. It has INCREASED. Simple concept.

No just your franchise fee increased. Comcast gets no more , no less. had you said bill earlier i would agree. But you said your rate increased. Your monthly rate would be comcasts portion. Not taxes and fees.

Bill, rate, whatever. Bottom line, I'm paying more.

switch to satellite or fios or cut the cord. Those are the only ways to avoid rate increases.

Fixed it for you; I assume you must be (temporarily) on crack, to even suggest sat or FiOS do NOT have rate increases...

WOW has same price for 2 years

As this article shows, the cost of "cutting the cord" may not always be as (initially) cheap as it might seem:

The Cost of Cutting Cable
By Steven Rosenbaum, Forbes - November 12, 2012
»www.forbes.com/sites/ste ··· g-cable/

From the article:

Today, more than a year later – we’ve recovered. We’ve re-invented how we discover, consume, and share media. But, a word of warning. It wasn’t easy – and it wasn’t cheap. Yes, we pocketed the bulk of our Time Warner bill (we dropped from $130 to just $33 for broadband). But did the $97 a month go to VOD or other subscriptions? Sort of. And what about hardware? Ugh, ok hold on for some sticker shock there.

LOL, he bought a $1000 Panny 42" plasma. That should tell you everything you need to know right there, which is that he way overspent to 'cut the cord'.

And he didn't address a major issue for many, which is how to replace live sports and news. Sports in particular can get expensive a la carte if you have to subscribe to multiple feeds, and even then some of it is not available on the net (like NASCAR).

It's available on SIRIUS if you JUST want to Listen to it. Plus I think you can subscribe to nascar package but that is expensive.

quote:

---

And he didn't address a major issue for many, which is how to replace live sports and news.

---

Sounds like sports wasn't a big deal in his house, which is the kind of house where cord-cutting might start to make some sense, as one is no longer burdened subsidizing "pro" sports.

But it ALSO sounds like he had no millenials in the house, which means that few of his gadgetry gotchas and hardware heartaches could have been addressed ahead of time. Had he rented an available nephew or niece for an afternoon, things could have gone a little bit better.

But overall, "cord cutting" has always meant getting rid of a reliable (if mediocre) appliance in favor of a high-maintenance regimen of subscriptions and configurations and connections and payments, etc. It's always been a no-brainer for tech-savvy millenial multitaskers but not necessarily worth the hassle for someone like this article's author.

So, yet another "Stupid old guy cuts cord" story. Great. Doesn't address the long-term problem cable still has of making anyone under 30 think TV is worth paying for.

Who was that written by? A cable industry lobbyist?

That was one of the dumbest articles I've ever read. He counts the cost of a new TV against the money saved from dropping cable? (Guess he didn't know they sell HDMI to component converters for $35.) Then he buys Apple TV, Google TV as well as TiVO and counts THAT against the cost of dropping cable? The real world consumer would buy ONE service.

At the end of the day, cable rates are exploding out of control and there is more backlash than ever to the overall ripoff of this industry. If that pushes people in the direction of being creative, I'm all for it, but articles like that are designed to "prove" dropping cable costs more money will not help the consumer decide. I honestly wonder if this writer was in the tank for the industry.

If a reliable a-la-carte option, delivered over IP, arose, I would most certainly take advantage of it, and I think this is the eventual solution. It's absurd to pay hundreds of dollars to watch maybe 20 channels. How much do I pay for 50 sports channels I never watch? Women's channels? Movie channels? Aside from the networks, I watch NatGeo, Discovery, TBS, USA, Universal HD, and a few other channels on a random basis. If some company ever comes up with a "choose 10 channels" package or "choose 20 channels package" for some flat rate, I think they'd have a hit.

I know plenty of people in the 20s set who just don't bother with paying for cable, and download the shows they like minutes after they air, either through something like Hulu Plus or simply a torrent file. Paying outrageous sums of money for hundreds of television stations is something people will laugh hysterically at eventually, like renting your phone from the phone company.

"Hey, remember back in the day when we had to pay for all those channels whether we watched them or not?"

Another "cut the cord" article (but without all those upfront costs):

My Life as a Television Throwback
By Taffy Brodesser-Akner, The NY Times - November 23, 2012
»www.nytimes.com/2012/11/ ··· edy.html

But as I just posted in another thread (»Re: Say goodbye to ClearQAM ), a new caveat on "going OTA":

Rovi Phasing Out Over-the-Air Guide Listings
Vendor Cites End of Data Broadcast Agreements; Service to Fully Cease by April 2013
By Todd Spangler, Multichannel News - November 27 2012
»www.multichannel.com/tec ··· s/140422

From the article:

Rovi has started shutting off the TV listings data it has provided in over-the-air broadcasts to dozens of consumer-electronics device models in North America -- and will completely end the service by April 2013 -- a move that has infuriated consumers who claim it will render their DVRs useless.

The company said its agreements with data broadcasting partners CBS and National Datacast Inc. (NDI), a for-profit subsidiary of PBS, are coming to an end.
:
All Rovi guides in analog TVs, digital TVs and consumer-electronics DVRs that receive over-the-air broadcast data via an antenna or a cable TV connection in the U.S. and Canada, including the Rovi Guide Plus+ and TV Guide on Screen products, will be affected by the change.

An article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal on some reasons to cut the cord:

Ten Things Cable-TV Companies Won't Say
By Jonnelle Marte, The Wall Street Journal - December 2, 2012
MarketWatch's Jonnelle Marte looks at the things cable companies won't tell you, such as why rising prices are part of their heritage and good service exists but not in your area.
»online.wsj.com/article/S ··· news_wsj

Thanks for the link. My experience is consistent with many of the reasons.

1. "Customers are fed up with us." I became fed up enough with the lack of effective customer service from the current owner of the local cable TV system that I stopped being a cable TV customer.

2. "Good service exists...just not in your area." I was a customer of the same local cable TV system under previous owners for about 20 years. The previous owners, unlike the current owner, actually provided what they said they would provide.

3. "We aren't a monopoly, but we may be your only option." That is a distinction without a difference. If there were another cable TV operator where I live, I would be a cable TV customer.

8. "Use the word 'cancel,' and you've got our attention." That was not true for me. When I canceled, they handled the request very effectively. If they had been effective at fixing problems I reported, I would have continued to have been a customer.

FYI - If Comcast wins this case, subscribers in Oregon may see a refund of some of the local taxes they have paid:

Oregon court cases could have big budget impact
By Jonathan Cooper, AP, in the San Francisco Chronicle - December 5, 2012
»www.sfgate.com/news/arti ··· 4509.php

A third tax-court case has significant implications for local-government budgets. The Oregon Supreme Court will hear oral arguments next month in a case brought by Comcast Corporation, which is challenging the Department of Revenue's decision to label Comcast a communications company rather than a cable-television provider. The vagaries of a 1970s-era law mean Comcast would pay higher taxes as a communications company than as a cable provider.

The tax court ruled in Comcast's favor. If the Supreme Court upholds the ruling, local governments will owe substantial refunds to Comcast and other Internet companies.

Gov. John Kitzhaber's office is trying to broker a compromise that would update the laws for the Internet age.

nm