Cable Execs Face Congress Justify rate hikes, blame sports industry Cable executives faced a Senate committee this week to explain why cable rates have risen at three times the rate of inflation, with no signs of slowing down. According to this Washington Post report, the executives blame the hikes on the increasing cost of Sports programming, though they're apparently willing to isolate Sports programming from basic cable packages to reduce costs for consumers. Not everyone was buying that argument however, with some blaming the rate hikes on the lack of true competition for video services; in markets with more than one cable company, rates on average are 17% lower. (Also see this CBS Marketwatch article)
|
 jmargel
join:2001-03-07
Northumberland, PA | It's a monopoly that's why Here in Central PA, my cable provider is Service Electric, their daughter company Prolog is the only ISP in central PA that offers broadband (Cable). No DSL is in the area. It is a 'requirment' that we purchase the basic cable package from Service Electric (at $35.00 a month) just so that we could get internet access at another $40.00 a month (512/128).
First off, this is AGAINST anti-trust laws. You can't force a person to purchase something in order for them to have the opportunity to purchase a completely seperate product.
Second, our cable rates have risen every freakin' year! I hope someone from Prolog reads this. I asked both companies if I could just purchase a 5 or 10 channel package, but they said I was forced to buy 40 channels of crap.
And blaming it on the sports industry? What a line of BS! I can't believe they can actually look themselves in the mirror in the morning without feelings guilty. | |
|  | | | Re: It's a monopoly that's why said by jmargel:
First off, this is AGAINST anti-trust laws. You can't force a person to purchase something in order for them to have the opportunity to purchase a completely seperate product.
How would this differ from needing an active telephone line in order to get ADSL? | |
| | |  tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Re: It's a monopoly that's why Primarily because while you need the cable line, you do not technically need the CATV service in order to receive Cable internet. | |
| | | |  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: It's a monopoly that's why said by tsu9:
Primarily because while you need the cable line, you do not technically need the CATV service in order to receive Cable internet.
You don't need the phone service to get DSL either. A friend of mine had his phone disconnected for failure to pay, his DSL continued to run for 4 more months till that was cut off as well.
--
Saying that Microsoft has a monopoly in Operating Systems because one is too lazy to learn a different OS is like saying that Ford has a monopoly in cars because one is too lazy to find a Honda dealership. | |
| | | | | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | Re: It's a monopoly that's why I believe your point is pivotal to a consumer lawsuit filed against Bell South. | |
|
| |  Aggie DanStop... Reverse That.Premium
join:2001-01-30
Frisco, TX | said by J D McDorce:
said by jmargel:
First off, this is AGAINST anti-trust laws. You can't force a person to purchase something in order for them to have the opportunity to purchase a completely seperate product.
How would this differ from needing an active telephone line in order to get ADSL?
And actually, it is possible to get SDSL which runs over a dry pair.
--
Note : The statements made by myself are my own and not the opinions of my employer or of my coworkers. 7.467 GHz Crunching Power | The Ryan Foundation for MPS Children | |
| | | |  phxmarkWhat Country Are We Living In?
join:2000-12-27
Glendale, AZ
| Re: It's a monopoly that's why quote:
And actually, it is possible to get SDSL which runs over a dry pair.
ADSL will run over a dry pair also. When I moved, I cancelled my phone 2 weeks before I moved. My ADSL connection was still working for that last week, even though I had no sidetone or line voltage from the phone company.
--
Still living on Dial-Up.
[text was edited by author 2003-05-07 11:55:44] | |
|
| |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| You don't need active phone service to get DSL, for any technical reason. However, most phone companies have set it up in a way so that they *have* to have local service in order to give you DSL, to force you to take both.
For example, SBC's excuse is that the billing system is geared completely towards phone numbers, ie, they need an active "phone number" or else they can't bill you for DSL.
If that's the case, then it's a matter of deliberately not fixing billing. I have an idea for you: How about you don't bill me until you fix the system? If that was the case, wanna bet it would get fixed but quick?
DSL technology does not require active POTS service to work, but the Telco sure isn't going to spread that news around. In the same vein, you SHOULD be able to get Cable Internet *without* subscribing to Cable TV of any kind, and it should *NOT* cost more because you don't. However, of course, they do force you to take Cable TV (or penalize you by charging you tons more for Internet) as a way to encourage you to avoid Dish systems. More anti-competitive crap.
--
"When the day comes that anyone can bend our country’s laws and lawmakers to serve selfish, competitive ends, that day democratic government dies" -- Preston Tucker, 1948 (Yep, it's dead.) | |
|
| | | They don't feel guilty in the morning, they feel good about raping you for all the money they can. | |
|
 NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
 ·Comcast
 ·Callcentric
|  Somewhere in between lies the truth....
If the Senate wants to lambaste the cable companies, then why is there no proof released on their costs and profit margins? The Senate has to have this information somewhere. After all, they regulate the industry and should have access to all that data. Second, the cable companies should make all their profit margins and costs public. If they can show that ESPN, Fox Sports Net, and other networks are demanding/charging more money, then I can see their point of view.
Who is right and wrong? Who knows. Just release the facts and figures and then the truth will be known.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal | |
| | rugbyI think I know it all.VIP
join:2000-09-26
Indianapolis, IN | Re: Somewhere in between lies the truth.... If these sports channels are getting too expensive, then offer a package WITHOUT them. That would be actually DOING something to help consumers instead of just making them pay more. I personally don't watch sports on tv and haven't in years. | |
| | |  MaxoYour tax dollars at work.Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL | Re: Somewhere in between lies the truth.... Hear, hear. If they said they'd cut my cost in 1/3 if I didn't have ESPN and such channels I'd say good riddance. Well, I don't really have cable but I might consider it if it was cheaper. There's no way I'm going to pay all that money for something I'd only watch about 5 hours a week max. If it was only like $10 or $15 I'd definitely be more interested.
--
Today I didn't even have to use my AK, I gotta say it was a good day. - Ice Cube www.maxolasersquad.com | |
| | | | DonLibesPremium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19 | Re: Somewhere in between lies the truth.... I too would be happy to buy cable without sports. I guess it's like their internet package though - just as you can't buy internet without TV, you can't buy TV without sports. | |
|
| |  HallPremium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Dayton, OH
kudos:1 | said by rugby:
If these sports channels are getting too expensive, then offer a package WITHOUT them.
Exactly my thoughts too. See how quickly the sports channels change their tune when people start choosing these packages and their advertising revenue, where they really make the $$$, falls off.
--
-= Mindspring MaxDSL via Covad 1536/384 TeleSurfer Pro =- | |
| | | |  herdfanPremium
join:2003-01-25
Hurricane, WV | Re: Somewhere in between lies the truth.... Here's the problem with that. I believe that ESPN's contract REQUIRES their service to be part of the basic package, the exception being a package of the local networks.
Also ESPN's contracts allow them 20% per year increases for the term of the contract.
The cable companies are between a rock & a hard place to keep revenue up to meet these costs. The major cable channels all do the same thing. TNT threaten to withhold NASCAR races for operators that didn't agree to higher fees, the Disney/Comcast issue and there are others.
So they came up with internet service to raise revenue with lower costs, and then Verizon cut its rates for DSL. The only thing saving the cable co's is that DSL is not available everywhere there is a phone line or at $29.95/mo, DSL would be king.
--
DRS 3.0(Gray)G3C 1210 Host: Dell 4100 PIII 933mzh, 512, 40 XP Pro SP1, Clients: Dell 8250 P4 2.8, 512 1066 RDRAM, 120, XP Pro SP1 Sony Vaio Laptop, 1G Athlon, 256,40, XP Home(Never Again)Wireless thru Orinoco AP-200 to Orinoco Gold Card /Using DPC Manager | |
|
| |  compugeekI love making my own beer.Premium
join:2002-07-30
Pickerington, OH | Part of the problem with that is that the channels tell the cable companies where to put the channel. Even if you do not watch it they charge the cable company as if you were watching it. Part of the channel, say ESPN, as being a Monopoly... Cable is not a monopoly, there are other choices out there that some even consider better. There are also other choices for channels, but they charge the same way and are not as popular.
Geek | |
| | | | vfpguyAlias Dotnetguy
join:2001-07-21
Wayne, NJ | Re: Somewhere in between lies the truth.... said by compugeek:
Even if you do not watch it they charge the cable company as if you were watching it.
That's funny. That's the stated reason Cablevision refused to carry YES on the basic tier. I guess George Orwell didn't know how far doublethink would go.
--
"...a great, serene and peaceful future can slip from us quite as irrevocably by neglect, division and inaction, as by spectacular disaster." -- H. Truman, 6/21/56 | |
| | | | HallPremium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Dayton, OH
kudos:1
| said by compugeek:
Even if you do not watch it they charge the cable company as if you were watching it.
Didn't Microsoft get in trouble for charging PC makers for a copy of DOS or Windows on every PC the company built whether or not they installed Microsoft's software on it ?? quote:
Cable is not a monopoly, there are other choices out there...
I don't think you can call cable companies a monopoly when other companies *choose* not to offer service in an area already served by another, but in MOST cities, there is NO choice. Even in Columbus, I know there's TW, Insight, and WOW. But can you get two or all three of those at your home ??
For reference: Story on DSLR's front page, »Cable Execs Face Congress, links to a Washington Post article, »www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar···ay6.html. That story says:...a General Accounting Office report showing that, in markets where cable companies compete with one another, monthly rates are 17 percent below the national average. But that is in a minority of markets. Less than 5 percent of the more than 70 million cable consumers have a choice of providers. Emphasis added by me.
--
-= Mindspring MaxDSL via Covad 1536/384 TeleSurfer Pro =-
[text was edited by author 2003-05-07 13:10:12] | |
| | | | |  72276539Premium
join:2001-01-19
Atlanta, GA | Re: Somewhere in between lies the truth.... Well said, right now I cannot call up Time Warner and tell Charter to packsand. | |
|
| | | said by Nightfall:
This story really intrigues me. However, It is hard not to be objective. On the cable side, I have heard stories for a couple years now on the sports networks raising their rates. However, I have also heard numerous reports of the cable companies being greedy. I really don't know who to believe and without solid proof from both sides, I won't draw conclusions.
A few years ago, cable had an argument with Disney. Apparently Disney wanted cable to carry a few of their channels in the basic area or they would not be allowed to rebroadcast local ABC stations. Comcast, (I believe), told Disney no and ABC went off the air. Customers complained and the cable company actually came out and said why it was happening. Disney/ABC countered saying they were trying to give customers content. In the end, Disney/ABC got back on cable but not without a lot of complaints to both sides. In my opinion, both were at fault yet neither side will admit it.
said by Nightfall:
If the Senate wants to lambaste the cable companies, then why is there no proof released on their costs and profit margins? The Senate has to have this information somewhere. After all, they regulate the industry and should have access to all that data. Second, the cable companies should make all their profit margins and costs public. If they can show that ESPN, Fox Sports Net, and other networks are demanding/charging more money, then I can see their point of view.
The Senate does have powers of supeona (sp?) but that is limited. Remember a while back when insurance companies were being regulated in California? They filed suit saying they were going to lose money and couldn't stay profitable. A judge asked them for their books as proof. They said no. Judge allowed regulation to occur. The cable companies don't want to show their books and all the "deals" they get because it will show things they don't want seen. People are making money and now it is all about protecting market share instead of customer service.
said by Nightfall:
Who is right and wrong? Who knows. Just release the facts and figures and then the truth will be known.
We wish.
"Figures don't lie but you can lie with figures." | |
| | |  VericimaBeautiful But DeadlyPremium
join:2003-01-07
Manchester, CT | Re: Somewhere in between lies the truth.... The Disney vs. Cable thing was Time Warner Cable. | |
| | | |
| KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| If the Sports industry is massively rasing prices on channels (which they are BTW) there is a way to stop it.
The cable companies simply refuse to pay what they ask. Think about it. It wouldn't take more then a few weeks top of media companies standing pat and the programmers would have to cave in like a wet paper bag...
Now the real truth: The Cable Companies and the Sports Broadcasters (channels etc) ARE OFTEN THE SAME COMPANIES.
AH. So now you see what really goes on. One Division says "We're jacking the price 20%!" and then the Cable Division goes "Woe to us, programming costs increase, much hand wringing, we have to 'pass the costs along' and raise cable prices, it's not our fault..."
In reality they are paying THEMSELVES the rate increases and boosting THEIR OWN PROFITS. They laugh all the way to the bank while they wring their hands in front of regulators and the public and look downcast. IT'S CALLED A SCAM....
--
"When the day comes that anyone can bend our country’s laws and lawmakers to serve selfish, competitive ends, that day democratic government dies" -- Preston Tucker, 1948 (Yep, it's dead.) | |
| | | DonLibesPremium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19 | Re: Somewhere in between lies the truth.... said by KrK:
Now the real truth: The Cable Companies and the Sports Broadcasters (channels etc) ARE OFTEN THE SAME COMPANIES.
Everything you say is plausible but I must question your statement above. I'm not saying it's false. I'm merely asking if you have proof that it is true. If true, I agree that it would explain a lot. | |
| | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| Re: Somewhere in between lies the truth.... said by DonLibes:
said by KrK:
Now the real truth: The Cable Companies and the Sports Broadcasters (channels etc) ARE OFTEN THE SAME COMPANIES.
Everything you say is plausible but I must question your statement above. I'm not saying it's false. I'm merely asking if you have proof that it is true. If true, I agree that it would explain a lot.
Comcast owns the Philadelphia 76ers and the Philadelphia Flyers. I believe Cablevision owns the New York Knicks. Along the same lines, Comcast also owns or has some vested interest in the various sports arenas in and around Philadelphia.
--
Saying that Microsoft has a monopoly in Operating Systems because one is too lazy to learn a different OS is like saying that Ford has a monopoly in cars because one is too lazy to find a Honda dealership.
[text was edited by author 2003-05-08 08:44:14] | |
| | | | | DonLibesPremium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19 | Re: Somewhere in between lies the truth.... said by pnh102:
Comcast owns the Philadelphia 76ers and the Philadelphia Flyers. I believe Cablevision owns the New York Knicks. Along the same lines, Comcast also owns or has some vested interest in the various sports arenas in and around Philadelphia.
True but the article specifically cited ESPN/Disney's rates. Now if you could show that Comcast had an interest in Disney, that would be significant. | |
|
| | |  mabusi make the fort glow
join:2002-11-12
Fort Wayne, IN
 ·Verizon FiOS
| ESPN is Disney owned... AFAIK they don't own any large stakes in any cable companies... also Fox owns Fox Sports and DirecTV and you can get DriecTV for much cheaper than digital cable in many places... although Fox only recently purchased DirecTV, so a rate hike for their service may be inevitable.
/\/\ | |
| | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| ESPN is often cited, but ESPN is owned by Disney. As far as I know, Disney doesn't have any large interests in any particular sports franchises.... however Disney does own ABC, several TV stations, lots of radio stations, other cable channels, etc.
As far as I know, Disney doesn't have any significant ownership of Cable companies... but Disney isn't the only player. As my post mentioned, *often* but not always.
Many Cable companies have stakes in sports organizations and franchises...
--
"When the day comes that anyone can bend our country’s laws and lawmakers to serve selfish, competitive ends, that day democratic government dies" -- Preston Tucker, 1948 (Yep, it's dead.) | |
|
 Armada1Heat Miser
join:2001-05-16
Chicago, IL | what about broadband? Broadband rates werer going up and up and still are in some markets, but in others, competition is forcing service quality up, and prices down... a la Verizon. Cable just needs more competition.
--
Formerly the Heat Miser... | |
|  gogeta6
join:2002-06-20
San Diego, CA | 17% lower What areas have two cable companies? There are two in San Diego but I don't think their territories overlap. | |
| |  JulioBachatero y Que?Premium
join:2003-03-19
Brooklyn, NY
kudos:1 | Re: 17% lower i live in NYC and i think they are 3 cable company's but their areas don't overlap; Time Warner Cable of NYC, Cablevision/iO, RCN. i cant switch from TWC cause of that issue, so im either stuck w/ the expensive prices from TWC or go w/ Satellite.
--
Need good hosting? visit www.liquidfirehosting.com | |
| | | | | Re: 17% lower Places that have WideOpenWest Cable have competition. They are the ultimate winners of life's lottery. Their lives are perfect, and they have no right to complain about anything ever. DBS is non-existent in those cities. | |
|
| TACSPEEDPremium
join:2001-04-14
Tacoma, WA | We have two overlapping cable companies here in Tacoma, Washington, Comcast and Click!. | |
| | JulioBachatero y Que?Premium
join:2003-03-19
Brooklyn, NY
kudos:1 | maybe i should give cablevision another call, maybe the other tech guy didnt know what he was talking about.
--
Need good hosting? visit www.liquidfirehosting.com | |
| | | | I believe Baltimore MD has overlapping cable companies or at least they used too.....
I got sick of Charters unprofessionalism here in Altoona, PA. I use Verizon DSL 1.5 / 784K at my home office and WinBeam Wireless 1.5 / 256K at my shop and both are excellent.
Charter really gives my customers a hard time with rate increases, speed package decreases and excuses, fortunatly I have CHOICE for them. The cable companies have WAY to much power and abuse ability over customers and we can thank our elected officials for that.
Two final things....
One, for any elected officials (you know who you are) in our area who have been contacted buy Charter customers with complaints and replied to with BOT replys, you'll surely be seeing less votes come next election.
Two, Charter tends to kiss up in this area when there agreement here is up for renewal and play dumb to a few customers questions, plans are currently in the works to bring large amounts of your customers in the area to the NEXT renewal.
See you then....... | |
|
| | Charter screw the customer communications | |
| |
| Re: Charter screw the customer communications in some areas the cable co is lining the pockets of the county commissioner ; where im at cable is only available from comcast, but if i move to within the city limits then a 2nd option for cable becomes available and whadda ya know if comcast doesn't have lower rates in that area to try and compete with the city cable co.
[text was edited by author 2003-05-07 11:11:25] | |
|
Dotay
join:2002-11-08
Fort Wayne, IN
| What about Ad revenue? I may be way out in left field here, but I would think they would charge more for advertising on channels that they pay more for. I would be shocked to find out they didn't do something like this. Obviously if they are paying more for a channel that would mean that more people are watching that particular channel and they would naturally charge more for advertising, i.e. the Super Bowl.
Am I crazy here or are we just getting one side of the story.
edit: fixed typo
[text was edited by author 2003-05-07 11:29:59] | |
| | | No charge for channels with advertising revenue What really makes me mad are those networks that charge the cable companies to carry their channel "AND" make money from selling advertising. There should be a law against this. If we have to watch one of their stupid commercials, then we shouldn't have to pay for their channel. It's like radio, what if all the free radio stations started charging a fee to listen to the music in addition to advertising. Sounds greedy doesn't it. Premium services like HBO, Showtime, and Starz! have a right to charge for their services because the don't have advertising during the movie or show like Sci-Fi or ESPN does. DIRECTV recently dropped Sci-Fi, TNN, and Trio from their Select Choice package just because of their price increases. There should be a stop to this, or at least a cap imposed on how much they could charge if they run commercials.
If nobody's willing to do that, then wouldn't it be great if all the television providers (Cable, Satellite, and Wireless) stopped broadcasting those channels that were charging a fee. They would change their act in a hurry. It would be the same as taking away their broadcast transmitter. | |
| | | | Re: No charge for channels with advertising revenue I agree, it seem to be a "double dip".
I have Comcast and BellSouth DSL in my area. I have DSL, which is quite good at $45 per month for 1200\300. I also have Comcast, at $70 per month for basic cable + HBO. I am fixing to get a dish or something. One more rate increase and I am a goner Comcast! My first cable connection in my home was basic + HBO, in about 1976, for $6.00 a month! | |
|
ricep5Premium
join:2000-08-07
Jacksonville, FL | Dyamic Cable Provisioning Cable Labs is working on a dynamic channel provisioning scheme that allows customers to add or drop channels on a monthly basis. Of course this won't bypass the "must carry" provision the FCC has on cable for local stations but it will permit the end watcher to determine every 30 days what channels they wish to carry and push the responsibility of decent content back to the channel originator.
Obviously the benefit of this is that customers only get (and pay) for what they want. However this doesn't preclude the cable carrier to charge a high carriage fee for just a connection.
The only people blocking this are Disney, ESPN and other monolithic channels that have heavy carry provisions in their contracts. ESPN has a "basic-must carry" provision in some of their contracts which says a cable carrier must place it in the basic service regardless of the raising rate. This is what has caused a great deal of the problems as of late.
Either way, its still greed pure and simple. Direct TV, Echostar and others are having the same problems with ESPN and others too. | |
| | | bundle problems The problem is these big entertainment companies owning more than 1 station. Want ESPN? Then you also have to take all the other Disney channels that nobody cares about. The media providers themselves are bundling channels and selling them to the cable and sat cos.
I'd love a reasonably priced a la carte programming. It should easily be available with the sat technology we have had for years already. Just have the card programmed to only recieve channels the customer wants.
On Directv, my viewing rarely left Cartoon Network, Boomerang, TV Land, Sci-Fi, and TNN. 5 channels that I must purchase 195 other channels to get. Whoever is the first sat company to come out with a choose your own package deal will make a killing. | |
| | vfpguyAlias Dotnetguy
join:2001-07-21
Wayne, NJ | Re: bundle problems said by Megahurtz:
Whoever is the first sat company to come out with a choose your own package deal will make a killing.
As long as the content providers have must-carry provisions no sat company will have a choose your own package.
Would you subscribe to an ala-carte service that couldn't offer those 5 channels you mentioned because they didn't want to carry the other channels the providers wanted them to?
--
"...a great, serene and peaceful future can slip from us quite as irrevocably by neglect, division and inaction, as by spectacular disaster." -- H. Truman, 6/21/56 | |
|
| | I agree with the sports programming part Athletes and their managers are paid too damn much. I don't even watch sports, I have all the sports channels removed from my DirecTV lineup on my both receivers. I shouldn't have to pay for this crap. | |
| | | | Re: I agree with the sports programming part That's one of the the dumbest things I've ever heard. You're worth whatever some is willing to pay. The the basis of the American economy. I hate when people says athletes or entertainers make to much. THEY"RE THE ONES GENERATING THE REVENUE FLOW.They're only making a portion of what they generate. | |
|
 major marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA |  Keep Dreaming
--
The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism. It works the same in any country. -H.Goering,SS. www.evilGOPbastards.com | |
| jsouthJsouth
join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS |  Internet vs TV
| |
| | | NO TV! What if you don't have a television? | |
| | | | Re: NO TV! Well, being that 99% of America has one... I highly doubt this is the case.
I have Satellite TV... our rates have gone up a little over the past 5 years that we've had it. The Top 40 Package from Dish TV has gone from 19.95 to 24.95, which also included an addition of 10 additional channels to become the Top 50.
Yes, I pay an additional 5 dollars for local channels, and another 5 dollars for the additional receiver... but I'm also getting all digital channels and an interactive program guide for $34.95 a month. Do I still think I'm overpaying, yes... but not nearly as much as the Time Warner ripoff in this area.
I just checked Time Warner Digital Cable in my area (Raleigh, NC), and the price is 45.15 a month, which also only includes one digital terminal. Additional Digital Terminals are 6.60 a month.
It's kind of funny, a couple years ago, one of the major advertising runs in this area for cable was that you could have it on all of your TV's for no extra charge.
Tech Support doesn't suck for Dish TV either, although thats just my personal experience.
---
Jeff | |
| | | | | Re: NO TV! $45.15 for digital cable!!?!?!
No offense, but that's a great deal. In my city digital cable is over $54, and additional digital receivers are $7.95/month. | |
|
 DHRacerFire Survivor
join:2000-10-10
Lake Arrowhead, CA
·Charter
·Verizon Online DSL
| Cable Execs Face Congress? More like a Campaign Fundraising Meeting if you ask me! Soft Money Sucks!
Or a "Who Needs A Little More Money Under The Table To Get Back In Line With Us Cable Companies" Meeting.
I don't believe for an instant that either the cable execs or the legislators were even thinking about the people.
Didn't anyone notice all the Winking and hidden smiles going on during these meetings?? | |
| | looser
join:2001-02-04
La Mesa, CA | Re: Cable Execs Face Congress? Hey ya got it right....Congress and big business play that good cop, bad cop all the time and will never change. Behind the doors it's all that "how are the wife and kid's" crap and campaign mumbo-jumbo. Bunch of NEOCON bastards anyway. | |
|
| | Big Cable's Package-Pricing Ploy
Big Cable's Package-Pricing Ploy
Consumers could be saving money by selecting their premium channels a la carte, but don't expect to hear it from your cable outfit
Many cable-TV operators reported strong earnings in the third quarter, a triumph in an otherwise lackluster earnings season. Cable leaders Comcast (CMCSK ), Cox Communications (COX ), and Time Warner Cable (AOL ) each succeeded in persuading customers to sign up for lucrative new services, such as digital cable, high-speed Internet access, and local-phone service.
Even as the fortunes of these companies improve, however, a federal rule took effect in early October, 2002, that could let savvy cable customers cut their monthly bills in half. And if enough penny-pinching viewers act, cable operators could see margins slashed and their quest to deliver greater free cash flow prolonged. The rule, a provision of the 1992 Cable Act, says cable operators can no longer require subscribers to buy multitier packages of programming to get pay-per-view events and premium channels, such as as HBO, Starz, and Showtime.
PICK AND CHOOSE. New York City fans of HBO's Sex & The City who couldn't care less about the 20 or more channels that must be bought to get that particular premium service could slash their monthly cable bill from $56 to about $31. The smaller fee would get HBO and the major TV networks. In Orlando, fans who want Showtime's The Chris Isaac Show but not the assorted channels that come with it, could cut their monthly cable costs from about $51 to just $29.
Yet hardly any customers know about the rule, despite the claims of some cable operators that they began offering the option long ago. It's hard to find any company that publicized it. And in interviews with financial analysts who cover cable, not a single one was aware of the option -- though many expressed an interest as a way to cut their own cable bills.
It's no mystery why cable operators haven't made a big push to publicize this option. While most of their growth now comes from new services such as high-speed Internet access, television still accounts for the bulk of revenues. In the third quarter, 44% of cable behemoth Comcast's $2.75 billion in revenues came from traditional TV customers, while Cox relied on TV service for 68% of its $1.67 billion in revenues.
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2002/tc2002116_0167.htm | |
| | | | Re: Big Cable's Package-Pricing Ploy
Here is the link to the RULE from the 1992 CABLE ACT, not that its helped me any 
When is a LAW not a LAW ?
[url]»uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fast···43%29%29 %3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20[/url] | |
|
| |
|
|
