Cable Carriers Fined For Stalling FCC Price InvestigationKevin Martin's parting shot at the cable industry.... ( old news - 08:50AM Tuesday Jan 20 2009) tags: legal · prices · fcc · business · cable · consumers · Comcast · Time Warner CableTipped by TKJunkMail  The FCC recently began investigating the ever-increasing TV pricing of several large cable operators and Verizon (but not AT&T). An initial inquiry sent to companies demanded information on how and why carriers were bumping channels into costlier digital tiers, and whether they were using the DTV transition to push more expensive services. The FCC wasn't happy with their responses, many of which didn't properly answer questions. Kevin Martin has now fined (pdf) Bright House, Cablevision, Charter, Cox, Comcast Time Warner Cable and several other carriers. Says Martin: Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission's authority and threatens to compromise the Commission's ability to adequately investigate violations of its rules. Prompt and full responses to LOIs are essential to the Commission's enforcement function. The cable operators' refusal to provide the Commission full information has delayed our investigation and inhibited our ability to examine allegations raised in the nearly 600 consumer complaints. We've discussed how the FCC's inquiry might be a little hollow, and ignores the FCC's own failed policies on this front. Cable consistently raises TV rates anywhere from 3-11%. But Verizon also raised the price of FiOSTV 12% in 2008 with new hikes planned this year. Hikes are not only being seen on programming packages, but across DVR and assorted other hardware and service fees. The fines levied on these carriers are only a few hundred thousand dollars in total, and will do little to stem the increases. It's fitting that one of Kevin Martin's last public actions was to fine the cable industry, given their contentious relationship during the Commissioner's tenure.
Related:- Thursday Evening Links
- Friday Evening Links
- Monday Evening Links
- Wednesday Evening Links
- Friday Evening Links
- Martin, Comcast, Continue Lover's Feud
- Comcast Denies Unfair VoIP Discrimination
- Time Warner Cable: Let's Not Talk About Net Neutrality
|
 
cypherstream
Looking forward to the future of things.
Premium,MVM
join:2004-12-02
Reading, PA
clubs: | Interesting First time I didn't see the word Comcast next to FCC and fine. | |
|  | | | |
cypherstream
Looking forward to the future of things.
Premium,MVM
join:2004-12-02
Reading, PA
clubs: | Re: Interesting Doh! Lack of comma between Comcast and Time Warner threw me off. That plus no coffee + early in the morning = fail! | |
| Creef412
join:2004-01-29
Oradell, NJ | directv? Does DirecTV or Dish have price hikes? | |
| | Austinloop
join:2001-08-19
Austin, TX | Re: directv? Not with the continual regularity of the cable co's. That is why I kicked TWC to the curb, raising prices well in excess of the rate of inflation every year. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | Re: A few observations Since Martin is gone as of yesterday. The cable companies will sue them for the fines and then go on about their business and not give a damn about Martin.
They'll forget about him just like everyone else. | |
| | | 
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ | Re: A few observations His successor will probably pick up where he left off though. | |
| | | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | Re: A few observations If he does though at least it won't be directed just at the cable companies since he has been talking about fair open access. | |
| | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | However, Martin was true to form, throwing a pile of excrement cable's way on his way out the door. | |
| | BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| I don't think it's a crusade against cable.
It is only right that they actually stop screwing consumers in a downed economic time.
Cable co's need to give out free to low cost gear to receive a digital signal. $20 a month for a dvr is a gaff. $15 for an hd box , $10 for a digital box $4 for a remote $5 per jack.
Half of your bill is the damn equipment , which we can't purchase.
Now the "content" prices are creeping up as well. To just under outlandish. And they want to know why.
I can tell them. The investors are greedy, in a down economy they lean on the companies to keep themselves in the ferrari and 24 year old model life styles.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
| | | 
Drex
Beer..It's What's For Dinner
Premium
join:2000-02-24
La Place, LA
 ·AT&T Southeast
| Re: A few observations said by BosstonesOwn :Cable co's need to give out free to low cost gear to receive a digital signal. $20 a month for a dvr is a gaff. $15 for an hd box , $10 for a digital box $4 for a remote $5 per jack. They have to make up the money from these fines some kind of way. 
--
I gave up drinking and eating bad food. And in 14 days, I had lost 2 weeks. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | 
Pizz
Hi
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: A few observations said by TKJunkMail :said by pandora :I believe cable companies should provide an unencrypted basic tier of HD that any digital set can receive. The FCC shouldn't lightly permit unencrypted cable from disappearing, even if eventually all signals are digital. That, as a goal sounds, noble. But it flies in the face of the direction technology and the industry is taking and the demand by customers for more channels and more HD channels in particular. There is a limited amount of bandwidth capacity on cable HFC systems. HD channels(and eventually almost all channels will be HD) take up quite a bit of bandwidth. To get around the limitation(until FTTH is ubiquitous which is a decade away or more), cable is going to use Switched Digital Video (SDV). Current TVs can't support that without some kind of external box(an SDV adapter, or a STB). Eventually, Tru2Way will address that in new sets. But again that will take years before they are ubiquitous. So your solution is regulation that will squash consumers demand for more channels and more HD channels because there is a group of people that can't afford a Cadillac. My solution is that those people make do with OTA TV and leave the rest of us alone to enjoy the progression of technology. A solution that slows progress because some will be left behind is not a good solution. But it is a solution supported by socialists. That is, pander to the lowest common denominator, and to heck with progress. MSOs try and progress newer tech? This made me laugh very, very loudly. | |
| | | | | | | | | | 
DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
Metairie, LA
clubs:
| TK is ok with encryption when it suits corporations, but against it when it comes to consumer privacy, such as peer to peer systems. Don't take it too seriously its his job.
Usually i would also be against more regulation, but the monopolistic cable world really needs reform, or instead of that perhaps an open network for competitors.
Like many people, i have only ONE choice for television and internet, and its not a very good one. | |
| | | | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| If the cable industry and CableLabs were not doing everything they can to hold back CableCARD technology and "Tru2Way" (another stalling tactic) this would not be a problem. Since you are tagging things, let's call cablers "communist" since they insist on central command and control, the lowest possible performance, the least amount of accountability and the highest amount of intimidation.
This is about as transparent as the argument that cable prices have dropped significantly 'when viewed on a per-channel basis'. Well, adding 200 fluff channels and duplicates so your divisor is higher does not lower the price no matter what those sharp NCTA accountants might say.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: A few observations Why not go ala cart? ....? Why not!
Grab the money, string up your lines, build your head ends, forge your contracts with networks and sell to your heart's will!
Now, there are two ways I can end this post, so I will use both.
1) When all your customers want 10 channels and your average bill is $15 per sub, let me know when you file for bankruptcy so I can buy your system up for pennies on the dollar and run it right.
or
2) When your customers find out that it will cost $5 per channel plus a base rate for the carrier/line, and they realize they're paying $45 a month for a small hand full of channels, and revolt against you,.. AND your other customers find no value in your service any more and cancel becuase those less popular channels, which do keep those customers happy and subscribing are gone.. well, again, I say, let me know. I'd like yo buy your system in a liquidation sale so I can run it right and make money.
Okay.. it's nice to want all these Utopian dreams like ala cart channels, "free" equipment, $5 internet services, constant upgrades, new guides, faster internet speeds, no installation service fees (ie: free labor and parts that they can keep) etc.. AND on top of that, choice of multiple providers (more than the average 2 or three providers which further erodes a much needed income base to operate from) and all the other un-sustainable wishes.. but keeping in mind these wishes.. how in the world is a business supposed to, well, STAY in business?
Guys, c'mon.. it's time to live in reality and grow up.
It's time to answer the question I posed above and do it honestly.. it's a valid question becuase YOU guys yourselves are asking and demanding it daily.. you guys OFTEN forget one very important part of the puzzle.. YOU! the customer.
I see two things.. you guys THINK you have have all the above becuase its the "let everyone else pay full service so I can have it for cheap" mentality.. or, you really simply forget that you, yourself, has no impact on the success of continued service.
Remember, you can reduce the bills and even the amount of customer competition, but the one thing remains.. the cost to string the plant to every customer for all providers is the same and comes with a cost. (Oh wait.. what's that answer.. muni fiber projects? group projects like Utopia? need I say more?) | |
| | | | | | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
| Re: A few observations said by fiberguy :Guys, c'mon.. it's time to live in reality and grow up. Hehe... you're expecting too much, perhaps.
Seriously, I think folks either (1) don't know; (2) forget; or (3) refuse to acknowledge that every dollar invested has to compete with every other possible way that dollar can be invested. If cable companies become less attractive investments, then their ability to raise capital evaporates, and progress stops. If cable companies were meant to be operated as public services, then they'd be attached to the Department of Public Works, and paid for by your municipal taxes. Rather, cable companies are granted license to operate in return for providing lifeline cable -- your local broadcast channels -- at a reduced price regulated by your local franchising authority, not the cable company. That's the public service. Lifeline cable -- your local broadcast channels. In return for agreeing to operate that service at a regulated rate, even if less than the cost of offering that service, the cable company is allowed to offer additional services, where they set the rates based on how much what they're offering is worth, not how much you personally want to pay for them.
If you want to dictate how cable television is offered, then either buy a cable company, or get your government to launch its own city-owned cable television utility. | |
| | | | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: A few observations You know what's funny about this? I posed a question that NONE Of the cry-baby, nanny-state loving, upotian-living, ulta left socialist, give-me-everything entitlement driven user on this site can argue with and keep a straight face.
With most of my posts, I'm bashed at the first sense of having an opinion that doesn't fit the borg's collective thought.
I think too many people are having Goto line 20 error right now and their brains are smoking. | |
| | | | | | | | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
| Re: A few observations I agree. It is distressing to encounter perspectives so tainted by entitlement mentality. Sometimes, the only basis I see them offering for their perspectives is selfishness ("I want"). :shrug: To be fair, though, perhaps not all of the comments come from people who are just selfish -- some folks commenting might simply be anti-capitalists. One of the great things about this country is that people who actually hold un-American perspectives are welcomed here. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: A few observations I don't want to see constant price increases in my food bill, gas at the pump, car insurance, medical co-pays, energy, clothing costs, and on and on and on..
So why is cable exempt? .. or why should it be? You have a right to not have pay TV service too, right? | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: A few observations The last time government stepped in to help, back in 1996, over high prices, your bill went up in FAR more cases than not.
Cable is not a monopoly, I don't buy that. You have 2 satellite options available to you available nationwide. The government has established rules to protect EVERY HOA and Renter's right to have a dish on their home.
And even then, I have a REAL issue where government has any right to label a "monopoly" over any industry that is not a life line or requirement. | |
| | | majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Lindenhurst, NY | It is when verizon and att are doing the same thing but only the cable companies are singled out. | |
| | | | waiting4fios
join:2005-04-08
Howell, NJ
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: A few observations How is Verizon and at&t doing the same thing?
The same channels that were unencrypted when Verizon offered analog are still unencrypted in their digital form. Previously, I could receive 2-49 without a cable box from Verizon in analog. I can still receive 2-49 with my tv digital built in QAM tuner.
What the cablecos are doing is different, they are literally moving channels that were unencrypted and when making them digital, they are encrypting them. Now if cable were to simply migrate their channels to digital without encrypting those channels, then they are doing the same thing as Verizon.
I am not opposed to cable moving their channels to all digital, Verizon, Directv, and Dish network have been that way for a while, and soon OTA is supposed to be all digital as well, but the argument most people are making is that even with a TV with a built in QAM tuner they are unable to get the same channels they use to get before with cable. At least with Verizon the same channels you were able to get from day 1 without a set-top box, are the same channels you can get today without a set-top box, provided you have a digital ready TV.
Also at&t is setup completely differently as their TV service is purely IP and required additional equipment from the get go.
I know you are a to the death cable supporter, but hopefully one day you will see there is a difference and NOT EVERYTHING cable does is right, just like not everything Verizon or any other company does is right either, but in this case your example doesn't measure up, Verizon and at&t are not doing the same thing as the cablecos. | |
| | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: A few observations So.. umm... now there is a movement for channel tier changes?? .. and the FCC has established rules (which is a joke anyway) for cable companies in moving channels?
The fact, about QAM clear channels, is that you're only supposed to get locals and tier 1 in the clear.. that's it.
You can not get a full basic cable line up on cable with a QAM tuner with out the tuner in a system that traps. Basic 1 and 2 tiers are controlled with traps.
Also, your post hints on something that just isn't right. You hint that becuase something has always been a certain way that any change form it is wrong.. ala, "at&t did it from the get go".. you are right that it's IPTV so they need equipment.. so I'll leave that alone.
So.. what if cable decided to stop anything on analog OR digital other than tier 1 and move the rest of their service to IPTV? Would you still think cable should have to use cable card technology? Should you be able to get your own box then? AT&T's iptv seems to have different rules on their service.. the thing is, you never know if 'cable' is about to make the same move to IPTV.. then what? | |
| | | | | | waiting4fios
join:2005-04-08
Howell, NJ
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: A few observations Like i said in my previous post, cable should be allowed to move channels as they see fit, the main argument is that what they are doing is NOT the same thing as Verizon and at&t which is what majortom insinuated.
Furthermore, when Verizon went all digital they provided free digital adapters to their affected customers, that is something cable is not doing, thus anyway you slice it, the change represents a monthly price increase for the customer on top of the regularly scheduled yearly price increases.
My argument is in no way that cable can't change its system, the argument is that the change is not/did not occur in the same manner as Verizon's and you are bringing up arguments that don't apply to my comment.
Even the OTA digital transition gives the consumer the option to get what they used to be able to receive without having to pay an additional monthly fee. Yes there might be certain upfront costs such as purchasing a digital adapter, or buying a new digital ready tv, but those are one-time expenses to the consumer, not a monthly price increase that produces a new revenue stream to the cable company.
Again please then explain to me what the cablecos are doing is the exact same thing as Verizon and at&t. Oh wait you can't and instead have changed the subject, even though the fact of the matter is that they COULD do the same thing by offering even at least 1 free digital adapter.
I posted about this before »Re: Why is cable being bashed for this but verizon not? and majortom still doesn't get that its not the same thing, there was also a morning news bit that mentions that cablevision received same temporary waiver that Verizon and many other cablecos got. | |
| | | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: A few observations I don't believe in socialism which is my main crux.
You insinuate that once you have a channel in a certain tier that you should always have it available in that tier. You also insinuate that if a channel moves, it shouldn't cost you more to continue receiving that channel. I disagree even if it is a price in crease.
You as the consumer have a choice to subscribe or not to subscribe. You are not guaranteed pay television service, which you again insinuate that you have some sort of right to.
The "Verizon and AT&T is doing it, why isn't cable" argument doesn't work either. In a competitive environment, you now have your reason to jump cable's ship and go to the provider that is treating you better. Because analog going to the past doesn't mean that the provider should carry the burden to make the consumer whole. That is yet another argument I don't buy. If the customer is not happy, they should find a provider that treats them better.
To even go to the level of comparing the OTA signal to that of a PAY service is absurd. OTA Free TV was once free, is still free. A FOR PAY service, where prices are allowed and subject to change, remains the same. The consumer demanded certain changes and the FCC gave it to them.. and, as batterup loves to say, "the people weep".. you're getting what you asked for. When government steps in, you will ALWAYS lose just as the consumer did back in 1996. Remember when the government stepped in to help the consumer on ever skyrocketing bills? more than 50% of consumers saw an increase in their cable bill thanks to the government's new rules.
So, to make this simple.. you said: "My argument is in no way that cable can't change its system, the argument is that the change is not/did not occur in the same manner as Verizon's and you are bringing up arguments that don't apply to my comment."
In simple.. Verizon isn't cable. Easy, huh? And yes, you are actually arguing against the change, which is showing your support for cable not making the changes they are. | |
| | | | | | 
BSD24
Tier 4
Premium
join:2008-04-30
Middleboro, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by BosstonesOwn :I don't think it's a crusade against cable. It is only right that they actually stop screwing consumers in a downed economic time. Cable co's need to give out free to low cost gear to receive a digital signal. $20 a month for a dvr is a gaff. $15 for an hd box , $10 for a digital box $4 for a remote $5 per jack. Half of your bill is the damn equipment , which we can't purchase. Now the "content" prices are creeping up as well. To just under outlandish. And they want to know why. I can tell them. The investors are greedy, in a down economy they lean on the companies to keep themselves in the ferrari and 24 year old model life styles. BosstonesOwn -
You forget the FCC already requires cable-cards in cable boxes now, for new installs. The cable box must have a removable cablecard. The reason for this? Because you will be able to buy a cable box ($300-$800+ probably) and put cable cards in side it (similar to the Tivo Series 3), and if you move you return the cards and get new ones from the new cable provider you choose.
Now the cost per month is caused by the cost of the equipment (DVR's being the most expensive - around 400-600 or more per box) and the amount of un-recovered equipment over the year (people stealing or never returning equipment after disconnecting service). Not every cable provider charges the same fees. Like Comcast no longer (hasn't in probably 2-4+ years - at least for digital) charges a seperate fee for the remote, its in the cost of the box. But Comcast will give you as many remotes you want (even without owning a cablebox) for no charge anyways, just go to any service center and ask for a remote. | |
| | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | Re: A few observations One correction. It doesn't say you have to be able to remove the card.. it states that the security has to be separable from the rest of the box's technology. The Moto and SA/Cisco boxes have cable cards, but they are sealed inside the box. | |
| | 
moon1234
@tds.net
| No you have your head in the technological sand. The cable companies could easily move channels to digital QAM unencrypted with addressable filters on a customers line. The customer can then hook up any device they plase to the cable and get the programming they pay for in a digital format using a digital TV with QAM tuner, Set top box, computer card, etc.
It would work just like analog does today and the technology is already there. Digital QAM can carry SD and HD just fine and almost all new DTV TVs have built in QAM tuners.
The cable companies want to make money on the set top boxes thru rent over the long term and thru advertising and PPV that can only be delivered through their boxes.
Almost all cable companies already use a hybrid system now. Any non-encrypted channel could easily be received on a QAM tuner and additional services could be received thru a cable set top box if the customer CHOOSES to get a box.
The FCC and congress need to slap the industry and hit them in the pocket book for making anti-consumer choices. | |
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: A few observations Addressable filters? really? Where do you get one of those? .. or rather, who makes them?
Um.. addressable taps have been out for a while, but they failed miserably. In fact, I only know of one or two systems that ever tied them, one being in So Cal. And, at best, all you could do was activate or deactivate a port on the tap, that's it. If there was an addressable tap or filter to the level of controlling tiers, this would have been done already or being installed now. There is Far more money in a system that is addressable like that over the current system in place and many more benefits.
And yea.. slap them for making 'anti-consumer choices'.. please tell me these laws that say you have to offer products and service in the manner that the customer deems acceptable...the sh*t's getting really deep here. | |
| | xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
| Only 600 complaints is indicative of how the typical customer has no clue who/how to effectively file a complaint (or the success of the FCC).
We, in the US, seem to have a tough enough time complaining (reflecting our thoughts) about anything to our politicians.
Then again...those paying for CableTV get what they deserve.
It's perty, but so is over the air dtv.
TV is finally moving the way of voice services...it's bits.
Why prop up CATV or telephone or cellular companies?
Ala cart makes sense. BBR wouldn't ask for paid accounts otherwise. BBR IS an ala cart channel & a "free" channel.
Welcome to Web 3.0 or so. | |
| |
Emily223
@comcast.net | HD channels are not "universally demanded by customers". I get a good enough picture now. I don't want or need HD. And I know a lot of people who feel the same way. As a matter of fact, I'd rather they didn't change everything over to HD. | |
| | | | | |
|
|
·
Is it just me?
·
A few observations
Re: A few observations