So Far, 'Franchise Reform' Means Higher PricesShocking: lobbyist promises of competitive price utopia not materializing... 09:09AM Tuesday Jul 08 2008 by Karl Bodetags: prices · Video · competition · businessRemember those state franchise laws, aimed primarily at greasing the baby bells' entry into the TV industry, that were (according to bell lobbyists) supposed to bring about a competitive utopia where cable TV prices actually dropped? So far, the only result has been higher prices, fewer local access channels and fewer community improvements, at least according to a survey conducted by the municipalities most impacted by the changes. The survey, which included 140 public access center officials from 18 states where cable is no longer locally regulated, showed that 66% of the respondents said basic cable rates have increased in their communities, even after the arrival of competition. It's early in the deployment life cycle, but so far telcos are just mirroring cable's constant rate hikes. It would be nice to see some independent studies tracking the impact of such bills, but most of the state laws passed just assumed the best. In Texas, where a committee was supposed to study if that State's franchise reform law actually helped anyone (other than the baby bells), the committee never even bothered to meet.
Related:- Verizon FiosTV Sees First Rate Hike
- AT&T Launches U-Verse In Los Angeles
- Qwest Angry At Colorado Towns
- Customers Irked By FiOS Hikes
- New FiOSTV Rate Hikes
- Tracking FiOS TV Bundle Price Changes
- Thursday Morning Links
- Thursday Evening Links
|
 |  | 
Comcablrtl
join:2003-10-25
Midwest
 ·Comcast
| Re: Shocked? ...and the cable companies were the ones that warned that this would happen. Why would the telcos want to offer a lower price than cable? They need to make money too. The only reason they started offering cable was to have some way to compete against cable companies that offer phone service. If you think about it, just about all customers signing up for cable phone service are coming from telcos. For them to sit back and watch their phone customers disappear to cable is definitely not a winning strategy. They had to launch cable to have a competing product. They can offer slightly lower prices, or even the same prices as cable, and be able to now retain those customers that were jumping ship to get a double or triple play from a competing cable company/ | |
| | | hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
| Re: Shocked? Telco's never had to offer Cable. If they'd offer a lower cost product they'd have business. But nope! they only offer you a special when you threaten to leave to go to Cable, or you go to sign up with Comcast and VZ puts a hold on your number transfer request and then they decide to call you and offer you some promotion that they would NOT have offered to you in the first place. Because they're VZ and don't have to do that.
Remember the telco's are the ones that have the "other fees and taxes" so when they have to lower your price due to them losing business to VoIP and Digital phone customers they have some sort of profit coming in. | |
| | 
dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
| Cell phone prices have not decreased with all of the so-called competition. Land line prices did not decrease either. Even with the phone companies getting their asses handed to them. The only price drop came from services offered through different technologies by non-entrenched companies such as VOIP.
--
dnoyeB
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes 9:16
| |
| | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
 ·AT&T Southwest
| The Telcos promised if granted these state wide franchises, over-riding local and city oversight, that they'd roll out their new services and compete with Cable.
This they have done. However, when they told everyone that the competition would bring lower prices, better service, etc etc they were just blowing smoke. I can certainly say that here the U-Verse offerings are 1) Either slightly less then Cox, for a lot less services or 2) Bundles for everything that actually cost more then Cox.
So if you were thinking that the high prices might fall, well big surprise, it ain't happening. The only thing that's a surprise is that people actually fell for these sales talk.... "Give up your local regulatory power and we'll make your dreams come true."
Ok, so it's given up (taken away, actually) and the dream is actually the nightmare.
Predictable, as some of us said at the start.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
edit:
July 8th, @09:21AM
| Yawn... And we have more advanced broadband deployments in many of the places which did not have service otherwise. Since cable TV and broadband are luxury services anyway, why is price really that big deal when before such laws these items were not available at any price?
As for public access channels, who really cares about these anyway? I'd rather have my cable provider spend my subscription money on getting more HD channels instead of wasting it on things that most people don't even watch.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
| | 
NetAdmin
join:2008-05-22
| Re: Yawn... said by pnh102  :As for public access channels, who really cares about these anyway? I'd rather have my cable provider spend my subscription money on getting more HD channels instead of wasting it on things that most people don't even watch. Your statement is ironic because most people aren't watching HD channels as most people haven't upgraded their televisions to HD or aren't willing to pay for HD service/equipment.
--
---
Over ten plus years of carrying The Clue Bat... | |
| | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| Re: Yawn... said by NetAdmin :Your statement is ironic because most people aren't watching HD channels as most people haven't upgraded their televisions to HD or aren't willing to pay for HD service/equipment. Where's the incentive to upgrade if cable companies are wasting cash on crap like public access instead of more HD channels?
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
| | | | 
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:
| Re: Yawn... said by pnh102 : Where's the incentive to upgrade if cable companies are wasting cash on crap like public access instead of more HD channels? What cash? Cable just provides channel space...any dollars they actually have to spend on public access gets passed right on, and your statement assumes that the companies would spend the little money we're actually talking about on upgrades as opposed to adding to the bottom line.
--
If they told you wolverines would make good house pets, would you believe them?
-"Planes, Trains & Automobiles" | |
| | | |
NetAdmin
join:2008-05-22
edit:
July 8th, @02:28PM
| said by pnh102 :Where's the incentive to upgrade if cable companies are wasting cash on crap like public access instead of more HD channels? The cost of providing those public access channels is a lot less than most people think. The biggest cost of providing a channel, programming costs, are non-existent with public access channels.
And adding HD channels isn't just as simple as just wanting to add a new channel to the lineup. For example, the source has to broadcast in HD, hence the reason Sci-Fi took so long to be available in HD. If the channels aren't available in HD, no one is getting it.
Whoops, had to fix a typo...
--
---
Over ten plus years of carrying The Clue Bat... | |
| |
dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
| In my area (Detroit) lots of people watch the public access channels. City council can be quite entertaining. Its almost like the British house of commons.
Personally, I dumped my cable down to limited Basic. I would drop that if I could get quality internet service from anyone else besides Comcast.
--
dnoyeB
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes 9:16
| |
| | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| Re: Yawn... said by dnoyeB :In my area (Detroit) lots of people watch the public access channels. City council can be quite entertaining. Its almost like the British house of commons. So I've heard. A channel dedicated to raucous government proceedings, complete with blood, would actually be a winner.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
| |
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:
| Talk about moving the goalposts...
The main reason that statewide franchising was pushed was the idea that this 'reform' would result in dramatically lower prices, which hasn't happened, as Karl notes. Now it's "well, we've seen more deployments", which would have happened anyway.
--
If they told you wolverines would make good house pets, would you believe them?
-"Planes, Trains & Automobiles" | |
| | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| Re: Yawn... said by jslik :Now it's "well, we've seen more deployments", which would have happened anyway. If that is the case then why weren't these services deployed prior to franchise elimination?
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
| | | |
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:
| Re: Yawn... said by pnh102 :If that is the case then why weren't these services deployed prior to franchise elimination? Because, as I note below, the telcos had/have to play a massive game of catch-up, and wanted as little government regulation as possible. Remember, there was a big push for federal reform before most of these statewide moves.
--
If they told you wolverines would make good house pets, would you believe them?
-"Planes, Trains & Automobiles" | |
| | 
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by pnh102 :As for public access channels, who really cares about these anyway? In our town PEG has been rather popular. Hard to nail down actual viewer ratings but we do get phone calls/email when something goes wrong. So someone is watching.
In addition to that the local library does a pretty brisk business with DVDs of various town and school board meetings.
/tom | |
| | 
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| said by pnh102 :As for public access channels, who really cares about these anyway? I'd rather have my cable provider spend my subscription money on getting more HD channels instead of wasting it on things that most people don't even watch. When we did our impact survey in Iowa City, 85% of cable subscribers watched PEG channels on a regular basis. HD penetration was less than 1/3 of that number.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
| | | 
pleeeaaaaassseee
@dslextreme.com | Re: It's a simple axiom, customers get double-teamed As i see it you're playing right into their hands with what you're using right now, stop complaining | |
| | | 
Skeedatl
Ah, push it - push it real good
Premium
join:2007-12-26
The Cloud | Re: It's a simple axiom, customers get double-teamed Another graduate Magna Non-Sequitur. | |
| |
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:
| said by Skeedatl :These local gov't thieves took a good thing and abused it. Now the power swings the other way (toward the State...purchased by cable and telcos) where there is little to no local control. You really think that if local government hadn't 'abused' franchising that we wouldn't be in the same place today?
--
If they told you wolverines would make good house pets, would you believe them?
-"Planes, Trains & Automobiles" | |
| | |
Skeedatl
Ah, push it - push it real good
Premium
join:2007-12-26
The Cloud | Re: It's a simple axiom, customers get double-teamed No, I don't. Eventually maybe, but I really don't think it would have been so soon. | |
| | | |
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:
| Re: It's a simple axiom, customers get double-teamed said by Skeedatl :No, I don't. Eventually maybe, but I really don't think it would have been so soon. Well, respectfully, I disagree. The telcos have been sitting on their rears for years and when they finally saw the light on the need to deploy these new networks, they needed to get government help for their lack of foresight, so here we are. What federal/state/local government did or didn't do wasn't the issue.
--
If they told you wolverines would make good house pets, would you believe them?
-"Planes, Trains & Automobiles" | |
| |
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by Skeedatl : These local gov't thieves took a good thing and abused it. Now the power swings the other way (toward the State...purchased by cable and telcos) where there is little to no local control. I'm curious, how have local government franchise agreements been abused? From a technology perspective at some point they will be rendered obsolete because content agitator will no longer need a physical presence in the community. Having said that agreements are fairly standard allocating several channels for municipal use and turning over a small percentage of revenue to local government.
If I understand the article it say rates have gone up where State took control over franchise contracts. That seems at odds with your post.
/tom | |
| | |
Skeedatl
Ah, push it - push it real good
Premium
join:2007-12-26
The Cloud
·Cox HSI
·MegaPath
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Cox VOIP
·Verizon west (ex G..
·ViaTalk
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
edit:
July 8th, @05:35PM
| Re: It's a simple axiom, customers get double-teamed In my area Fountain Valley, CA tried to force Verizon to build a park among other bullshit (basically give us X, Y and Z which have zero to do with your service or you get no franchise). So while Huntington Beach, parts of Costa Mesa (served by VZ), Westminster, Garden Grove and most other area cities serviced by VZ got FiOS, FV didn't. City got greedy, potential subs stuck with RR got screwed.
Once we had statewide franchise video, VZ was able to deploy without having to pay the blackmail money.
In terms of Verizon, rates have gone up everywhere. | |
| | | |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: It's a simple axiom, customers get double-teamed said by Skeedatl :In my area Fountain Valley, CA tried to force Verizon to build a park among other bullshit (basically give us X, Y and Z which have zero to do with your service or you get no franchise). So while Huntington Beach, parts of Costa Mesa (served by VZ), Westminster, Garden Grove and most other area cities serviced by VZ got FiOS, FV didn't. City got greedy, potential subs stuck with RR got screwed. Funny, there is no mention of a park anywhere in the relevant government minutes for Fountain Valley. In fact, there is no proposed amendment at all for a Verizon franchise agreement (Since, according to the Fountain Valley website, their franchise agreements are jointly negotiated with Huntington Beach, Westminster, and Stanton.)
Just how long ago was this, since the minutes do only go back to 2005?
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
| | | | |
Skeedatl
Ah, push it - push it real good
Premium
join:2007-12-26
The Cloud
·Cox HSI
·MegaPath
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·Verizon west (ex G..
·ViaTalk
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
edit:
July 9th, @12:12AM
| Re: It's a simple axiom, customers get double-teamed I dunno the date exactly. I remember reading about it in the OC Register (our largest local newspaper) and it was the city's demands for unrelated services that delayed deployment according to The Register. The article was written in reference to the statewide franchise law that was being passed or ruled on at the time. It has stuck with me 'cause it pissed me off so much.
We've had FiOS in the area for years, but I don't remember what year I read the item. I think in was 2006-2007 but that's really a guess. It certainly wasn't recently (eg last 6 months).
I believe H.B. started seeing FiOS deployment in 2004 right after Keller, TX got theirs 'cause my brother who lives in H.B. got his service in early 2005. So if FV and HB were negotiating at the same time it would have had to be 2002-2003 and that would have been for HSI only as VZ didn't have a video product yet.
Video agreements weren't done for a few years after and around here Beaumont, CA (about 60mi inland) was the first to get their franchise deal closed followed I think by Murrietta, CA. The Beaumont deal was a traditional VZ-City agreement. HB, FV, Garden Grove, Westminster and the other Orange County cities I think only got their video services in 2007 after the passage of the Statewide video franchise law...but don't quote me on that. If memory serves HB and FV along with the rest of the VZ areas here got their FiOSTV service turned up the same day in March 2007...it was something like that 'cause it was around my brother's 3/16 b-day. I'm thinking that the video deal came from the statewide franchise law because prior to that each franchise had to be petitioned individually so cities would be turned up individually like Beaumont, CA was...not all at once like what happened on Orange County.
I don't live in FV so I didn't attend any council meetings and don't know anyone who lives there. I live in Laguna HIlls (AT&T/Cox) and my business is in Huntington Beach (VZ/TWC). My knowledge of this comes solely from recollection of this single article in our local paper.
I do know first hand that FV was VERY late in getting FiOS (compared to other local cities) because I saw the construction and that the city still doesn't have full deployment.
EDIT - I searched the OC Register website and couldn't find the article I read that mentioned the park but I found a blog at the OC Register mentioning that VZ had problems trying to get franchise agreements in OC until the statewide agreement passed. It also mentioned that all the OC cities got turned up for video the same day. »gadgetress.freedomblogging.com/v···s-in-oc/ | |
| Shoreline
Your Freedom Fries Are Stale
join:2003-09-29
Santa Clara, CA
| Keeping my money away from TV .. until they go to the logical a la carte subscriptions.
If it means never, so long cable TV. I have plenty of DVDs and an internet connection which I can find stuff I want to watch, in some cases porting to my television, rather than being forced to pay for shit I don't ever watch. | |
| garmst
join:2000-09-17
New York, NY
| What's the fuss? Where is the surprise with prices? The content providers (Hollywood) are pushing up the prices of the content as high and as fast as they can. Costs of providing the programs drive up end users prices. No surprise here. VZ won't get any better deals than cable.
Plus VZ and ATT are spending cash like crazy to build the new network. This stuff ain't free. Gotta pay Cisco's bill.
Local channels suck. There disappearance is an improvement. Darwin says: Go extinct!
Community improvement? How about the community pay for it themselves. I'm personally tired of Gov sucking a buck out of every nook and cranny to hide from the taxpayer and voter.
I'm about close to dropping cable for a month or two to see what life would be without it. With Netflix and Internet media I might now miss it too much. | |
| | 
N3OGH
It's Biden Vs. the Biscuit. Sarah's hot
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: What's the fuss? said by garmst :Where is the surprise with prices? The content providers(Hollywood) sports content providers are pushing up the prices of the content as high and as fast as they can. Costs of providing the programs drive up end users prices. No surprise here. VZ won't get any better deals than cable. If I didn't have to pay for ESPN, ESPN2, Comcast SportsNet, etc my bill would be considerably less.
Hey, I like a ball game as much as the next guy, but if I want to see it, I buy a ticket and pay for it.
With the price they charge the cable co, ESPN should be a PREMIUM channel by now...
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… | |
| | 
MrMoody
Beleaguered Middle Class
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC
·Embarq
| said by garmst :The content providers (Hollywood) are pushing up the prices of the content as high and as fast as they can. Costs of providing the programs drive up end users prices. No surprise here. VZ won't get any better deals than cable. No, in fact they probably get a worse deal than the bigger cable companies. Then when everybody drops their cable for some cheaper alternative entertainment, the networks will blame the loss of revenue on piracy, in a repeat of the music industry's decline.
I'm about close to dropping cable for a month or two to see what life would be without it. With Netflix and Internet media I might now miss it too much.
If you can get digital broadcast and you're like me, you won't miss it at all. I've been cable free for a year and a half.
--
The public is a poor business manager. | |
| b10010011
Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA | Well, what did you think would happen?   | |
| 
Old_Grouch
Today is not your day
Premium
join:2004-05-26
Greenwood, IN
clubs:
·AT&T Midwest
| Oh DUH Everyone who is surprised may step to the last table on the left.
Most jurisdictions that I have watched have been mere imitations of each other. Telco claims nirvana of lower rates and competition while cable claims infringement on protected territory and erosion of income by unfair competition.
When the dust settles, telco gets what it wants and cable gets in line immediately behind them to sign-up for single franchise authority. Everybody who "serves" got what they wanted and everybody who "buys" got what the servers wanted.
And the politicians - - well, they got shelter for only following the mantra of benefit to the consumer. Mean while, the sellers (uh, through PACs of course) pour more and more dollars into campaign accounts. Surprise you to learn that at&t's PAC in Indiana has given $10-20,000 to the reelection campaign of the governor who led the charge for single-franchise legislation in Indiana?
Consumers will have equal treatment when we make the same contributions. Never mind that companies don't vote and people do...it's the money that talks and all else walks.
--
At Team Discovery we know how to get more outta that danged 'puter of yours!
If you paid taxes it's a rebate. If you didn't, it's welfare. | |
| tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY | want lower prices? unsubscribe. plain and simple economics... if the company doesn't have customers.. they will have to lower the price to meet customer demand for lower prices or go out of business.
a nice deep, & dark recession will do that nicely in short order. | |
| | hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
| Re: want lower prices? yep get a bunch of people to do that to the point where the company is actually letting employees go. Then you can thank yourself for all the people that would end up on Government benefits due to they have no job to support their family.
That's real smart. | |
| | |
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: want lower prices? said by hottboiinnc :That's real smart. Isn't that how Capitalism is supposed to work? Provide products customers want at price point they are willing to pay?
/tom | |
| | | | hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH | Re: want lower prices? well look out Government programs then because everyone is signing up because phones, cabletv, Sat Dish, internet, cell phones and everything else just became free. we're all unemployed right now | |
| cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA
| the rate hikes... first off, i'm not for rate hikes. i always wonder when cable companies say something to the effect of 'your getting more for your money', but the only changes i see that the balance in my bank account seems smaller. i suppose you do get more for your money if you use every feature and get some huge package, but if you just get basic cable TV, the 'value' has been the same for many years.
has anyone actually took a good look at the rate hikes? are the rate hikes keep pace with inflation or are they exceeding the inflation rate? are the content producers increasing their rates and the cable companies just passing the cost along? | |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | An Oligopoly is not free market competition. While 2 big players is better then one monopoly player, it's hardly free market competition. They basically price virtually the same and keep offerings and bundles the same.
And increase prices regularly, as if in collusion. | |
| dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| Not exactly a credible survey now is it? The survey, which included 140 public access center officials from 18 states where cable is no longer locally regulated... That's about the only important part of the article.
Gee, they couldn't be biased in any way, could they? I guess the opinion of special interest groups that just so happens to support their financial interests is only credible when it counters that of the Big Evil Corporations. | |
| | | | |
|
|
·
Shocked?
