Cable rates are rising, but don't blame your provider - entirely [telecom]

Cable rates are rising, but don't blame your provider - entirely

By Johnny Diaz Globe Staff / June 5, 2011

Cable subscribers in Boston are fuming about rising bills, and many blame what they see as Comcast Corp.'s virtual monopoly in the city.

The renewed focus on cable prices has come as Mayor Thomas M. Menino, outraged by a recent 19 percent jump in the charge for basic cable, or the lowest service tier, petitioned the Federal Communications Commission to give the city the power to determine basic cable rates, now $15.80. That's about double the cost in communities that already set those rates.

But since few households settle for basic cable, essentially limited to local broadcast stations and community access channels, the authority to set these rates would have little effect on the vast majority of subscribers, who purchase more extensive packages of cable and premium channels. In Boston, only 15,000 of the city's

170,000 customers have basic service: The average cable bill in Boston is $65 a month, up from $62 last year, and $58 in 2009, according to the city.

For most subscribers, the biggest driver of these rising cable bills is the increased cost of programming - the result, ironically, of competition with satellite companies, Internet TV, movie rental providers, and Verizon Corp.'s FiOS network, analysts said. As these services bid for programming, sports, entertainment, and local channels demand - and receive - higher fees from cable companies, which ultimately get passed on to consumers.

...

formatting link

***** Moderator's Note *****

Comcrap is the most arrogant, intractable, intransigent, and incompetent telephone service provider in the world: I know, because I had the misfortune of paying them for telephone service years ago.

Having said that, I'll also say that cable TV viewers who don't cancel overpriced or substandard television offerings get little sympathy from me: it's an entertainment service, not a food or fuel monopoly, so nobody is forced to put up with prices they find inconvenient.

Just tell Mayor Menino that he's a pretentious blow-hard, and organize a boycott of Comcast: they'll get the message. Better yet, turn it off, get a library card, and read a book.

Bill Horne Moderator

Reply to
Monty Solomon
Loading thread data ...

Telecom Digest Moderator wrote: ..

That isn't going to happen.

Perhaps going to Dish or Direct is the answer.

***** Moderator's Note *****

If it doesn't happen for others, they get to bear the consequences. You have your own choice.

Bill Horne Moderator

Reply to
Sam Spade

You missed the whole point of the original Boston.com article. Going to Dish or DirecTV is simply a switch from one retailer to another. The point of the article (and my post a few hours after yours) is to point out the effect of monopoly situation at the WHOLESALE level.

If Walmart wants to sell TV sets or cabbages or shoes at retail, it can choose among wholesalers, and negotiate prices based on its market power in the retail marketplace. It can use its market power to force wholesalers to compete for its business. Furthermore, it can choose to purchase, or not purchase, other products from the same wholesalers. Walmart's competitors are free to make the same choices.

But if Comcast wants to sell (carry) the signal of WFXT (the Fox affiliate in the Boston DMA), at retail, it has one choice: News Corporation. News Corp has the market power to demand whatever it wishes. It has the power to force Comcast to carry, and pay for, other News Corp products such as FX, Fox News, Fox Sports, and WZMY-TV (the MyNetworkTV affiliate in the Boston DMA) as part of the deal. The fact that Comcast has competitors (Dish and DirecTV) *increases* News Corp's market power. And, of course, Dish and DirecTV face the same situation in their negotiations with News Corp.

What choice? WFXT from Comcast, WFXT from Dish, or WFXT from DirecTV? No matter which you choose, News Corp still gets its pound of flesh.

Now I realize, of course, that you could receive WFXT off the air for free and without being forced to pay for Fox News, Fox Sports, Fox Whatever. Good for you! But be sure to thank all those Comcast, Dish, and DirecTV subscribers that are subsidizing you. That's why it's called "consumer protection"!

Neal McLain

***** Moderator's Note *****

"What choice?"? The choice to not watch it, of course.

I've written about the evils of television in this and other forums, and my views haven't changed. If you want to believe that the Tall White Guy *should* make all the decisions, that's *your* choice. I don't care what WFXT-TV broadcasts, or what Comcrap pays to relay the ooze from one screen to another, because I don't watch it.

Bill Horne Moderator

Reply to
Neal McLain

Telecom Digest Moderator wrote: ..

That isn't going to happen.

Perhaps going to Dish or Direct is the answer.

***** Moderator's Note *****

If it doesn't happen for others, they get to bear the consequences. You have your own choice.

Bill Horne Moderator

I don't think cable TV is entirely a luxury, nor can the problem of the rising price of this service to consumers due to monopolistic practices by cable providers be solved as easily as consumers canceling their service and "getting a book" (not that that's a bad idea!). Personally I have done exactly that - I've not had cable, due to the ridiculously high prices and the monopolistic practices of Time Warner Cable, for over 8 years. When really bored, there is of course, Hulu.

What I have come to appreciate over this time is that I am missing some amount of important social continuity with most other people. Even things that seem utterly bereft of value, such as commercials, can facilitate social bonding when one talks with others. I also miss information that one picks up casually when the TV is on, such as local news items (even though news is available online of course), and things you see simply by flipping the dial - sports scores that I would never look for, new (bad) shows, new formats. Example: I missed the Royal Wedding and while I am no Royal follower, it certainly was world news and an event that people talked about ,and it would have been amusing to have had it on at 4am along with much of the world as the silliness of it played out.

What I am trying to say is that while cable offers a stream of mostly inane information, that stream can have a function beyond entertainment and offers content that people often use to bond socially. Being out of that loop can be surprisingly somewhat isolating.

So keeping the price reasonable for consumers instead of gouging them is, I think, important. Most consumers do not want to be left out in this way, and this social function of cable TV cannot be replaced by a book, alas. IMHO, OC!

--Regina

Reply to
Regina_R_Monaco

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.