Additional details about Time Warner Cable’s new TV Essentials package, which provides a more limited cable TV lineup to viewers are making their way to Stop the Cap!

So far, Wall Street appears generally unimpressed with Time Warner’s efforts to retain customers planning to depart the cable company over cost issues.  Richard Greenfield of BTIG says consumers have to give up too much to subscribe to a package that deletes many of America’s most popular basic cable networks and delivers no HD programming.

The package seems to alienate every age group.  Stop the Cap! confirmed Time Warner Cable made most of the decisions about the channel lineup themselves, and although some networks are insistent about not being excluded from such packages, many of the decisions about what channels to leave out were made by the cable company.  For example, younger viewers will miss Comedy Central despite the fact the network is hardly the most expensive basic cable channel around, and nothing prevented them from carrying it.  We’ve also learned the Essentials package deletes several more channels some consumers will consider deal-breakers to lose.  We’ve confirmed in Ohio, customers will have to give up Food Network and The Weather Channel.  No Ms. Palin’s Alaska either — TLC is also off the channel lineup.

We’ve learned from a few of our readers in Akron and Cleveland who inquired about the new package that Time Warner told them they cannot continue to get phone or Internet service with the Essentials package on their account.  We earlier heard customers were supposed to be excluded from promotional deals for these services, not banned from buying them at any price.  We’re trying to get a confirmation from Time Warner’s northeast Ohio division about this, and suspect there might be some mis-communication going on here.

Greenfield adds Time Warner is offering a lousy deal to budget-minded consumers.

“Cable subscribers looking to save money have already defected to Dish Network’s $40 package called America’s Top 120, which is better than TV Essentials,” he noted.

Meanwhile, residents in upstate New York — watch out.  Time Warner Cable is finalizing its decisions about 2011 rate increases which are likely to be announced in mailers sent just after the holidays.  A source tells Stop the Cap! the rate increases will echo the ones in North Carolina.  The biggest rate increases will hit customers only getting one or two services from the cable company.  Video customers can expect the largest increases.  Phone rates will likely remain unchanged for most.

Customers will be encouraged to avoid the rate increases by bundling services.  Time Warner Cable raised rates on western New York customers three times in 2010 for different services.  This rate increase, likely effective in February, will be similar in percentage to the one announced last winter.  The company will blame programming costs and also use the introduction of several new services, including Primetime on Demand, Look Back, and Remote DVR as  justification for the rate hikes.

We’ll have much more coverage on this in late December.

You can preview the excuses for forthcoming rate hikes from Time Warner Cable by listening to a company representative in North Carolina deliver them to customers there, who will see their rates increase Dec. 3rd (from WFMY-TV Greensboro).  (2 minutes)

Studies find few surprises for cable and phone companies that pay for them.

Internet plans with term contracts, usage limits, and other pricing tricks are good for consumers and save them money over comparable unlimited usage plans.

That is the conclusion of a new study from the Technology Policy Institute, an industry front group funded by AT&T, Comcast, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, Qwest, Time Warner Cable, T-Mobile, and Verizon.

Scott Wallsten and James Riso’s “study,”Residential and Business Broadband Prices, Part 1: An Empirical Analysis of Metering and Other Price Determinants,” claims to have taken a comprehensive look at 25,000 plans offered across North America, Europe and the Pacific to make their case that a residential service plan with a 10GB monthly usage cap would save consumers 27 percent over the price of a comparable unlimited plan, as long as data use stays below the cap.  They also suggest additional savings can be had if consumers lock themselves into term contracts with service providers (most of which carry hefty fees to exit early.)

These results suggest that the unlimited data plans typically offered by most U.S. wireline broadband providers may not be optimal for many consumers. The details of capped plans matter, and how an individual user is affected depends on the base price, allowed data usage, and consequences for exceeding the cap. Nevertheless, because capped plans are—all else equal—cheaper than unlimited plans, many consumers, particularly the low-volume users, are likely to pay less for broadband with data caps than they would for plans offering unlimited data transfer.

Wallsten and Riso make much of AT&T’s recent decision to end unlimited usage for wireless broadband, suggesting that consumers are saving money with new, low-use plans over the company’s old unlimited pricing.  The authors claim close to 70 percent of iPhone users consume less than 200 MB per month, which is the cap for AT&T’s cheaper data plan.

But the authors concede that usage is growing — rapidly in the case of online video, which sets the stage for consumers saving money today, but facing serious overlimit charges on their bills tomorrow:

Some analysts, however, remain concerned that these plans make video streaming impractical given the bandwidth it consumes, could eventually cost consumers more as they use their wireless devices more intensively, and generally make it less likely for wireless to become a viable substitute for wireline broadband. To be sure, while Figure 3 shows that the vast majority of users consume small amounts of data today, it also shows per user mobile data consumption growing quickly, so the number of people who exceed the caps could increase significantly in a relatively short period of time.

Major U.S. wireline providers have not yet introduced metered pricing successfully, though, as shown above, it is common in other countries. An experimental metered pricing plan by Time Warner Cable garnered strong reaction, prompting one group to demand that Congress ―investigate ongoing metered pricing practices to determine the impact on consumers. Some in Congress did, in fact, hold hearings on the plans. In response to this backlash, Time Warner Cable canceled its experiment.

Despite the political reaction, all consumers are not inherently worse off or better off with metered pricing. Low-volume users are likely to be better off under metered plans and high volume users worse off. The net effect on any given consumer depends on his data use, the base price, how much data the base price allows, the price of data when exceeding the cap, and how much he would have paid for an unlimited plan.

Wallsten and Riso also admit several parts of their study are “incomplete,” and “lack data.” We would also include the facts they ignored whether consumers prefer unlimited plans, how customers would feel about a bill with overlimit fees attached, or whether the usage cap levels the authors note in their study are adequate.  They also completely ignore the critical issue of bandwidth cost trends and their relationship to consumer pricing.

But of course they would, considering the same providers who want these pricing schemes are paying the costs for the study.

Welcome to the world of Hired Gun Research.

Wallsten, in particular, has been singing the same cap-happy tune for several years now, churning out the same industry-financed conclusions about broadband.  Back in 2007, he delivered a piece trumpeted by the Progress & Freedom Foundation and the Heartland Institute — two groups notorious for parroting corporate-friendly talking points.  Back then it was about Internet overloads and supporting Internet toll booths for “congestion pricing” after Comcast got caught secretly throttling broadband customer speeds.

Dave Burstein of DSL Prime notes most consumers don’t like caps, lock-in contracts, or speed throttles.

“Policymakers should normally assume that imposing caps generally results in negative consumer welfare. The small efficiency gains don’t come close to making up for a second rate Internet,” Burstein writes. “Everyone is better off with a robust, unthrottled Internet. It allows for an important form of video competition and market access for innovative new net offerings. It’s a better experience for the user and hence more people will be connected, a good thing.”

In this latest study, the two authors completely ignore some very important facts:

• Who sets the pricing for unlimited and usage-capped broadband?  Providers.  Do consumers save money from usage limited plans because of decreased provider costs passed along to consumers or pricing schemes that artificially inflate unlimited broadband pricing to drive customers to “money-saving” limited plans that teach usage restraint or expose consumers to dramatic overlimit fees?

• What are the trends for wholesale bandwidth costs and how does that trend comport with industry pricing schemes that have increased broadband pricing in the United States?  An honest study would reflect these costs are dropping… dramatically, and would introduce the very real question of whether unlimited broadband is a problem in search of a revenue-generating solution that would come from further monetizing broadband with so-called “consumption pricing.”

• What is the consumer perception of usage-limited broadband?  An important part of this equation is whether consumers want unlimited broadband service to be discontinued.  Every study to date not paid for by the providers themselves shows consumers are willing to pay today’s prices for the peace of mind they receive in not being exposed to limits or overlimit fees.  Wallsten and Riso touched on the consumer backlash, to a considerable part coordinated by Stop the Cap!, over Time Warner’s pricing scheme which would have tripled broadband pricing for an equivalent level of service.  But the authors charge on with their pro-cap conclusions regardless.

• Wallsten and Riso’s study only casually mentions the dramatically different paradigms of wireless and wireline broadband.  The former is delivered using technology that is recognized to have limitations that can only be seriously addressed with additional spectrum allocation that could take years to address.  The latter is already being mitigated by cable broadband technology upgrades, fiber optics, and improved backbone connections that often deliver much better access at a fraction of the price providers paid just a few years earlier.  Drawing comparisons between AT&T’s wireless broadband pricing and wireline broadband is dubious at best, especially since two companies largely control pricing and service for the majority of wireless customers in the United States.

• To prove its contention limited broadband service is “common in other countries,” the authors cite a Frequently Asked Questions article by Comcast trying to justify that company’s own usage cap to its customers.  So because Comcast’s PR department says it, it must be true.  In fact, in countries where usage capped broadband has been a traditional problem, consumer demand and public policy efforts have moved providers towards offering unlimited service plans to meet popular demand.  In fact, in countries like Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, governments have cited usage caps as a serious disadvantage to growth of the digital economy.  Consumers certainly agree.

Burstein adds:

Caps or other throttling measures are almost never imposed because of actual congestion problems (on large, wired networks.)  The caps would be at far higher levels if they were, like Comcast’s 250 gigabytes. The usual explanation is bogus. The typical consumer advocate believes the caps are about preventing competition to the carriers’ own video package. That’s certainly common, but so is price discrimination to yield increased potential revenues. As Scott notes, price discrimination in a strongly competitive market can work out well for all concerned. With strong competition, the benefits flow through to consumers. Since competition in broadband is typically weak, I believe it far more often has little consumer benefit but is good for company profits.

The authors conclude that despite limitations on data available, “The policy implications, however, are clear.  Policymakers should not immediately conclude that data caps and other pricing schemes that differ from traditional unlimited plans are necessarily bad.”  Instead, the authors suggest pricing trends should be evaluated over time to identify the effects on prices, investment and usage.

Although that’s a point Burstein agrees with, we feel there is substantial evidence this debate is based not on experimental pricing to find new customers, but rather a defensive position to respond to an inevitable public backlash against Internet Overcharging schemes.  Providers are desperately looking for excuses to further monetize broadband, cut costs, and deliver an effective impediment to online video competitors using broadband networks to deliver alternative, less expensive services to consumers.

Policymakers should listen to their constituents, who are more than comfortable with today’s unlimited broadband experience.  Nobody objects to experimental low usage plans with discount pricing, but not at the expense of ending or repricing existing unlimited service into the stratosphere.  Today’s broadband industry earns billions in annual profits, even as their costs decline.  Providers have done considerable profit-taking in the last few years from their broadband divisions, slashing upgrades and other investments to keep pace with traffic demands.

Time Warner Cable is among the first cable companies in the country to recognize there is still a Great Recession for many of their middle class customers.  After major cable companies lost more video subscribers than they gained for the last two quarters in a row — a first — the nation’s second largest cable operator has developed a budget-minded basic package to meet new economic realities.

Time Warner Cable’s TV Essentials Package will deliver about 50 channels of basic networks and local broadcasters to subscribers in two test markets starting Monday — New York City and northeastern Ohio around the cities of Akron and Cleveland.  New York residents will pay $39.95 for the package, $29.95 in Ohio.  But both packages will be sold to customers for only one year as a special promotion and are missing many popular networks.  Despite that, Time Warner Cable spokeswoman Maureen Huff says the packages represent significant savings for consumers.  The retail value of the package is $50 per month.  Several cable analysts suspect the package is revenue neutral for Time Warner, which hopes to hold onto customers and put them back on traditional cable packages as economic conditions improve.

But for those contemplating Essentials, compromising over the likely loss of several networks is required.  Sports fans in particular will need to look elsewhere — all of the expensive basic cable sports networks, including ESPN and MSG are not included.  News junkies will have to live with several C-SPAN networks, CNN and Headline News.  Fox News and MSNBC are excluded.  Several Viacom-owned cable networks are also not covered, notably Comedy Central.  TNT isn’t either.

In fact, no HD networks of any kind are provided, free video on demand is not included, and customers will be banned from obtaining DVR equipment to record shows for later viewing.  Also, customers participating in this promotion are prohibited from receiving any other discounts from the cable company for broadband or phone service, so it is narrowly tailored to appear only to current analog basic/standard service customers.

Although Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt said, “the public would like to have more choice and have the option of paying for less programming,” it’s clear the cable company has also developed the package in a way to protect its more expensive Standard Service from being cannibalized by customers looking to save money.  The lack of HD programming and DVR availability, in particular, will deliver a clear message to many subscribers the package involves uncomfortable sacrifices.

Some of the networks dropped from the Essentials package are not even that costly to Time Warner Cable.  Comedy Central and MSNBC are much cheaper than other networks in the package.  The loss of the former is likely to keep younger households unhappy, and Time Warner would likely have been accused of bias had it included MSNBC’s left leaning nighttime lineup while excluding right-wing Fox News (which is more expensive than CNN and MSNBC combined).

Everything about the Essentials package screams “retention offer” — marketed quietly to customers intending to depart from the cable company for economic reasons.  With 2011 rate increases forthcoming, it is logical this type of package will be offered as a last resort.  But don’t expect Time Warner to heavily advertise it to current customers, where it could trigger a downgrade avalanche.

Don’t want blazing fast fiber optic broadband speeds?  Unhappy with fiber optic quality video and want to go back to putting a satellite dish on your roof?  If the answer to either question is “yes,” Frontier Communications has good news for you.

The phone company, which assumed control of a handful of communities formerly served by Verizon’s fiber-to-the-home FiOS network, has announced it will begin marketing DSL and satellite TV services to its fiber customers.

Frontier CEO Maggie Wilderotter told investors on a third quarter results conference call that FiOS broadband could be too expensive.

Wilderotter noted Verizon would not allow customers in a FiOS neighborhood to buy DSL service, which leaves budget-minded customers behind.

“Now, FiOS starts at like 50Mbps and it’s very expensive. It’s like $50 a month for a customer. So they left a whole host of customers behind from an affordability perspective who didn’t need that kind of capability on broadband.” Wilderotter explained. “We have just over the last 30 to 60 days opened up DSL in all of the FiOS markets to give the customer choice. So the customer can choose whether they want FiOS broadband or they want high-speed Internet service, typically, and in those markets we’re offering around 6 to 7Mbps.”

Time Warner Cable occasionally runs promotions helping customers break free from Frontier's multi-year service contracts.

Of course, Frontier FiOS starts at 15Mbps — not 50, and that costs $50 a month for standalone service.  For $99, ($89 in Verizon FiOS areas), customers can get broadband, cable TV and unlimited phone service.  Frontier’s “Turbo” DSL service is priced at $40 a month for up to 7.1Mbps service.

Wilderotter also noted their FiOS customers can also choose to skip fiber video and go with DirecTV.

“We think that customers should be able to choose what kind of video they want,” she said. “We have aggressive offers in the market for both DirecTV and for FiOS video, but in our vernacular, what we care about is keeping the customer, getting the customer to take more products and services from us and making sure the customer is happy with the choice.”

Wilderotter said Frontier is prepared to tolerate more congestion on its DSL circuits than Verizon permitted, which opens the door to potential traffic slow-downs down the road.

“We’ve opened up in many of these locations the opportunity to sell high-speed service up to 95% capacity on the equipment that we have out in the field. Verizon had set a parameter at 75%,” Wilderotter said.

The company continues to study whether Frontier FiOS is worth maintaining or expanding outside of the Verizon territories where it was originally constructed.

“We are still evaluating it from a financial perspective and a customer perspective, and from a cost perspective and a revenue perspective,” Wilderotter told investors. “In terms of what that does for us overall, what it does for churn, how much does it really cost to extend this capability in the markets that we’re in today — we think that analysis and evaluation will go on through the first quarter [of 2011] and then we’ll be able to make some [decisions] in terms of what we want to do with FiOS from an expansion perspective or a maintenance perspective.”

Frontier Communications CEO Maggie Wilderotter answered questions about broadband expansion and the impact of the fall elections on telecommunications policy in Washington. (11 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Frontier's largely rural service areas provide a captive audience for the company's DSL broadband service.

In the near term Frontier has several plans to get more aggressive in the marketplace to meet its target goal of losing only 8 percent of their customers per year — a goal that illustrates legacy phone companies are still on a trajectory towards fewer and fewer customers:

1. Don Shassian, executive vice president and chief financial officer of Frontier reports expansion of DSL remains a top priority for Frontier.  The company is on track to deliver access to 300,000 additional homes by the end of the year.  Verizon delivered access to 64 percent of Frontier’s acquired territories.  Frontier wants to get that number up to 85 percent.  But part of that target is not just expanding service to unserved areas.  It’s also trying to win back customers lost to other providers through promotions and incentives.
2. Frontier plans to resume aggressive promotions in the coming weeks and months, including its “free Netbook” promotion, which provides a Netbook computer to new customers signing up for several packages of services, committing to remain with Frontier for at least two years.
3. Frontier intends to push “price protection agreements” on as many customers as possible.  Their “Peace of Mind” program locks customers into multi-year contracts with stiff cancellation penalties.  Wilderotter noted: “I think, as you know, in our legacy markets, 96% of all of our sales are on a price protection plan and we have close to 60% of our residential customers on a one-, two- or three-year price protection plans. That number is below 15% in the acquired markets. So we’re also driving for price protection plans with every sale that we’re doing in these new markets as well.”  Such contracts dramatically discourage a customer from disconnecting Frontier, because fees for doing so can exceed $300 in some cases.  Frontier has been heavily criticized by some customers and State Attorneys General for deceptive business practices regarding contracts.

Frontier continues to enjoy a lack of solid cable competition in its largely rural service areas.  Shassian reports Comcast competes with Frontier in only about 32% of homes in some areas, Time Warner Cable in about 23%, and Charter below 15%.  With reduced competition, Frontier often represents the only broadband option in town.

Frontier is also spending an increased amount of time coping with copper thefts, especially in West Virginia where the company is warning would-be thieves it will prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.

“Damage to our facilities can affect communications access in an emergency, increase company costs and consumer rates, and disrupt community phone and broadband connections,” said Lynne Monaco, Frontier’s Director of Security. “When network connections are severed by copper thieves, it endangers customers and emergency responders and poses significant risks of personal injury and property damage.”

Just last week, West Virginia state police solved another copper caper that disrupted service for some customers.

The Charleston Daily Mail reports:

Stephanie Burdette of Charleston was arrested in connection with a copper wire theft.

Trooper A.B. Ward from the South Charleston detachment went to the Fishers Branch area of Sissonville last Thursday afternoon when a Frontier worker discovered a section of the communications line missing. The worker found that 300-feet of the 400-pair line, valued at about $5,000, was missing, according to a complaint filed in Kanawha Magistrate Court.

A trooper who had worked on a similar investigation told Ward to check the home of Ervin “Tubby” Page, 49, where troopers had previously found evidence of wire burning. Ward went to Page’s home, described as a Goose Neck travel trailer parked next to the Guthrie Agricultural Center in Sissonville, and found three burn barrels about 50 feet in front of the trailer. One of them was on fire.

Page’s girlfriend Stephanie Marie Burdette, 25, of Cross Lanes, was at the scene when the trooper arrived. Ward spoke to her then checked out the barrels where he found aluminum wrap, which is used to cover the copper communications wiring, and pieces of copper cabling, the complaint said.

Frontier customers are encouraged to report any suspicious activity around telecommunications equipment and facilities by calling the company’s toll free security line 1-800-590-6605. Anyone witnessing a theft in progress should not confront the suspects but should immediately call 911 and then call Frontier. Vehicle and suspect descriptions are very useful. This is a community safety problem, and the cooperation of the public is critical.

WOWK-TV in Charleston covers Frontier’s difficulties with copper wire thieves across the state of West Virginia.  (1 minute)

BBC and ITV are out the door on FilmOn

FilmOn, the controversial online video service has quietly pulled most major British networks from their streaming service, creating a significant, and unexplained, gap in their service.

The company’s constantly-changing lineup has been a major source of frustration for many would-be subscribers.  What you see today may not be what you can still see tomorrow, and the loss of nearly 10 networks from the company’s $10 monthly service will no doubt anger paying customers.

No explanation was given about the sudden departure of the channels.

FilmOn has also been devoting time and attention to promoting new viewing options for iPad users and other owners of portable viewing devices.

But potential subscribers still face a very confusing assortment of packages which are not easily found on the website, and are not well explained — in many cases no description of what comes included with different packages is provided.

FilmOn continues to face lawsuits from broadcasters upset about being included on the service without their permission.

Mona Shaw - The "Comcast Hammer Lady"

Up to 60 percent of callers to America’s big telecom companies experience rage when their calls go unanswered, their problems go unresolved, or they literally cannot get past the language barrier of today’s outsourced customer service agents working half a world away.

Cable and phone companies are among the worst at delivering quality customer service, with Comcast in particular causing enough frustration to bring a Virginia woman into a local Comcast office armed with a hammer, smashing company computers to get attention.

Only credit card companies have a worse reputation.

A compilation of six different “Peggy” Ads from Discover Card lampoon poor customer service among many credit card companies (2 minutes)

Unconscious Comcast employee

“When we call, what we want is ‘yes’ — that’s it,” says Emily Yellin, author of the book Your Call Is (not that) Important to Us, chronicling corporate America’s quest for cheaper customer service, usually alienating customers along the way.

Too often, American hear “no” or nothing at all, thanks to customer service representatives that lack the authority to solve problems or simply don’t care.

For many years, customers either took it or left.  But the Internet has changed everything, allowing customers to take their complaints to a wider audience, often embarrassing bad acting companies and creating tremendous damage to corporate reputations along the way.

An infamous example was the case of the Comcast employee who literally fell asleep waiting more than an hour to talk to co-workers about a customer’s problem.  A video of the sleeping worker became an online sensation.

Women like Mona Shaw, dubbed the Comcast Hammer Lady, also come away as folk heroes when customers can relate to the level of frustration she experienced from a company that only cared if she was a few days late paying her cable bill.

Vinh Pham had enough trying to deal with Comcast’s impenetrable thicket of customer service confusion trying to get his broadband service from the cable company up and running again after it suddenly stopped working this past March.

I called Comcast and they gave me a really hard time. I was trying to figure out why my Internet was down, and they told me that I did not have Internet. They said my account only has TV, and that’s all I am being charged for.

This annoyed me because I ordered Internet + TV on a promotion price, not just TV, and I had called them to fix this mix up before.

The guy on the phone kept insisting that I was wrong and that I needed to upgrade to the “Triple Play” for $120. That annoyed me even more. I do not want your freaking Triple Play. Who the hell still uses landlines, let alone buy landlines through their cable company. Stop trying to sell me [something] I don’t want.

According to Pham, the Comcast representative accused him of stealing Internet service, which was the last straw for the California customer.  He asked to cancel all of his services.  Pham repeated his story to a customer retention agent and offered to share a copy of the Comcast technician’s installation work order, which showed he ordered and received Xfinity broadband service.

Evidently, Comcast did not correctly provision Pham’s account with the promotion he signed up for, and miles of red tape ensued trying to get his account updated accurately.  Each time the changes did not “take,” Pham’s Internet service would eventually stop working.

Customers using Pham's technique need to have a work order ID and account number to activate service

Pham then discovered Comcast customers could activate Xfinity broadband service themselves because the cable company provided open access to a web page intended for technicians installing service.  Pham simply entered his account number, the work order number from his receipt, and the MAC address on his cable modem, and his broadband service was back without navigating argumentative customer service agents.

Pham shared his find on his personal blog, walking existing Comcast customers step-by-step through the process he followed.

Now, months after the article was published, Comcast contacted the company that hosts Pham’s blog and demanded the entire blog be censored, accusing Pham of telling people how to steal Internet service.

Admittedly, Pham’s use of the phrase “free Comcast Internet” probably did not help, but a review of his technique makes it impossible for non-paying customers to simply activate service for nothing — a customer account number and work order number are required, and presumably Comcast won’t simply accept made-up numbers.

More importantly, Comcast’s efforts to censor one of their customers calls the cable company out for its “shoot customers first, ask questions later” policies.

It’s further evidence the cable giant cannot be trusted when it claims it will observe voluntary Net Neutrality protections against censoring Internet content.

The blowback from Comcast’s actions have provided the company a lesson in “the Streisand effect,” where companies trying to remove information from the Internet only draw bigger attention to the information they are desperate to remove.  Comcast’s censorship efforts have been made futile by hundreds of Internet users who learned of the company’s efforts.  They have republished the information from Pham’s blog, which currently remains intact.  Had the company simply (and quietly) password-protected their technician portal, nobody would have given it a second thought.  Now Comcast is in a bigger PR mess than they started with.

When cable giants like Comcast trample all over free speech (and their paying customers), it teaches a valuable lesson why giving them a chance to grow even larger through a merger with NBC-Universal is a dangerous mistake.

Comcast demands the removal of Pham's blog

Hulu Plus sent e-mail to its paying customers this morning informing them the price has dropped $2 per month for the premium service.

The new monthly price of $7.99 buys access to shows not available on Hulu’s free service — series like Law & Order: Special Victims Unit.

But paying subscribers may feel slightly victimized from a premium service that delivers the same number of commercials non-paying customers endure — a load that has been quietly increased in the past few months.

Existing customers paying the old $9.99 monthly price will be credited two dollars for each month they belonged to Hulu Plus.

In addition, Hulu Plus now offers a 1-week free trial for all new subscribers, so customers already paying for service will receive an additional $2 credit since the free trial wasn’t in place during the preview.

A referral program has also begun, giving two additional weeks of free service for every friend who signs up for Hulu Plus through an existing customer.

Earlier reports predicted Hulu Plus would see a 50 percent price drop.  Whether a two dollar discount is enough to ignite interest in the premium online video service is an open question.  Clearly, $10 a month was too much to ask, especially with commercials included.

Copper thieves looking for quick cash, typically to finance drug habits, continue to plague telecommunications companies who find their networks literally stripped as brazen thieves rip utility lines right off phone poles.  Although these thefts eventually cost cable, phone, and electric utility customers money in the form of higher bills, taxpayers are increasingly paying the price for copper thefts affecting wireless communications networks.

That’s because emergency responders are increasingly placing communications equipment at existing commercial cell sites and radio communications centers, and when those networks go down communities pick up the tab and argue about the bill later.

WSOC-TV in Charlotte visits Rock Hill to see how copper thefts are costing area taxpayers plenty.  (2 minutes)

Scrap copper wire - as good as gold

In Charlotte, N.C., copper thieves are targeting copper plates that can weigh up to 70 pounds used to ground cell and radio towers to protect them from lightning strikes.

Without them, towers and the equipment used to deliver service can be seriously damaged, leading to the loss of cell phone service and a county’s emergency radio system.  That can leave dispatchers unable to talk to police and firefighters.

Because of the importance of these communications systems, when plates go missing, York County taxpayers pick up the tab for replacing them.  That costs several thousand dollars every time the plates have to be replaced.

WSOC-TV in Charlotte noted while working on a story about the thefts, just one day after plates were replaced from one tower, they were stolen again.

New legislation designed to crack down on illicitly-obtained copper sold to recycling firms should have curtailed the ability for thieves to turn tons of copper into stacks of cash.  But despite new laws in states like California, legislation is only effective when it is enforced.  In northern California, budget cuts eliminated the one officer that devoted time and energy to stopping copper thefts in the Sacramento area.  A local television station went undercover and discovered the state might as well not even have a law, because they were able to obtain quick cash for copper… no questions, or ID, asked.

KOVR-TV in Sacramento went undercover and discovered the futility of copper theft legislation that is not enforced.  (5 minutes)

Time Warner Cable customers in North Carolina are getting rate hike letters from the cable company that foreshadows what other Time Warner Cable customers around the country can expect in the coming months.

For residents in Charlotte and the Triad region, Time Warner is boosting prices for unbundled customers an average of six percent, which will impact customers not on promotional plans or who are not locked into a “price protection agreement.”

The rate increases particularly target standalone service customers.  Those with the fewest services will pay the biggest increases.  Those who subscribe to cable, phone, and broadband service from the company will suffer the least.

A Time Warner Cable spokesman claimed the company is just passing on the cost of programming.

WXII-TV in Greensboro reported that for many customers already struggling with their bills, they don’t want to hear anything about a price hike.

“I think it’s ridiculous at this time with the economy — it’s hard to make it as it is,” one customer told the station.

“I wish there was a better option out there, but it’s about the only thing you can get,” said another viewer.

Time Warner has been developing pricing models that increasingly push customers towards bundled packages of services.  Standalone broadband service saw dramatic price increases in many areas in 2010, and the company’s most aggressive new customer promotions encourage customers to take all three of its services.

But broadband customers need not expose themselves to inflated broadband prices for standalone service.  Most Time Warner Cable franchises offer Earthlink broadband at comparable speeds at prices as low as $29.95 per month for the first six months.  When the promotion expires, customers can switch back to Road Runner at Time Warner’s promotional price.

Time Warner does face competition in some areas of North Carolina from AT&T U-verse, which offers attractive promotional pricing for new customers.  But the phone company’s broadband speeds come up short after Time Warner boosted speeds across much of the state.  The cable company now delivers Road Runner at speeds of up to 50/5Mbps.  AT&T tops out at 24Mbps, and not in every area.

When a competitor can’t deliver the fastest speeds, they inevitably claim consumers don’t want or care about super-fast broadband.

“We are focused on offering the broadband speeds that our customers need, at a price that they can afford,” said AT&T spokeswoman Gretchen Schultz.

Greenlight promotes its local connection to Wilson residents

Some North Carolina consumers are watching AT&T’s slower speeds and Time Warner’s price hikes from the sidelines, because they are signed up with municipal competitors.

Residents in Wilson with Greenlight service from the city don’t have to sign a contract to get the best prices and obtain service run and maintained by Wilson-area employees. The provider has embarked on a campaign to remind residents that money spent on the city-owned provider stays in the city.

In Salisbury, Fibrant is making headway against incumbent Time Warner as it works through a waiting list for customers anxious to cut Time Warner’s cable for good.  Fibrant customers are assured they’ll always get the fastest possible service in town on a network capable of delivering up to 1Gbps to businesses -and- residents.

MI-Connection, the rebuilt former Adelphia cable system now owned by a group of local municipalities is managing to keep up with Time Warner with its own top broadband speeds of 20/2Mbps.  The system is comparable to a traditional cable operator and does not provide fiber to the home service.  Its 15,000 customers in Mooresville, Cornelius and Davidson are likely to stay with the system, but it is vulnerable to Time Warner’s bragging rights made possible from DOCSIS 3 upgrades.  Since Time Warner does not provide service in most of MI-Connection’s service area, city officials don’t face an exodus of departing customers.

But that could eventually change.  Some MI-Connection customers have reported to Stop the Cap! they have begun to receive promotional literature from Time Warner Cable for the first time, and there are growing questions whether the cable company may plan to invade some of MI-Connection’s more affluent service areas.  Cable companies generally refuse to compete with each other, but all bets are off when that cable company is owned by a local municipality.

For most North Carolina residents, AT&T will likely be the first wired competitor, with its U-verse system.  To date, U-verse has drawn mixed reviews from North Carolina consumers.  Many appreciate AT&T’s broadband network is currently less congested than Road Runner, and speeds promised are closer to reality on U-verse compared with Road Runner during the early evening.  But some AT&T customers are not thrilled being nickle-and-dimed for HD channels Time Warner bundles with its digital cable service at no additional charge.  And for households with a lot of users, AT&T can run short on bandwidth.

“We have five kids — three now teenagers, and between my husband’s Internet usage and me recording a whole bunch of shows to watch later, we have run into messages on U-verse telling us we are trying to do too much and certain TV sets won’t work until we reduce our usage,” writes Angela.  “AT&T doesn’t tell you that you all share a preset amount of bandwidth which gets divided up and if you use it up, services stop working.”

Angela says when she called AT&T, the company gave her a $15 credit for her inconvenience, and the company claims it is working on ways to eliminate these limits in particularly active households.  For now, the family is sticking with U-verse because the broadband works better in the evenings and she loves the DVR which records more shows at once than Time Warner offers.  Their U-verse new customer promotional offer saves them $35 a month over Time Warner, at least until it expires.

“From reading about Fibrant and Greenlight on your site, my husband still wishes we lived in Salisbury or Wilson because nothing beats fiber, but at least what we have is better than what we used to have,” she adds.

WXII-TV in Greensboro reports of Time-Warner Cable’s rate hikes for the Piedmont Triad region of North Carolina.  (2 minutes)