Stop the Cap! » Cablevision

Cable Industry Collaborates to Provide Shared Wi-Fi Access to Customers

Phillip Dampier — Wed, 23 May 2012 14:36:57 +0000

Wi-Fi access is about to become a lot more ubiquitous if you happen to buy broadband from Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cablevision, Bright House Networks, or Cox. All five companies on Monday announced they will open up their free Wi-Fi hotspots to customers of any of these companies nationwide.

The collaborative agreement extends the authentication platforms cable operators use to verify customer accounts when granting access to services like TV Everywhere — the online video streaming services operated by pay television providers. By sharing basic account information, customers traveling outside of their home cable service area can “roam” on free Wi-Fi networks operated by the other providers.

For example, a Cablevision subscriber who lives on Long Island will be able to access Bright House Networks’ Wi-Fi in central Florida or Time Warner Cable’s growing wireless network in Los Angeles.

The cable industry calls it a back door entry into mobile data, and unlike its existing partnership with Clearwire for WiMAX 4G service, Wi-Fi hotspots are available at no additional charge.

“We believe that Wi-Fi is a superior approach to mobile data,” said Kristin Dolan, head of projects at Cablevision. “Cable providers are best positioned to build the highest-capacity national network offering customers fast and reliable Internet connections when away from their home or business broadband service.”

More than 50,000 Wi-Fi hotspots are to be included in the project, all unified under the name “CableWiFi.”

Eventually, the companies hope to unveil automatic log-ins on the network, regardless of where customers access it.

The industry is aggressively expanding Wi-Fi services to give subscribers another reason to stick with their local cable company. Some may require customers to maintain both a cable-TV subscription and broadband to qualify for the service, others will only require a current broadband account. The free add-on may also make subscribers think twice about canceling service if it means losing access.

Comcast, Cablevision, and Time Warner Cable already have a deal in place to share their networks in southwestern Connecticut, New York City, parts of New Jersey and Philadelphia.

Cable operators will target high-traffic areas for Wi-Fi expansion — especially public parks, beaches, malls, eateries, stadiums and convention centers. Don’t expect cable Wi-Fi to be common in residential neighborhoods, and users will have to temper their expectations. Most provide access suitable for web browsing and e-mail, but often have trouble keeping up with streaming video and other high bandwidth services.

Other coverage you may enjoy:

New York City Broadband “Sucks,” Says Village Voice

Phillip Dampier — Thu, 17 May 2012 15:29:36 +0000

Waiting for FiOS

For those who admire the apparent pervasiveness of competition between Time Warner Cable and Cablevision Industries vs. Verizon Communications’ FiOS, the idea the Big Apple has a broadband problem seems a bit ridiculous, particularly if you can’t get your local cable company to pick up their phone and AT&T will only hand you a 1.5Mbps DSL line, if you can get it.

But according to the Village Voice, New York City broadband “sucks,” and it will continue to suck for at least the next eight years.

“Though entrepreneurs in most parts of the city can access a fast broadband connection today, many of those we interviewed said that New York’s telecom infrastructure is well behind where it should be for a city vying to be one of the nation’s two leading technology hubs,” the study notes.

What it comes down to is that New York — despite being the world’s media capital — does not have adequate access or bandwidth to support tech companies’ needs.

For example, some companies might be able to get either FiOS or Time Warner Cable, but not both, which means they can’t have broadband backup.

“It’s like the elephant in the room is that bandwidth here sucks,” one entrepreneur told the researchers. “You should be able to walk into any building and have at least 150 megabit connection available to you. There has to be ways for the city to construct much better bandwidth availability for start-ups.”

Many cited told the researchers that their internet routinely goes down. And startups who want to set up shop in cheaper, industrial districts often can’t, because the cable companies would rather provide service to more lucrative residential areas. Sometimes, telecom concerns are willing to dig up streets and lay cable, but at a hefty price — around $80,000.

That $80,000 bill is handed to a prospective customer and does not come from cable operators’ capital expense fund.

Researchers gave New York a broadband grade of B to B-, which isn’t too bad considering what broadband is like in the mid-south, the midwest, and the rural west. But it doesn’t cut it for helping New York become a bigger tech city.

Waiting for "Business Class"

While Time Warner Cable and Cablevision have wired multi-dwelling units and homes across New York City, cable operators have only recently started to turn their serious attention to corporate business customers. Time Warner Cable agreed, as part of its franchise renewal deal with the city, to invest $1.2 million per year for fiber connections to commercial buildings yet to be wired for cable. Cablevision, which can be found in boroughs like Brooklyn and out on Long Island, agreed to spend a more modest $600,000 a year for the same purpose.

Time Warner Cable has already warned investors its capital spending on wiring commercial office buildings across the country is increasing as the company sees lucrative new revenue opportunities competing with their usual nemesis — the phone company.

Verizon treats FiOS deployment in New York City as a long, long-term project. There are neighborhoods in Manhattan that can’t wait much longer for the fiber optic network as Verizon increasingly lets its old copper wiring go to pot, leaving some New Yorkers without phone service for weeks. The city of New York has given Verizon until 2014 to wire the city, and the company appears likely to need those two additional years at their current pace, and that agreement only covers residential properties, not commercial ones.

Robust broadband is essential for many high technology startups and the multi-million dollar data centers that support them. New York mayor Michael Bloomberg considers it a top priority to reduce the city’s economic dependence on Wall Street, which generates considerable tax revenue for both the city and state. High tech enterprises fit that bill. But the city’s broadband grades do not.

“For a city that’s trying to be a tech powerhouse, we need to have an A,” said Jonathan Bowles, the author of the study, “New Tech City.”

Other coverage you may enjoy:

Cablevision Subcontractor Crime Wave? Company Uses Workers Accused of Sexual Assault, Theft

Phillip Dampier — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:30:31 +0000

Cablevision is using contract workers that have subsequently been accused of sexual assault and theft during service calls.

Last week, a Stony Point, N.Y., subcontractor handling repairs on behalf of the cable company was charged with a misdemeanor sex crime, after allegedly kissing and touching a Cablevision customer without her consent.

Jonathan Malave, 29, of Belleville, N.J., was charged after Stony Point police investigated a complaint filed by a woman in her 20s who claimed Malave made sexual advances while she was home alone.

Malave

Lt. Keith Williams told The Journal News Malave was there to repair the woman’s cable modem, but instead allegedly made unwanted advances towards the woman, first kissing and then reaching down and touching her.

Malave quickly left the customer’s home after the incident without making the repairs and the woman called police. Malave was picked up by Stony Point authorities within hours, charged with inappropriate touching, and is expected to appear and answer the charges in Town Court on May 15.

This is not Cablevision’s first problem with subcontractors.

In late January, a South Salem, N.Y. customer reported that nearly $100 in change was stolen from her home while a Cablevision technician was there to repair cable-TV wiring.

The customer said the only individual with access to the money, other than herself, was the Cablevision worker. Lewisboro police later learned the employee hadn’t directly worked for Cablevision, but was in fact a subcontractor working on behalf of the company.

Cable companies increasingly rely on subcontractors to perform basic installation and repair work, and some critics say lax hiring standards can present a risk to customers.

But Cablevision spokesman Jim Maiella told the newspaper, “We take the safety and security of our customers very seriously. We are investigating the matter fully and cooperating with authorities.”

The editor of Fierce Cable believes Cablevision should focus more on protecting subscribers than contractors:

Cablevision refuses to name the contractor that employs him. The company also declined to comment when asked if it performs background checks on employees who visit subscriber homes.

[...] Cablevision may resist detailing the names of its technology suppliers for competitive reasons, but there is no legitimate reason to refuse to share the names of companies it hires to visit subscriber homes. It’s also not unreasonable for Cablevision to share information about whether or not it investigates if an employee has a criminal record before he is allowed to enter the home of one of its subscribers.

[...] Cablevision could better protect its subscribers, and it could also perform a service for its fellow cable MSOs, if it were to disclose the name of the contractor.

Other coverage you may enjoy:

ISP’s, Entertainment Industry Launch Copyright Clearinghouse, Sidestepping Judicial Process

Phillip Dampier — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 15:40:23 +0000

The entertainment industry, in cooperation with the nation’s largest Internet Service Providers, joined forces to open a new copyright enforcement center that critics charge sidesteps judicial process, leaving consumers forced to prove they are innocent after they’ve been accused of being guilty.

On Monday, the Center for Copyright Infringement named its executive director and board, and intends to gradually begin serving as a clearinghouse for copyright infringement complaints brought by the nation’s music and movie companies.

CCI has representatives from the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon Communications collectively working to streamline enforcement of copyright law and control Internet piracy.

Often known as the “Six Strikes Plan,” CCI participants will coordinate piracy notification warnings for suspected illicit downloads of copyrighted content from peer-to-peer file sharing networks. Hollywood studios and recording labels will identify those they suspect are involved in illegal file swapping and participating ISPs will notify customers tied to the infringing IP addresses up to six times before reducing a customer’s Internet speed, temporarily disabling the account, or terminating service.

The CCI hopes to bypass the court system and adopt a self-regulation, “in-house” approach to Internet piracy. Some courts have proven increasingly-reluctant to hand over identifying information to copyright holders based on the sometimes-flimsy evidence of illegal downloading included in supporting affidavits. Judges in some courts have also become leery of a cottage industry of “settlement specialists” that threaten expensive litigation for alleged copyright infringement that can be resolved with a quick cash settlement.

Judge James F. Holderman of the Northern District of Illinois ruled against one litigant who demanded ISPs divulge the identities of every participant exchanging bits and pieces of a copyrighted work in a so-called “BitTorrent swarm,” because they were involved in a conspiracy. Holderman dismissed that argument.

Such tactics have allowed some settlement specialists to demand settlement payments from a larger group, substantially boosting revenue at little cost to them.

CCI’s executive director Jill Lesser says laws no longer favor copyright holders.

“While laws that protect intellectual property remain strong and enforcement efforts continue, technology has tipped the balance away from the interests of most creators and artists,” Lesser said. “The ease of distribution of copyrighted content has helped create a generation of people who believe that all content should be free.”

CCI’s so-called “Copyright Control System” will bypass the courts entirely, as entertainment companies coordinate directly with major ISPs agreeing to enforce copyright compliance.

Lesser says consumers will still have a fair process to challenge notices of alleged infringement. But it will cost at least $35 for consumers to argue their case. Additionally, as a self-regulated, industry-controlled body, consumers’ rights of appeal are undetermined. The arbitration process will be administered through the American Arbitration Association.

Why would ISPs want to become involved in a copyright control regime? To reduce their own expenses and legal risks. Copyright holders and their agents have peppered service providers with compliance and identification demands for years, creating full time positions processing the paperwork. By adopting a clearinghouse and developing a streamlined process to handle complaints, service providers can cut costs and avoid possible litigation against themselves.

Still, both the entertainment industry and ISPs seem to be open to listening to consumer advocates. Lesser was formerly involved with People for the American Way, a group sensitive to privacy rights. Serving on the advisory board are Gigi Sohn from Public Knowledge and Jerry Berman, founder of the Center for Democracy and Technology. Neither have direct authority over the group’s enforcement efforts, but Sohn told Ars Technica she hoped her involvement would give a voice to consumer interests and maintain transparency in the enforcement process.

Other coverage you may enjoy:

Comcast/Time Warner Cable Biggest Broadband Winners; DSL Withers on the Vine

Phillip Dampier — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:01:55 +0000

Won 1.1 million new customers in 2011

Comcast and Time Warner Cable collectively picked up more than 1.5 million new customers in 2011, with most of the growth coming from dissatisfied DSL subscribers seeking better broadband speeds.

Leichtman Research Group, Inc. (LRG) found the eighteen largest cable and telephone providers in the US — representing about 93% of the market — acquired 3 million net additional high-speed Internet subscribers in 2011. Annual net broadband additions in 2011 were 88% of the total in 2010.

The top broadband providers now account for 78.6 million subscribers — with cable companies having over 44.3 million broadband subscribers, and telephone companies having over 34.3 million subscribers.

Stalled growth

Despite AT&T’s position as the second largest Internet Service Provider in the country, the company only picked up 117,000 new customers in 2011. In contrast, Time Warner Cable, with 6 million fewer customers, added almost a half-million new broadband subscriptions last year.

Frontier Communications, which made broadband a primary target for expansion, has not seen considerable growth either. The company only added just short of 38,000 new broadband customers last year, almost all getting DSL, often at speeds of 1-3Mbps.

Other key findings include:

The top cable companies netted 75% of the broadband additions in 2011;
The top cable companies added 2.3 million broadband subscribers in 2011 — 98% of the total net additions for the top cable companies in 2010;
The top telephone providers added 750,000 broadband subs in 2011 — 68% of the total net additions for the top telephone companies in 2010;
In the fourth quarter of 2011, cable and telephone providers added 765,000 broadband subscribers — with cable companies accounting for 82% of the broadband additions in the quarter.

Now serving 10.3 million

“Despite a high level of broadband penetration in the US, the top broadband providers added 88% as many subscribers in 2011 as in 2010,” said Bruce Leichtman, president and principal analyst for Leichtman Research Group, Inc. “At the end of 2011, the top broadband providers in the US cumulatively had over 78.6 million subscribers, an increase of nearly 25 million over the past five years.”

Americans are increasingly treating broadband as an essential “utility” service, as fundamental as electricity or clean water.

The majority of consumers who lack the service either consider it irrelevant in their lives (a factor that increases with the age of the surveyed respondent), cannot obtain service from their provider because of their location, or cannot afford the service.

Broadband Internet Provider	Subscribers at End of 4Q 2011	Net Adds in 2011
Cable Companies
Comcast	18,147,000	1,159,000
Time Warner^	10,344,000	491,000
Cox*	4,500,000	130,000
Charter	3,654,600	252,900
Cablevision	2,965,000	73,000
Suddenlink	951,400	65,100
Mediacom	851,000	13,000
Insight^	550,000	25,500
Cable ONE	451,082	25,680
Other Major Private Cable Companies**	1,925,000	55,000
Total Top Cable	44,339,082	2,290,180
Telephone Companies
AT&T	16,427,000	117,000
Verizon	8,670,000	278,000
CenturyLink	5,554,000	238,000
Frontier^^	1,735,000	37,833
Windstream	1,355,300	53,600
FairPoint	314,135	24,390
Cincinnati Bell	257,300	1,200
Total Top Telephone Companies	34,312,735	750,023
Total Broadband	78,651,817	3,040,203

Sources: The Companies and Leichtman Research Group, Inc.
* LRG estimate
** Includes LRG estimates for Bright House Networks, and RCN
^ Totals prior to Time Warner Cable’s acquisition of Insight completed on 2/29/2012
^^ LRG estimate does not include wireless subscribers
Company subscriber counts may not represent solely residential households
Totals reflect pro forma results from system sales and acquisitions
Top cable and telephone companies represent approximately 93% of all subscribers

Other coverage you may enjoy:

Netflix: “Cost of Providing 1GB of Data is Less Than One Cent, and Falling”

Phillip Dampier — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 23:32:58 +0000

Netflix continues to step up its attacks on providers who implement Internet Overcharging schemes on their wired broadband customers.

That concern is understandable as Netflix increasingly transitions to broadband streaming instead of mailing DVD’s to customers.

Getting in the way are five of the nation’s seven largest broadband providers, all imposing limits on customers just as they discover they might be able to do without cable television.

Netflix’s streamed HD shows now consume around 2GB per hour, according to Netflix general counsel David Hyman. That can eat through usage allowances quickly. Hyman penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal last year blasting the practices of usage caps and consumption billing.

Hyman

“Wireline bandwidth is an almost unlimited resource due to advances in Internet architecture,” Hyman wrote. “The marginal cost of providing an extra gigabyte of data—enough to deliver one episode of 30 Rock from Netflix—is less than one cent, and falling.”

That doesn’t seem to matter much to Comcast, CenturyLink, Charter Communications, and Cox. All four providers have introduced hard usage limits on customers — a usage cap. Exceeding it gives any of those providers the right to cut off your broadband service. AT&T, always one to see a financial angle, charges for excess use of their DSL and U-verse service — $10 for every 50GB. Time Warner Cable recently announced its own experimental “optional” usage pricing package for very light users who consume fewer than 5GB per month. It will slap overlimit fees on those participating customers who break through the 5GB ceiling at a rate of $1/GB, an enormous markup.

Providers with strict caps usually argue they come as a result of their own network’s capacity problems. Cable operators who do not consistently manage their network traffic can experience traffic clogs by overselling service without upgrading capacity to sustain user demand. But providers like Comcast, Cox, and Charter resolved those capacity problems with upgrades to DOCSIS 3 technology, which offer operators an exponentially bigger pipeline for Internet traffic.

Although Comcast promised to regularly review and adjust usage caps since implementing them four years ago, the nation’s largest cable operator has thus far seen no need to raise them.

“We feel that that is an extraordinarily large amount of data,” says Comcast’s Charlie Davis. “That limit is there to make sure we provide a great online experience for every single paying customer.”

Wall Street bankers have closely monitored the industry’s early results from Internet Overcharging, and have been encouraged, so long as operators implement it carefully.

Credit Suisse in a 2011 report to its investor clients suggested the key for successful usage-based pricing is to introduce it slowly and keep “sticker shock to a minimum in the early days” to reduce backlash by consumers and lawmakers.

Once established, the sky is the limit.

Netflix itself is also battling an Internet Overcharging scheme it faces — double-dipping by cable operators like Comcast. In addition to the fees Comcast collects from customers for its broadband service, the cable operator also wants to be paid directly by Netflix to allow the movie service’s traffic on its network.

That’s an Internet toll booth, charges Netflix and consumer groups. It’s also uncompetitive, says Hyman.

This month Comcast unveiled its own movie and TV show streaming service — Xfinity Streampix — from which, unsurprisingly, the cable company has not sought extra traffic payments from itself.

Opposed to Internet Overcharging

Three providers which don’t cap customers don’t see a reason to try.

Verizon Communications says its fiber network FiOS has plenty of capacity and has no plans to restrict customers’ enjoyment of the service. In 2009, Cablevision’s Jim Blackley told one panel discussion usage caps are not in the cards.

“We don’t want customers to think about byte caps so that’s not on our horizon,” Blackley said. “We literally don’t want consumers to think about how they’re consuming high-speed services. It’s a pretty powerful drug and we want people to use more and more of it.”

California’s Sonic.net Inc., goes even further. Its CEO, Dane Jasper, believes the Federal Communications Commission needs to be more assertive about protecting America’s broadband revolution and the customers that depend on the service.

The fact different operators can take radically different positions on the subject, despite running similar networks, suggests technical necessity is not the reason providers are implementing usage restrictions and extra fees on customers.

As Hyman writes:

Bandwidth caps with fees piled on top are a lousy way to manage traffic. All of the costs of supplying residential broadband are for supporting peak usage. Bandwidth consumed off-peak is completely free. If Internet service providers really wanted to manage traffic efficiently, they would limit speeds at peak times. If their goal is instead to increase revenues or lessen competition, getting consumers to pay per gigabyte is an excellent strategy.

Consumer access to unlimited bandwidth is good for society. It fosters innovation, drives commerce, and advances political and social discourse. Given that bandwidth is cheap and plentiful and will only grow more so with time, there is no good reason for bandwidth caps and fees to take root.

Consumers and regulators need to take heed of what is happening and avoid winding up like the proverbial frog in a pot of boiling water. It’s time to jump before it’s too late.

Other coverage you may enjoy:

Cablevision’s Rate Freeze A Lesson for Cable Operators Trying to Raise Rates

Phillip Dampier — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 20:42:38 +0000

Last week’s shocking development that Cablevision, a major cable operator in greater New York City, New Jersey and Connecticut is not going to raise rates in 2012 is bad news for other cable operators itching to raise rates once again this year.

Cablevision’s decision was made as the company continues to battle Verizon FiOS, the phone company’s fiber-to-home-service across its service area. Verizon has been playing hardball with Time Warner Cable, Comcast, and Cablevision in its metro New York service area, offering up to $500 in rebates to sign new customers. That level of vicious competition has been great for consumers, but lousy for Wall Street.

Investors were not pleased with Cablevision’s pass on rate hikes and its intention to invest a lot more in system upgrades than originally planned. Wall Street loves increased revenue and hates it when companies spend it on their customers.

With all of this competition breaking out, Comcast and Time Warner Cable may be more than a little uncomfortable sitting down at an antitrust hearing later this month to discuss their new agreement with Verizon to cross-market cable and mobile service. In return for the cable industry signaling they will never compete with Verizon’s mobile phone offering, Verizon has generously purchased the cable industry’s leftover spectrum and agreed to pitch cable TV subscriptions to Verizon Wireless customers. With this new “non-aggression treaty,” will there still be a need to offer $500 gift cards and cut-rate prices to attract new customers? Consumer groups think not.

A greater percentage of Cablevision’s service area is served by Verizon’s fiber network than either Time Warner Cable or Comcast. Competition is forcing Cablevision to rethink the usual cable industry plan for financial success — force channels customers don’t want and raise rates up to 5% a year to pay for the “increased costs of doing business.” Consumers are fed up with $150 monthly cable bills and will take Verizon up on an offer than cuts rates $50 a month and hands over up to $500 just for saying “yes” to FiOS.

Other coverage you may enjoy:

Cablevision Capitulates on New Customer Promos; Verizon FiOS’ Price Slashing Really Hurt

Phillip Dampier — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 18:58:29 +0000

The cable company best known for serving suburban New York City.

Cablevision Industries has cried “uncle” in light of relentlessly aggressive competition from Verizon Communications, which offers its fiber to the home FiOS service in much of the cable operator’s service area.

Cablevision’s 4th quarter and year-end financial results, reported earlier today, are underwhelming investors. Cablevision executives warned the company will have lower cash flow in 2012 due to increased investments in set-top boxes, network upgrades, and more importantly — no planned subscriber rate increases this year.

Some highlights:

Video – Losing Customers Like Everyone Else: Cablevision lost 14,000 video customers in the last quarter, many to Verizon FiOS and ongoing cord-cutting. Analysts expected just 9,000 defections. Cablevision will soon launch both HBO and Max Go online video for their customers nationwide. Additional on-demand video options, online and off, are also anticipated.

Broadband – Cablevision finally admitted its own network was responsible for last year’s faltering broadband speeds that delivered poor marks in ongoing FCC speed tests. The company originally denied the speed test results were accurate. Today CEO James Dolan told investors the company invested in its broadband network to improve speeds and service. Cablevision feels strongly it must compete effectively with Verizon to survive. The company added 20,000 high-speed data customers and 31,000 phone subscribers in the quarter. The company is doing well allowing customers easy access to broadband speed upgrades.

Wi-Fi – Cablevision sees strong value in its wireless broadband network as customers increasingly take their content mobile and need connectivity to the web.

Upgrades – CEO Jim Dolan said 2012 will be “a year of investment” in Cablevision upgrades and improvements. The company is even accelerating projects originally envisioned for 2013. Cablevision will continue to expand its “next day” installation offer across the eastern United States by the end of the first quarter.

Promotions – The escalating war of promotions between Verizon and Cablevision are likely to cease as Cablevision yanks their most aggressive new customer offers. Earlier this year, Verizon was pitching a two year triple play offer that included an incredible $500 prepaid card rebate as part of the promotion. “I don’t think you’ll see those [low introductory rates from Cablevision] again ever,” said Dolan.

“The main theme that people should take away from the call today is that we continue to be focused on moving the business in a direction where we both retain existing subscribers and have attractive, economically sensible offers for new subscribers,” said Cablevision chief financial officer Gregg Seibert.

Other coverage you may enjoy:

Argentina Slams the Door on Skyrocketing Cable Rates: Basic Cable Prices Fixed At $27/Month

Phillip Dampier — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 15:50:42 +0000

Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner

The Argentine government has a solution to stop the skyrocketing of cable television rates in the country: it regulates them. Now the country’s Secretary of Commerce Guillermo Moreno has ordered Cablevision SA, one of the country’s largest media companies, to freeze basic cable rates at 116 Argentine pesos ($27US) for 2012.

The cable company won a 7 pesos rate hike last September, but there were indications further rate hikes were forthcoming. Argentine President Cristina Kirchner has engaged in a long-running feud with several large Argentine conglomerates over what she feels is their abuse of market power.

Kirchner has specifically targeted super-sized Grupo Clarín, Cablevision’s parent company, for its relentless rate hikes. The conglomerate now earns close to two-thirds of its revenue from selling cable TV and broadband Internet.

Kirchner considers corporate monopoly control of broadband to be especially dangerous for the Argentine economy, and her administration is seeking to force Grupo Clarín to divest itself of its broadband business with the passage of several media laws.

Cablevision defends its rate increases, noting Argentina’s inflation rate is currently as high as 25%. But government officials have the power to suspend or rollback rate increases it determines are unfair or come as a result of Cablevision’s market power.

The $27 a month Cablevision subscribers currently pay for basic cable buys a comparably-sized cable package that North Americans pay more than double that amount to receive:

Channel	Network
2	A24
3	26 Noticias
4	Crónica TV
5	C5N
6	Encuentro
7	Somos La Plata
8	Canal 9
9	América
10	Telefe
11	TN – Todo Noticias
12	El Trece
13	Metro
14	Magazine
15	Canal 7
16	ESPN+
17	TyC Sports
18	Fox Sports
19	ESPN
20	El Garage
21	Disney Channel
22	Nickelodeon
23	Cartoon Network
24	Disney XD
25	Discovery Kids
26	Boomerang
27	Disney Junior
28	Cinemax
29	Studio Universal
30	Volver
31	Space
32	Cinecanal
33	TNT
34	I.Sat
35	The Film Zone
36	FOX
37	Sony
38	Warner Channel
39	Universal Channel
40	AXN
41	FX
42	A&E
43	Europa, Europa
44	Liv
45	TCM
46	MGM
47	Infinito
48	Sony Spin
49	Utilísima
50	elgourmet.com Sur
51	Glitz
52	Cosmopolitan TV
53	E! Entertainment
54	Canal Rural
55	National Geographic
56	Discovery Channel
57	Animal Planet
58	Discovery Home & Health
59	The History Channel
61	TruTV
66	Canal (á)
67	Film&Arts
68	CNN en español
69	MTV Sur
70	Quiero música en mi idioma
71	MuchMusic
72	VH1 Sur
73	CM El canal de la música
74	RAItalia
75	TVE
76	Galicia TV
77	El Canal de las Estrellas
78	EWTN
79	Argentinisima Satelital

Other coverage you may enjoy:

Verizon’s Anti-Aggression Treaty With Big Cable May Be the End of FiOS

Phillip Dampier — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 19:54:18 +0000

Ebenezer Scrooge could successfully serve as the CEO of any large telecommunications company these days, and the New York Times knows a Christmas tale of woe when it sees one. That is why the venerable newspaper printed a Christmas Eve editorial blasting Verizon’s new “non-aggression treaty” with America’s largest cable companies that puts coal in the stocking for any Verizon customer waiting for FiOS fiber-to-the-home service. The newspaper believes the days of FiOS are numbered:

Verizon — Verizon Wireless’s main shareholder — relieved itself of the need to expand FiOS, its high-speed, fiber optic network, beyond the 18 million homes it set out to reach six years ago, a rollout that cost $23 billion. For the other 114 million homes in the country, it can simply bundle its wireless service with the cable and wireline broadband services of its partners. The agreement between Verizon and the cable carriers includes a joint venture to develop technology to integrate the wireline and wireless platforms.

Verizon’s cable deals squashed hopes that cable carriers’ purchases of wireless spectrum would lead to more competition against the dominant players, AT&T and Verizon Wireless. And it puts in doubt whether FiOS will ever be a serious competitor to cable, reducing the likelihood that video transmitted over broadband could break up cable’s regional oligopolies.

[...] Verizon’s deals suggest a future in which cable carriers will get uncontested control of high-speed broadband into the home while AT&T and Verizon will get uncontested control over wireless. For consumers with expensive wireless plans, pricey bundles of cable channels and costly, slow broadband, this does not look like good news.

Verizon’s economic future lies in the lucrative world of wireless. Its FiOS network was an expensive gamble to reinvent its antiquated telephone network to drive customers to keep their landlines and spent a hundred dollars more on video entertainment and super fast broadband. Wall Street hated the price and loathed the potential for costly competition that would force earnings down through aggressive price-cutting. In some markets, Verizon FiOS has forced Comcast, Cablevision, and Time Warner Cable to be a little more generous with broadband speed and lighten up a little on the annual rate increases.

But convincing cable customers to switch remains a difficult proposition even when Verizon offers the superior service. Verizon has not achieved the level of penetration it expected in many markets. In short, people just don’t want to wait around for installers. Besides, cable companies slash prices for customers threatening to depart.

Verizon’s deal with Time Warner and Comcast delivers Verizon Wireless desirable spectrum. But the agreement to cross-market and cross-bundle product lines smacks of collusion, and is exactly the kind of turf protection that has kept cable companies from competing head-to-head with each other for more than three decades. Is it more lucrative for Verizon to build out its FiOS network to compete or simply refer people to Time Warner or Cablevision for cable TV. So long as cable doesn’t offer a competing wireless product, Verizon seems to think there is little harm done.

But for consumers, the absence of competition brings rate increases, reduced innovation, and declining customer service.

The one thing the telecom marketplace needs less of is the “take it or leave it” attitude that earned the scorn of cable customers everywhere.

Other coverage you may enjoy: