Spectrum Junk Mail (image courtesy of: Cube Computer Channel)

Spectrum customers who thought Time Warner Cable sent out too much junk mail now regret criticizing their old cable company.

“I have really come accept the truth,” writes Stop the Cap! reader Dustin Hedges. “There are worst cable companies than Time Warner Cable and Charter Spectrum is one of them.”

Hedges is tired of the relentless junk mail he receives every week from the cable company, primarily to advertise cable television.

“I cut the cord with them for a reason: they cost too damn much and considering all of the mailers they are sending me, I can now see where some of my cable dollar used to go,” Hedges tells us. “Some of them look like urgent notices about a late bill or claims to contain ‘important information’ about my account, which could mean another damn rate increase, but no — it is just another advertisement for their TV service I quit last year.”

Hedged ditched cable television after Spectrum converted to an all-digital format, requiring customers to start leasing cable boxes on their extra televisions.

“I tried the Roku route and didn’t like it because it took too long to change channels and it often buffered or ran 2-3 minutes late, meaning other things I might want to watch I would miss the start of because the Roku app made me late,” Hedges complains. “What really ticked me off is that they keep raising the cost of the box rental and the boxes they are giving out now are cheap garbage. They don’t even have a clock on the front anymore. My bill would have gone up $35 a month. I cancelled.”

Today, Hedges is a Spectrum internet-only customer, and thinks Spectrum does not appreciate the business he still gives to them.

“I pay these crooks $65 a month for internet service, when I used to pay Time Warner Cable less than $50, and they are still not happy about it,” Hedges complained. “They constantly send me TV offers for 10 channels, 25 channels, or to go right back to regular cable TV where I can fall for the same trap of low prices to start and boom stick to it you with regular pricing later on. I don’t watch it, I tell them I don’t want it, and that they can save everyone’s money by not sending me this junk mail. They tell me they won’t stop the mailers.”

Indeed, Charter Spectrum’s customer mailing policy indicates they do reserve the right to market existing customers additional products and services at any time. If a customer has a triple play package, they rarely receive anything from the cable company, at least until recently when Spectrum Mobile started a big marketing campaign. If one drops TV and/or phone service, the junk mail will soon grace your mailbox. By far, most mailers concern TV service. Spectrum markets cable cord-cutters and cord-nevers slimmed down packages delivered over their Spectrum internet connection. Occasionally, the company will also remind customer landline phone service is also still available, typically for around $10 a month. When Time Warner Cable pushed its Intelligent Home security service, those mailers were a common sight to many customers. Charter Communications has no interest in the security monitoring business, so although it maintains service for existing customers, it no longer markets Intelligent Home to attract new ones.

But we have good news for Mr. Hodges and other customers looking for a possible opt out path for junk mail, sales calls, and worst of all – door knocking sales teams. Charter Spectrum maintains an online privacy preferences form that should eventually stop marketing mailers for other products and services, including cable TV. Just click on the pertinent image(s) to be taken to their respective web pages, complete and submit the forms, and your mail volume should drop.

Legacy Time Warner Cable CPNI Opt-Out Form (only for use by customers still holding on to their old Time Warner Cable packages.)
Legacy TWC customers should also fill out the Privacy Preferences form:

Charter/Spectrum and Legacy Time Warner Cable/Bright House Customers
Privacy Preferences:

A YouTuber produced this rant about endless junk mail from Spectrum. (11:46)

Investors are not buying into the substantial hype surrounding the forthcoming 5G revolution and many remain unconvinced about the benefits of spending billions of investor dollars to deploy the next generation in wireless.

A survey by telecom analyst McKinsey & Co., picked up a clear drag on proposed spending, especially outside of North America, as carriers are finding investors reluctant about the business case for 5G technology.

The survey found 60% of wireless operators cited selling investors on the merits of 5G to be their greatest challenge. Only 25% were confident they could successfully prove a substantial return on investment for shareholders who typically want short-term results. Investors are demanding detailed evidence that 5G networks, the most costly requiring large fiber optic networks and neighborhood small cell antennas, will pay off with increased revenue and customer demand. Unlike earlier cellular standards which required incremental upgrades usually on existing cell towers, the fastest iteration of 5G will require providers to construct costly new fiber networks with a very large number of short-range antennas expected to be placed on top of utility or light poles.

Customer demand for 5G is anticipated to be low until new devices are introduced capable of connecting to it, and investors already recognize consumers are increasingly delaying device upgrades since the industry dropped two-year service contracts with device subsidies. Ongoing upgrades to existing 4G LTE networks may ultimately dampen demand even for less costly 5G networks that will be deployed on existing cell towers. McKinsey’s survey found less than 35% of respondents are planning quick launches of 5G on gigabit-speed capable millimeter wave spectrum, citing the high cost of deploying small cell networks.

“Until th[e business case emerges], most operators will tread cautiously, leveraging 5G for near-term objectives and waiting for a clearer view on the use cases’ economics to accelerate,” the McKinsey report concluded. “Given the expense required to prove those significant use cases, it could be an uncomfortably long wait. And for operators in countries that don’t see 5G as a matter of strategic and economic importance, there is a greater risk of falling behind.”

In early 2019, most network operators will focus on network planning and funding, with the first significant wave of launches expected in the U.S. coming later this year. Just over half of U.S. operators plan to have “large-scale 5G deployments” completed by late this year, and U.S. carriers are the most optimistic 5G can make good business sense, at least for some applications. Other U.S. carriers expect their networks to launch by the end of 2022. But in neither case are those launches expected to be widespread across the country. Competing with cable and phone company internet with fixed wireless service is also a non-priority for most operators.

“At least at the outset, the majority see enhanced mobile broadband and the Internet of Things (IoT), rather than fixed wireless access or mission-critical applications, as the most prevalent applications,” McKinsey’s survey found. Among early potential applications are smart utility meter connectivity, traffic sensing, and connected public infrastructure like lighting and traffic control signals. Giving consumers a way out of choosing between Verizon and Comcast for home internet service is not going to be an early priority for companies like AT&T. In fact, starting a price war is the last thing investors want to see.

“Although commercially in its infancy, 5G technology is ready, and in most markets its presence will be felt from 2020 on,” McKinsey’s report states. “Yet the fact that commercial models are not ready cannot be minimized; the business case is marginal, and the investments to enable new business models are not currently planned.”

McKinsey believes what will ultimately drive a gradual rollout of 5G technology is network congestion which can no longer be managed through existing traditional cell tower networks, known as “macro sites.”

“In rural and suburban areas, as well as along roadways, operators can handle increased traffic simply by densifying existing networks with macro sites,” McKinsey shared. “In many highly populated urban areas, by contrast, they’ll need to rely on small-cell solutions for two reasons: a higher concentration of traffic, as measured by traffic load per square kilometer, and the use of higher spectrum bands (greater than 3 gigahertz).”

But making the jump from the traditional large cell tower to a network of small cells scattered around neighborhoods will require a great deal of money. Operators will need to build fiber optic connectivity to each small cell, which can be managed either with a newly constructed fiber project or leasing existing fiber optic networks, presumably from cable operators which already have a significant fiber presence. In either scenario, rural areas will largely be left out, because all-important network traffic density is generally inadequate to support the business case for 5G, and cable operators are unlikely to have fiber networks available to lease in those areas.

Although Spectrum Cable customers will face higher cable TV bills starting next month, the company’s shareholders are delighted, boosting Charter’s stock price more than $50 a share on the news.

Spectrum’s latest increase (the second in four months) of its Broadcast TV Surcharge will set a uniform national fee of $11.99 a month for all of its cable television customers.

In 2018, customers paid an average of $8.75 a month in local TV surcharges. But last November, Charter raised the surcharge to $9.95 a month. Now, just a few months into 2019, Spectrum wants another $2 a month — a 20% increase — to watch local television signals that are available for free to those with an antenna. That’s a steep increase for what began as a $2 surcharge for some customers starting in 2015.

Charter’s investors reacted positively to the latest rate hike, jumping the stock price from $289.91 a share to $340.95 — a $51.04 boost after the fee increase was first reported by the Los Angeles Times.

The new surcharge will be reflected on customer bills beginning as early as Feb. 21.

Charter blamed broadcasters for the “rapidly rising cost” of including local TV stations on the cable lineup. In a letter to some state telecommunications regulators, the cable operator claimed it would be inefficient to not raise prices.

Charter’s share price shot up on the news it was increasing its Broadcast TV Surcharge by 20% just four months after the last increase.

“Containing costs and efficiently managing our operations are critical to providing customers with the best value possible,” wrote Melinda Kinney, Charter’s senior director of government affairs for Charter’s Northeast Division. “Like every business, Charter faces rising costs that require occasional price adjustments.”

But many customers, especially those in marginal reception areas, are loudly complaining that Charter is raising its Broadcast TV Fee even as it drops regional over the air stations from its cable lineup. In 2017, Spectrum customers in western Massachusetts reported a gradual exodus of local TV stations from their lineup, starting with WWLP, the NBC affiliate in Springfield with strong local news coverage of the western half of the state. Today, Spectrum only provides western Massachusetts with a single NBC station — WNYT in Albany, N.Y., which keeps viewers up to date with the latest political machinations of the New York State legislature.

Next to go was Boston’s ABC affiliate, WCVB — airing the strongest coverage of local and state news of any ABC affiliate in the state. In its place, viewers now receive WTEN, the ABC station in Albany, which is covering Sen. Jim Tedisco’s support for splitting New York into two separate states — a ‘crucial’ issue for subscribers living in the Berkshires and beyond.

Other states facing “out of market” channel losses include Connecticut, California, Nevada, and Nebraska. Many of the affected stations were dropped as Charter upgraded its cable systems to all-digital television, perhaps counting on subscriber confusion amidst other changes to the cable system.

Barrett on Charter: “Greed”

The loss of local stations while rapidly increasing the surcharge for those stations has some people calling foul.

Massachusetts State Rep. John Barrett III (D-North Adams) called it “greed.” Charter mandates the Broadcast TV Fee be paid by all video customers, including those on “price locked” promotions. By breaking the fee out of the cost of the cable television package, Charter Spectrum gets to advertise packages to new and returning customers at a low cost, only to deliver bill shock when customers discover the surcharge, along with equipment and franchise fees, that collectively increases their total monthly bill.

As the second largest cable company in the country, Charter is estimated to be collecting an extra $211 million annually from its first increase in November 2018 and $391 million annually from the latest increase now taking effect. Together, that amounts to $602 million annually in new revenue starting in March. Charter will not disclose exactly how much of this money is paid to each local television station.

Charter also has a habit of boosting its set-top box equipment fees about $1 a month per box each year — an increase we are likely to see later this year, and the company already slightly increased prices for internet service late last year.

Charter executives told shareholders on its most recent quarterly results conference call that the company’s revenue increased 4.9% in 2018 to $43.6 billion. Combining that extra revenue with a $1.9 billion cut in upgrades for 2019 will allow the company to focus on additional share buybacks, increased payouts to Charter shareholders, and debt reduction.

Comcast and Charter Communications have no real interest in competing head-to-head in wireless with AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, or Sprint. Instead, the two cable companies hope to trap you in a bundled package of services too inconvenient to cancel.

Jeff Kagan, a longstanding telecommunications analyst specializing in the cable industry, believes Comcast, Charter, and other cable operators entering the wireless business have no intention of being a serious competitor to the country’s four largest mobile companies.

“The goal of XFINITY Mobile [from Comcast] is to offer their customers another service and to create a sticky bundle,” Kagan said. “It’s not to lead the wireless wars. It’s not to increase their market share for traditional reasons. It is simply to create a sticky bundle to stabilize and grow their customer base.”

Kagan

XFINITY Mobile and Spectrum Mobile (from Charter), both require customers to be signed up for their respective internet services. If a customer cancels internet service, they will lose their mobile service. That could prove to be a major hassle for wireless customers, because they will have to properly port out their existing phone number(s) to another provider before dropping broadband.

Kagan believes cable operators will use mobile service to further strengthen their bundle by tying discounts to the number of services each customer takes through the cable company.

“Customers who use one service find it easy to switch away to a competitor,” Kagan said. “However, when they use multiple services and get a discount for the bundle, they become sticky and generally stay put. And the more services a customer uses, the larger the discount, the stickier they get and the less likely they are to wander.”

That is also likely to be true with Altice, which operates Optimum (Cablevision) and SuddenLink and has partnered with Sprint to offer cell service.

Sprint and T-Mobile, which are planning to merge, have repeatedly argued cable operators will be aggressive new players in the mobile business, giving the potentially combined carrier fierce new competitors. But Kagan doubts that will prove true.

“The problem is, the sticky bundle is not a low-cost solution,” Kagan offered. “With that said, the higher cost to the cable television companies is less than that of losing their customer base. So, the cost makes sense as simply a cost of doing business.”

The challenge cable operators face is that none plan to own and operate their own traditional cellular network. Comcast and Charter have partnered with Verizon Wireless to resell access to its 4G LTE network and Altice will rely on Sprint. Leasing access on an ongoing basis is likely to be more expensive that relying on your own network, but beyond offering Wi-Fi calling and experimental access to future 5G-type services in the emerging CBRS band, cable operators will remain almost completely dependent on their wireless provider partners, limiting their effective ability to compete.

Kagan believes the goals of the two industries are different. Wireless operators are trying to monetize their networks through usage, while cable operators are trying to find new services that will keep customers loyal and are willing to ignore monetizing their wireless side businesses to achieve that goal.

Epix, the newest premium movie channel on the block, is giving up on exclusive pay television distribution and has launched a new $5.99/mo direct-to-consumer subscription service, beating anticipated services from AT&T WarnerMedia and Disney.

Epix Now streaming subscribers will have access to “thousands of movies” and original series, with full download availability and a growing catalog of titles available for 4K/Ultra HD streaming.

Epix, now wholly owned by MGM, has struggled to attract subscribers from its traditional cable and satellite TV partners, as consumers ditch premium channels to reduce their bill or drop cable TV service altogether. Charter Communications recently dropped Epix from Spectrum’s bundled pay television tier, now requiring customers to buy the network a-la-carte, likely resulting in a dramatic loss of subscribers.

Epix Now is currently available with a 7-day free trial on Apple TV, as well as iOS and Android phones and tablets, and is expected to arrive soon for Roku and Amazon Fire TV owners. The service is also sold through The Roku Channel, but will shortly be transitioned to a standalone app on that platform.

Launched in October 2009, Epix began as a partnership between MGM, Lionsgate, and Viacom. It was known for airing movies more quickly after leaving theaters than its competitors. But the network has been limited by a lack of exclusivity to first-run content from larger studios. Lionsgate largely lost interest in Epix after acquiring competing premium movie service Starz in mid-2016. A year later, Viacom made it known it wanted to exit the venture to concentrate on Showtime, its primary pay television network, and use the sale proceeds to pay down Viacom’s high debt load.