Customers of some of the largest cable, phone, and satellite companies will pay an average of 3-6 percent more for service in a series of rate increases taking effect between now and the end of February.

AT&T U-verse

If your introductory offer has expired, expect to pay more for just about everything as of Feb. 9.

Cable TV:

• U-family will increase from $54 to $57,
• U100 will increase for some from $54 to $59 and for others from $59 to $64,
• U200 will increase from $69 to $72/U200 Latino will increase from $79 to $82,
• U300 will increase from $84 to $87/U300 Latino will increase from $94 to $97,
• U400 will increase from $109 to $114,
• U450 will increase from $117 to $119/U450 Latino will increase from $127 to $129.

For high speed Internet customers who ordered their current speed before June 12, 2011, effective with the February 2012 billing statement, the monthly price for Basic will increase from $19.95 to $25, Express will increase from $30 to $33, Pro will increase from $35 to $38, Elite will increase from $40 to $43, and Max will increase from $45 to $48. If you are paying a monthly high speed Internet equipment fee for the Residential Gateway, the amount will increase from $4 to $6.

For Voice Unlimited, effective on February 1, 2012, the monthly price will increase from $33 to $35.

AT&T blames increased programming costs and “the cost of doing business” for the rate increases.  AT&T is increasing broadband pricing despite enjoying further cost reductions from their Internet Overcharging scheme implemented in 2011.

Comcast

Comcast implements rate increases at different times of the year throughout its national service area.  But a preview of what is forthcoming can be seen in south Florida and Minnesota, where Comcast’s new rates for 2012 have increased an average of 5.8 percent.  That comes after a 2 percent rate hike last year.  It’s a bitter pill for many customers to swallow, because Comcast has also been moving popular cable channels like Turner Classic Movies into the more expensive Digital Preferred package.  The price of that full basic package will now run just short of $85 a month. Customers in Minneapolis are staring down these new rates:

• Basic 1: no change in most franchise areas.
• Digital Economy: increases from $29.95 a month to $34.95 a month, or 16.7 percent.
• Digital Starter: increases from $62.99 a month to $66.49 a month, or 5.6 percent.
• Digital Preferred: increases from $80.99 a month to $84.49 a month, or 4.3 percent.

Comcast blames increased programming costs and upgrade expenses associated with its now completed DOCSIS 3 project.  Comcast also has converted many of its service areas to all-digital service, which has opened up additional room to sell more expensive broadband packages, add additional HD channels, and make room for new product lines relating to home automation and security.

Cox Cable

Broadband Reports readers are sharing anecdotal evidence Cox has begun its own 2012 rate increase campaign.  In Florida, cable TV rates are up yet again:

Prices for Cox TV and Cox Advanced TV will be as follows:

• Cox TV Starter will change from $19.55 to $22.85/mo.
• Advanced TV will change from $5.50 to $4.20/mo.
• Advanced TV Standard Definition receivers will change from $5.55 to $6.99/mo.
• Advanced TV High Definition, High Definition/DVR & DVR receivers will change from $7.45 to $7.99/mo.

Advanced TV Paks will change:

• Any 1 Pak (excluding Variety Pak) from $4.00 to $4.25/mo.
• Any 2 Paks (excluding Variety Pak) from $8.05 to $8.50/mo.
• Any 3 Paks from $12.00 to $12.50/mo.
• Variety Pak will be $4.00/mo.

Premium pricing will change:

• 1 premium channel from $13.99 to $14.99/mo;
• 2 premium channels from $23.99 to $24.99/mo;
• 3 premium channels from $30.99 to $34.99/mo;
• 4 premium channels from $36.99 to $44.99/mo.
• (Pricing for the 3rd and 4th Premium channels will be grandfathered at the current price for existing customers.)

Cox’s Preferred Internet tier is increasing from $49.99 to $53.99 a month.  Basic phone service increases from $11.75 to $13.18, and popular calling features like Caller ID are also increasing (from $5.95 to $9.00 per month).

Rates vary in different franchise areas.

DirecTV

The satellite TV provider will raise rates on Feb. 9 by 4 percent on average. Its costs are going up by more than that, the company said on its website: “The programming costs we pay to owners of TV channels will increase by about 10 percent.”

DirecTV defends its rate increase, noting it will introduce new features in 2012 that include more than 170 HD channels and the most 3D viewing options of any television provider.  The full breakdown is provided from DirecTV:

Consumer Tips

1. Customers who subscribe to bundled services will see the fewest rate increases.  The more services you bundle, the lower the typical cost of each component within the bundle.  It rarely pays to have one company as a TV provider and another delivering your broadband because standalone service pricing is increasingly the most expensive option.
2. Ask for an extension of your introductory or promotional rate.  Request pricing from the competition and be prepared to summarize it with your current provider when arguing for a lower rate.  If your current provider thinks you are serious about jumping to another provider, they may lower your rates to keep your business.
3. Be prepared to switch.  Cable companies base their retention offers on several factors: what the competition offers, how long you have been a customer (2+ years guarantees a better retention deal) and how you pay your bill.  If you are a late payer, expect a much more difficult time negotiating a lower rate.  You may encounter a brick wall if you are labeled a “flipper” that jumps between providers’ introductory pricing offers.  But even these customers will be welcomed back, with lower rates, when they inevitably return.  They just won’t get their promotional offer renewed.
4. Some companies reserve their most aggressive pricing for customers who actually schedule a disconnect or turn in their equipment.  Cable companies have gotten wise to empty threats from negotiating customers.  If you schedule a complete service disconnection two weeks in advance, some companies will take you seriously and call you with the most aggressive “win back” offers available, especially if you turned in your cable equipment.
5. Dump extras overboard.  Premium channel pricing has skyrocketed recently after remaining relatively stable for nearly two decades.  HBO is now at or above $15 a month in many areas.  As customers try to economize, premium movie channels are usually the first to go, and many cable operators are starting to lose preferred wholesale volume pricing discounts.  They are passing along new, higher prices to the dwindling number of premium customers left.  Scrutinize your cable bill carefully for potential savings.  Look for mini-pay tiers of HD channels you never watch, consider downgrading your “digital phone” package to local-only calling if you rarely make long distance calls, and consider tossing “Turbo” broadband speed packages that only incrementally increase download speed.  Many customers originally signed up to obtain higher upload speeds, but as cable companies boost speeds for all of their customers, the extra boost may no longer be worth the money.

At a time when cable television rates continue to spiral upwards in excess of the rate of inflation, Time Warner Cable’s interest in spending several billion dollars to acquire a professional baseball team seems strange.

The Los Angeles Times reports the cable giant is considering buying the Los Angeles Dodgers at a price that could exceed $2 billion.  It would compliment two new regional sports cable channels Time Warner plans to launch in southern California featuring the Los Angeles Lakers.

Time Warner Cable Sports president David Rone confirmed the cable company has a strong interest in carrying the Dodger games.  Purchasing the team outright could be much easier (and eventually cheaper) than negotiating against competing broadcasters and cable networks just to acquire the airing rights.

But at the same time customers are facing higher cable bills after the latest round of rate increases, it is ironic a cable operator complaining about programming costs and expenses would suddenly be willing to part with billions for a single baseball team.  For New York sports fans coping with the loss of MSG, sports programming Time Warner calls too expensive, it could prove counter-productive to complain about the cost of sports on the east coast while considering a $2+ billion purchase out west.

Static isn't just for the UHF dial, it's for powerhouse lobbying groups, too.

While surface reporting on “white space” broadband and “super Wi-Fi” seem to suggest the United States is on the cusp of opening up much of the UHF television dial to wireless broadband, behind the scenes broadband advocates are fretting about being outmaneuvered by the powerful broadcast lobby.  The theory behind “white space” broadband seems simple enough.  Anyone who has flipped channels up and down the UHF dial sees a lot of unused real estate.  While most cities receive 5-10 UHF TV channels, there are dozens of apparently empty channels filled with what seems to be nothing at all. Can’t we make more efficient use of the UHF dial and open the excess to other uses?

The FCC has been studying just that, with the proposition that broadcasters could be relocated closer together or agree to sell their broadcast license and sign off the air for good.  Theoretically, the UHF dial would be reduced to channels 14-30.  Stations on channels 31-51 would have to relocate down the dial to make way for broadband.

That was the plan anyway

Naturally, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), the broadcast industry lobbying group, was not happy to learn of this plan, which is still heavily promoted by wireless telecommunications companies.  They quickly argued there were not enough UHF channels left to accommodate every TV station on the air today, and some cities bordering Canada faced losing major stations if the plan was adopted.

In the clash of the lobbying titans, it appears broadcasters have at least temporarily won the upper hand.  Legislation authored by the powerful House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.), would grant the FCC authority to conduct spectrum horse-trading and auctions, but only if the sales take “all reasonable efforts to preserve” the coverage area of impacted broadcast stations.

In the minds of several wireless broadband advocates, “reasonable efforts” kills it. That key passage is open to wide interpretation, which in Beltway language means a full employment program for Washington law firms who will end up letting a judge decide what “reasonable” really means.

Blair Levin

Blair Levin, an attorney who served as chief of staff to FCC Chairman Reed Hundt from 1993 to 1997, where he oversaw the implementation of the disastrous 1996 Telecom Act, is all sour grapes about the latest developments in Congress.  That is to be expected — he was once considered the Obama Administration’s chief “broadband czar.”

“The legislation ties the FCC’s hands in a variety of ways,” Levin tells TVNewsCheck. “It opens it up to litigation risk, which then, in conjunction with the other handcuffs, makes it difficult to pull off a successful auction. The nature of the bill dramatically increases the probability that there will be less spectrum recovered and less money for the [U.S.] Treasury.”

Broadcasters have been legitimately worried about where they might fit within the new, slimmed-down UHF dial.  The more broadcasters packed closer together, the greater the chance of interference and reduced signal coverage for those who happen to live between two cities sharing the same channel number.  The NAB has consistently opposed forcing station-owners’ hands and wants stations compensated for their costs and inconvenience.

Before the first “white space” broadband signal takes to the airwaves, the government will have to set aside at least $3 billion to defray expenses incurred by television stations moving down the dial.  With language that guarantees broadcasters won’t have to suffer from an interference nightmare, FCC engineers will have a much harder time finding enough channels for the number of stations that need to move.  That could mean fewer channel positions up for auction.

Blair believes stations can extract even more by playing the litigation threat card.

“Nobody wants to go to an auction when there is the threat of a judge anywhere having the ability of holding it up,” Blair said. “I believe a good lawyer could find a way to get the question of  whether the FCC took all reasonable efforts in front of a judge. If you are designing the auction and a big law firm shows up and says, ‘If you don’t take care of my single broadcaster, we are going to find a way to get to court.’ That’s a real threat.’’

The Lady Gaga problem

Lady Gaga's wireless microphone malfunction.

Assuming Washington can fling enough cash to soothe the nerves of worried broadcasters, impediments to white space broadband don’t stop with the local Fox station.  The next complication is the wireless microphone issue.  When you see Lady Gaga in her latest outrageous outfit, you probably are not noticing her wireless microphone.  Performers of all kinds use these low power devices that often work over unused UHF spectrum.  Only it may not be unused for long.

Spectrum Bridge, a “white space” database administrator charged with coordinating who is using what frequency for what purpose, understands the challenges of trying to keep track of TV reporters, bands on tour, and other wireless microphone users, who all expect an interference-free experience.  Electric companies and municipalities also plan to utilize white space spectrum to manage smart city and smart grid communications.  A year later, Super Wi-Fi applications that deliver longer distance Wi-Fi service are expected to arrive.

It’s becoming a crowded neighborhood.

Congress’ NAB-friendly, Republican-sponsored bill may be modified substantially in a Democratic-controlled Senate, and there is still plenty of time for lobbyists to work their magic.  But it’s safe to say that those who have waited at least seven years for white space broadband to become a reality will have to wait a little longer.

One of the things we have tried to teach readers over the last few years is how important it is to follow the money trail when encountering a group, politician, or researcher counter-intuitively arguing “up is down” or “right is left.”  So when a business columnist in the Press of Atlantic City slammed rural broadband as a service provided “to a group of people who mostly don’t want it,” we started digging:

The FCC claims this effort will give 7 million rural people reliable access to high-speed Internet connections. So the hundreds of millions of urban and suburban Americans who wish their Internet was faster and more reliable will pay for 2 percent of us to get just that.

Or maybe we’ll be paying for redundant, overpriced telecom work by companies that donate to rural politicians.

Federal stimulus spending in response to the recession already included $7.2 billion for this same purpose. An analysis by Navigant Economics of three big projects under that Broadband Initiatives Program found:

Even “areas in which very high proportions of households were already served by multiple existing broadband providers” were eligible for subsidized broadband work.

The author’s suspicion that money was involved in all this was correct, but he completely missed who was boarding the money train.

Navigant Economics, the “research group” that produced the inflammatory report slamming rural broadband funding, happens to count AT&T as one of its important clients.

The group, a subsidiary of Navigant Consulting, provides economic and financial analysis of legal and business issues to law firms, corporations and government agencies.

In fact, Navigant pitches its services to a range of corporate clients:

Navigant Economics provides economic analysis in litigation and regulatory proceedings involving competition issues. Our experts have provided testimony in proceedings before District Courts, the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and numerous state Public Utilities Commissions.

We provide economic analysis and testimony in connection with mergers and acquisitions and antitrust claims of:

• Anticompetitive horizontal agreements (price fixing, bid rigging, potential anticompetitive effects of joint ventures)
• Unilateral conduct (predatory pricing, refusals to deal, monopolization via patent fraud)
• Vertical restraints (exclusive dealing, requirement contracting, tying and bundling)

We also offer economic analysis and testimony on issues of price and rate of return regulation, mandatory access, quality of service, and benefit-cost analysis, with especial expertise in regulatory proceedings involving communications and the Internet (software and hardware sectors, network unbundling and “net neutrality” issues affecting telecom and cable firms, retransmission consent and other content-related issues, and the range of wireless spectrum issues) and all types of energy markets.

Phillip "Making Sense, Not Dollars" Dampier

The result is what critics refer to as “dollar a holler research” — bought-and-paid-for-results that coincidentally fit the framework of a client’s public policy agenda.  In this case, AT&T (among other phone companies) has fretted about broadband stimulus funding ever since the Obama Administration made it clear the industry would not collectively control the program or reward themselves at taxpayer expense.  In addition to criticizing the decision-making process, phone and cable companies have objected to numerous applicants who applied for grants to build networks serving communities those companies have ignored or under-served for years.

To say AT&T has no vested interest in the outcome of rural broadband would be the first major understatement of 2012.

Martyn Roetter with MFR Consulting said Navigant was giving a bad name to researchers.

“Navigant Economics as well as other economists in academia and the consulting profession seem increasingly prepared to support arguments in favor of their clients’ desires and goals regardless of whether they are reasonable or preposterous,” Roetter wrote. “Unfortunately this behavior tends to blur the distinction between (a) respectable advocacy with findings based on evidence and rational arguments and (b) indefensible nonsense, discrediting both academics and consultants.”

Navigant spent much of 2011 trying to convince regulators and the public that T-Mobile actually doesn’t compete with AT&T, so there should be no problem letting the two companies merge.  Readers win no prizes guessing who paid for that stunner of a conclusion.  Thankfully, the Department of Justice quickly dismissed that notion as a whole lot of hooey.

Navigant’s second ludicrous conclusion is that there is no rural broadband availability problem.  Navigant has a love affair with slow speed, spotty DSL (sold by AT&T) and heavily-capped 3G wireless (also sold by AT&T) as the Frankincense and Myrrh of rural Internet life.  With those, you don’t need any broadband expansion (particularly from a third party interloper).

“The notion that a nominal maximum speed in a shared radio access network is comparable to a nominal maximum speed of a fixed broadband line to a location is a striking example of ignorance, wilful or otherwise, of the very different operating characteristics and capabilities of these two transmission media,” Roetter soberly observed.

But he knows better.

Roetter

Kevin Post, columnist for the Press of Atlantic City, bought Navigant’s conclusions hook, line, and sinker and repeated them in the press.  In fact, he upped the ante parroting the time-honored provider argument that rural America doesn’t need 21st century broadband because, well, they just don’t want it:

This costly effort is aimed at bringing broadband to a group of people who mostly don’t want it, according to a 2010 Pew Internet survey.

Half of Americans who don’t use the Internet told Pew that the main reason is they don’t find it relevant to their lives.

Only one in 10 nonusers said they would be interested in starting to use the Internet sometime in the future.

Actually, the Pew Internet survey came well before Navigant’s outlandish conclusions, and didn’t directly address the rural broadband availability problem.  Instead, Pew was looking at broadband adoption rates, primarily in places that already have one or more broadband providers.  Pew found what providers have already realized themselves: broadband growth and adoption is slowing; everyone who wants the service in urban America already has it or wants it.  Those that don’t are typically older and lack computers or are too poor to afford the asking price.

Post’s suggestion that a Pew Study concluded rural America does not want broadband service is an exercise in fixing the facts.

That’s the magic of the Dollar-a-Holler Echo Machine.  Big telecom companies hire public policy consultants and researchers to find their way to “scientific” evidence proving their corporate agenda, and then feeds the “facts” and “research” to receptive reporters, astroturf “consumer groups,” and politicians to bolster their case.  It’s not AT&T suggesting there is no rural broadband problem — it’s Navigant Economics.

As Roetter writes, “A basic knowledge of wireless markets exposes the […] indefensible nature of the positions outlined above. A policy based on ‘tell me what you want to hear, pay me, and I will reproduce it all regardless of its merits’ is a disservice to professionals who try to remain objective and independent, i.e. professional.”

Verizon Wireless became the Bank of America of late 2011 when it attempted to impose a $2 “convenience fee” on select customers who prefer to pay their monthly phone bills online or through an automated telephone attendant.  It’s just the latest experiment in customer gouging — the same kind of toe-in-the-water strategic experimenting that unleashed ubiquitous baggage fees on airlines, low balance fees on checking accounts, and the increasingly-common practice of charging customers extra to mail them their monthly bill.

An entire industry of consultants pitch their creative talents to companies like Verizon who want “a little extra” from captive customers.  These specialists sell their expertise identifying the most vulnerable (and least likely to leave), who will grin and bear just about any kind of abuse heaped on them. Many income and resource-challenged consumers are left feeling powerless to protest and reverse unwarranted extra charges.

The consultant gougers-for-hire made millions for large banks when they figured out how to score the biggest bounced check and overdraft fees (simply pay the biggest check first, opening the door to $39 bounced check fees for all the little checks that follow).  Verizon’s $2 fee targeted customers who couldn’t afford to let the company automatically withdraw their monthly payment, or didn’t trust the company to do it correctly.  Even more, Verizon’s fee would target more desperate past-due customers who needed to make a fast payment to avoid service interruption.  Consumer advocates wondered if Verizon was successful charging these customers more, would they expand the fees to cover all online or pay-by-phone payments?

We’ll never know because the public outcry and intensive media coverage during a slow holiday week combined to force Verizon into a fourth quarter revenue retreat, rescinding the fee 24 hours after announcing it.  But Verizon may be pardoned if they feel they were unfairly singled out.  That is because other telecommunications companies have been charging certain customers bill payment fees of their own for years:

Verizon's evolved position on the $2 convenience fee (Courtesy: WTVT)

• Stop the Cap! reader Larry writes to share TDS Telecom, an independent phone company, charges a $2.95 “third party processing fee” when accepting payments by phone.  “In its place you either have to revert to U.S. Postal Service, or agree to electronic billing for on-line payment access.”
• AT&T charges a $5 bill payment fee for “certain customers.”
• Sprint/Nextel not only has its own $5 bill payment fee for those paying at the last minute,  it also forces customers with spotty credit to sign up for auto-pay to avoid a mandatory surcharge.  Want a paper bill?  That’s $2 extra a month.
• Comcast charges a $5.99 payment fee, but only in certain states.
• Time Warner Cable charges fees ranging from an “agent assisted payment” fee ($4.99) to a statement copy fee ($4.99) in some locations.

While Verizon has agreed to drop its latest new charge, the company’s carefully-named bill-padding extra fees attached to monthly bills remain.  In addition to breaking out and passing along all government fees and surcharges, Verizon also bills customers administrative and regulatory recovery fees that, for other companies, would represent the cost of doing business.  These latter two go straight into Verizon’s pocket, despite the implication they are third party-imposed mandatory surcharges.

Had Verizon called their new $2 “convenience” fee a “business efficiency accounting recovery fee,” would they have snookered enough consumers to get away with it?

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTVT Tampa Verizon cancels planned 2 bill-pay fee 12-30-11.mp4[/flv]

WTVT in Tampa says Verizon did a complete 180 on its $2 bill payment “convenience fee.”  (3 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNN Verizon Dumps Fee 12-30-11.flv[/flv]

CNN hints the FCC’s potential involvement in Verizon’s business may have had something to do with the quick shelving of the $2 fee.  (2 minutes)