A-la-carte cable: Still not on Rogers' menu

Carol Jameson simply can’t afford to spend $70 a month for cable television any longer.  Although Canada’s economy is doing better than some, Jameson’s husband recently had to endure a pay cut, and the costs of raising their two teenage children are not getting any lower.  The London, Ont. Rogers Cable customer ran several kitchen table meetings to discuss what expenses could be cut from the family budget.  Her teenage son and daughter targeted the family’s landline telephone — an archaic curiosity of the past for today’s cell-phone-obsessed youth, and cable-TV, which they saw as increasingly irrelevant.

“Just don’t touch the Internet connection,” Carol was advised.

Despite concerns from her sports-addicted husband, Jameson decided to start shopping around, and definitely decided the days of their landline was over.  In her neighborhood, “shopping around” meant choosing from Rogers Cable or a satellite TV provider.  Bell’s Fibe — fiber to the neighborhood — service was not up and running in her part of London.

“I had settled on a basic satellite package and keeping Rogers’ broadband and called the cable company to share the bad news,” Carol tells Stop the Cap! “But when I tried to cancel, I was transferred to someone who said I could stay and pick and choose only the channels I wanted to watch and pay for.”

Carol was shocked Rogers had a solution for her high cable bill that it never bothered to share until she tried to cancel.

“You can’t find a thing about this deal online or even on the phone with Rogers’ customer service, and who would think to ask after years of getting dozens of channels we never watch,” Jameson says.

Carol was being pitched Rogers’ new “Pick and Pay” service, currently undergoing a five month trial in the London area.

“I was offered the service until March 2012, after which I was advised to call Rogers back and discuss my options after the trial ends, if it ends,” Jameson tells us.

Rogers’ “Pick and Pay” is a modified a-la-carte suite of offerings.  It does not allow customers to pick and choose only the channels they wish.  It instead asks customers to sign up for a $20 basic cable package containing local broadcasters and certain other channels Canadian telecommunications regulators want all Canadians to have access to, and several channels Rogers wants their customers to have (home shopping, The Fireplace, Aquarium, and Sunset Channels, etc.)  Beyond that, customers can choose from mini-packages of Canadian superstations, U.S. broadcast stations, and digital music.  Customers then select 15, 20, or 30 channels of their choosing ranging in price from $26.38-$33.48 per month.

“It’s better than $70 a month, but not by too much,” Carol says.

Carol and her husband decided to consider the offer, but found an exact list of channels hard to come by.

“That’s not a problem limited to me,” Carol reports. “The Globe & Mail featured Rogers’ new cable package and the customer in that case had to obtain a photocopied list of channel choices because Rogers didn’t have one online.”

Carol ended up with the 20 channel add-on package and the U.S. network station suite, which runs $28.41 and $3, respectively.  That means her cable TV bill dropped to $52 a month, just over $22 a month less.

Rogers' scarce photocopied channel listing for their "Pick and Pay" package, obviously removed from an employee's three-ring binder.

“But here is where Rogers gets you by your pocketbook,” Carol warns. “You have to take Rogers’ phone service with the deal, so now the landline is back, although they charge less than Bell.”

Jameson also notes these prices do not include mandatory extras:

• $4.49 – Digital terminal rental (per TV)
• $2.99 – Digital service fee
• $0.70 – Local Programming Improvement Fund Fee
• + G.S.T. (taxes)

“So much for the savings,” Carol says.

The Globe & Mail speculates the Rogers’ trial is rigged to convince Canadian regulators there is little interest in a-la-carte cable, at least the way Rogers has packaged it (and kept it hidden from public view):

In September, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission said that it had received complaints from consumers about being forced to pay for too many channels they do not watch, and that it expects cable and satellite companies to change that. The CRTC ordered all TV providers to report back by April on what actions they have taken to give subscribers more choice.

But cable and satellite executives have told the CRTC in hearings that there is no consumer demand for cheaper, “skinny basic” packages that offer fewer channels at lower cost than today’s basic TV packages. And some think that Rogers will use the London example to tell the CRTC that there isn’t much demand for the product.

Customers like the Jameson family might end up unwittingly proving Rogers’ point.

“After all of the extras, we rejected the plan and were all ready to switch to satellite and keep the broadband, but at the last minute Rogers offered us new customer pricing on their standard package for a year if we agreed to stay, and we did,” Carol tells us.  “A-la-carte cable is exactly what we need, but this isn’t it.  Maybe that is why Rogers keeps it a secret.”

Verizon Wireless customers in New Jersey were startled Monday when the company sent out text messages labeled “Extreme Alert,” telling people a civil emergency was underway and they should seek immediate shelter.

No, Jersey Shore’s Snooki was not in the building.  It turned out to be a bungled test of the cell phone company’s emergency alert system, designed to text important information to cell phone customers located in specific geographic areas.

The fact Verizon forgot to mention “this is only a test” alarmed those receiving the warnings, as well as area 911 call centers that were subsequently flooded with calls.

Verizon admitted it sent the messages by mistake to customers in Middlesex, Monmouth and Ocean counties.

Emergency officials in all three counties began receiving calls from worried residents and the state homeland security office and emergency management center eventually posted messages on Twitter declaring the messages a false alarm.

At least Verizon didn’t charge customers for the text messages.  They, like other company-initiated communications, come free of charge.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WABC New York EAS Alert 12-12-11.mp4[/flv]

WABC’s New Jersey reporter talked with recipients of Verizon’s scary text message, and emergency officials who had to deal with the onslaught of phone calls from worried residents.  (2 minutes)

Haven't we been here before?

History is best ignored when a Wall Street Journal columnist frames an argument in favor of strengthening the hegemony of Ma Bell, and darn ‘ole past precedent gets in the way of the writer’s “facts.”

Gordon Crovitz is a media and information industry adviser and executive, including former publisher of The Wall Street Journal, executive vice president of Dow Jones and president of its Consumer Media Group.  But today he’s unofficially, unabashedly AT&T.

In a column published this week, Crovitz hosts a whine and cheese festival on behalf of poor and abused AT&T, whose multi-billion dollar takeover of T-Mobile is in tatters. Crovitz places the blame squarely on the government for ruining everything:

How soon we forget the risks of overregulation: Last week, the Federal Communications Commission flexed the same muscle it once used to quash market forces in the phone industry to quash market forces in the wireless industry.

Today’s AT&T, a spinoff from the original, needs more spectrum to catch up with market leader Verizon, also a Ma Bell descendant, to support iPhones, Androids and other devices that feature video and sophisticated apps. It wants to buy T-Mobile, a division of a German company, which doesn’t have the resources to compete in the United States on its own. But the FCC decided to apply antitrust theory from the industrial era and claims to know better than wireless companies how they should operate their businesses.

AT&T’s proposed acquisition is best understood as a private-sector solution to a government-created problem. The FCC has not been able to get Congress to approve auctions to reallocate spectrum to wireless from less valuable uses. AT&T wants T-Mobile’s bandwidth so it can extend the latest fourth-generation network to 97% of the country from 80% and improve its spotty service in congested areas.

Under laws dating to the 1920s, the FCC gets to decide if a merger is in the “public interest,” a vague standard for top-down decision making. Government is the last institution in this era of fast technological innovation to act as if it has the information and power to dictate how change happens.

Crovitz apparently prefers AT&T and its phone pal Verizon Wireless dictate how “change happens,” because the two companies control the vast majority of wireless telecommunications in the United States.  Both also charge near-identical prices for near-identical levels of service.  AT&T & VZW are completely comfortable with that status quo, especially if disruptive competitor T-Mobile is dealt with in the usual industry manner (merger/buyout).

There is nothing vague about the FCC report that condemns the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile for the anti-competitive monstrosity it represents.  In hundreds of pages Crovitz evidently never read, a careful and credible argument against the deal was laid out for all to examine.  That evidence is far more persuasive than AT&T’s heavily-redacted filings the public was not authorized to see (for ‘competitive reasons’), and a multi-million-dollar-a-holler public relations distortion strategy based on hollow promises.

Playing Catch-Up With Verizon Wireless?  Hardly.

AT&T hardly needs to “catch up” with Verizon Wireless.  Both companies own wireless spectrum they have warehoused for “future use.”  As a backdrop to the merger, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has already indicated the agency is hard at work carefully re-allocating spectrum to make more room for wireless services.  The “bandwidth crisis” AT&T talks about is a convenient argument for a merger, until you realize T-Mobile’s mostly-urban wireless network won’t help AT&T achieve its goal of rural wireless expansion.  T-Mobile has never provided service in rural America and never will.

Crovitz attempts to leverage Verizon Wireless’ recent deal with America’s largest cable companies as an argument for the AT&T and T-Mobile merger, suggesting that deal was a game changer.  What goes unsaid is the fact AT&T could have pursued that deal for themselves.  Did they?  No.  Despite AT&T’s public relations spin, the proposed merger with T-Mobile is much more than a spectrum acquisition. As the FCC and the Justice Department have argued, this merger is about ridding AT&T of a competitor willing to offer more services at lower prices.  That forces AT&T to respond in kind to compete, and consumers have benefited greatly from that competition. Verizon Wireless is hardly competition at all considering both companies price services nearly identically.  Beyond that is Sprint, already saddled with the financial albatross Clearwire and questions about its long term viability in a duopolistic wireless market.

Crovitz is wrong on his other “facts” as well:

Deutsche Telekom is hardly short on cash.  The company has plenty of resources and could bolster T-Mobile USA to compete if it saw fit.  It doesn’t, preferring to focus on its more lucrative European markets.  Instead of selling the operation on the open market to other players, which could include foreign providers interested in competing in the high-priced American market, it elected to be courted by AT&T.

Overconfident AT&T

Henry De Lamar Clayton, Jr.: Author of the Clayton Act

The merger illustrates AT&T’s unparalleled level of overconfidence it could deal with regulators and consumer groups who would certainly object to the deal.  The company has since spent millions it could have used to improve its network on campaign-contribution-fueled support building on Capitol Hill, a shameless dollar-a-holler astroturf campaign that pays off non-profit groups to sing the deal’s praises, and an expensive ad campaign to sucker Americans into thinking reduced competition will somehow deliver lower prices and better service.

Even former Republican FCC Chairman Kevin Martin would have likely paused over such an obvious monopoly-building operation.  The Obama Administration’s FCC chairman — Julius Genachowski —  while often too timid for our tastes, at least knows when it is time to join the chorus of opposition.

The FCC doesn’t pretend to tell AT&T how to run its business.  It does, however, serve the public interest by providing checks and balances to unfettered corporate power.  While the Wall Street Journal‘s world view of capitalism would have been favored by the most egregious robber barons, history has taught us that when big corporations get a stranglehold on vital industries, the entire economy can suffer.

Crovitz would have us ignore the massive corporate abuses of 100 years ago that eventually provoked Congress into trust-busting legislative reform, breaking up the monopolies and oligopolies that presided over the railways, early telecommunications networks, and industrial raw materials like oil and steel.  Restrained competition brought monopoly prices and blockades against would-be competitors.  What was true then is still true now, only the technology has changed.

In 1911, the economy was powered in part by railroads, which transported goods and raw materials.  Telecommunications networks like the telegraph and early telephone helped conduct business and coordinated the movement of goods.  In 2011’s growing digital economy, telecommunications increasingly represents the railroads, telegraph, and telephone all combined-into-one.  Some of America’s richest tech companies depend on broadband and communications to fuel demand for their products.  Allowing AT&T to control the largest part of that pipeline could be disastrous to everyone but that company and their shareholders.

History Repeats Itself

In 1914, the Clayton Act was passed to put a stop to increasing anti-competitive activity and abusive market tactics.  Amazingly, the problems being solved a century ago are back with a vengeance today, all thanks to the endless drumbeat for deregulation, which has fueled mergers, acquisitions, and increased concentration of market power.  That Act cracked down on:

• Price discrimination: selling products and services at different prices to similarly situated buyers;
• Tying and exclusive-dealing contracts: sales on condition that the buyer sign exclusive contracts that force an end to dealing with the seller’s competitors;
• Corporate mergers: acquisitions of competing companies to reduce competition; and
• Interlocking directorates: Boards of directors of competing companies, packed with common members.

Today’s laissez-faire attitude towards government checks and balances helped provoke the Great Recession, corporate scandals of epic proportions, and a revolving door in Washington where regulators end up working for the companies they used to regulate. Just ask former FCC chairman Michael Powell. Three years ago he worked for us.  Today he works for Big Cable’s largest lobbying group — the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.  FCC Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker went to work for Comcast shortly after green-lighting their super-merger with NBC-Universal.

It’s All About the Money. Always.

The only thing stopping AT&T from providing wireless nirvana to rural America is its own unwillingness to spend money on behalf of customers to upgrade its network.  The company claims it didn’t see the value of spending nearly $4 billion needed to deliver expansive 4G service, but suddenly had no trouble at all finding nearly ten times that amount to purchase T-Mobile USA.

Did AT&T suddenly win PowerBall?

AT&T saw crushing a competitor Job #1.  Central Idaho’s 4G service could wait.

Crovitz later notes AT&T “was unusually blunt” criticizing the FCC report, a classic case of protesting too much.  The company got caught with its rhetorical pants down, with a series of evolving arguments for a deal that never made the first bit of sense once you began to dig deeper into their case.

In the end, Mr. Crovitz wants you to blame Big Government for AT&T’s pervasive dropped-call problem that its competitors don’t seem to have.

It’s not the company that owns and runs the network, it is that Obama and his nasty henchmen at the FCC who are responsible!  Who knew?

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg FCC Says ATT Failed to Show Public Benefit of Merger 11-30-11.mp4[/flv]

Bloomberg News reports the FCC found AT&T failed to demonstrate any real public benefit of its merger with T-Mobile USA.  (2 minutes)

Verizon Communications plans to introduce its own standalone streaming video service that will compete head-to-head with Netflix, according to a breaking, exclusive report from the Reuters news service.

The phone company is said to be in negotiations with several programming partners that could make available popular movies and television shows on the service, which would be sold exclusively in areas not wired for Verizon’s fiber-to-the-home service FiOS, starting early next year.

Netflix stock once again took a pounding on the news, down as much as 5%.  Netflix has experienced serious challenges in its transition to a streaming service, including intransigent programmers who want to be paid considerably more to extend licensing deals.  Netflix has been forced to raise prices and split its DVD rental and streaming plans, provoking anger among subscribers.

Reuters reports the service will have a limited offering from the outset, perhaps picking up expiring contracts Netflix had with Liberty Media’s Starz Play and Viacom’s Epix.  Epix includes titles from Paramount, Lions Gate and MGM, and is set to expire at Netflix next September.

Verizon is said to be interested in expanding its services beyond its FiOS customer base to obtain better rates from programmers.  The more subscribers with access to your service, the better the volume discount.  By limiting the new movie service to non-FiOS areas, Verizon will protect from cannibalizing customers from its own fiber network while opening the door to lower per-subscriber costs for programming.

Analysts say the deal will likely be closer in comparison to Amazon’s limited streaming service, available at no charge to its Amazon Prime customers.  Netflix has a broader catalog of online titles.  But they expect Verizon to price the service competitively with Netflix to attract customers and compete for similar programming rights.

Verizon may repackage content originally intended for the standalone streaming service for its existing FiOS customers under a TV Everywhere concept, meaning the programming would be accessible to FiOS subscribers who maintain video subscriptions with the phone company, perhaps without any additional charges.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Netflix Stock Takes a Hit 12-6-11.flv[/flv]

Netflix stock is still being pounded, now even more so after Verizon’s announcement it is entering their business space.  Will Netflix ultimately be sold to a bigger player to survive?  CNBC investigates.  (4 minutes)

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSJ Verizon May Enter Streaming Video Market 12-6-11.flv[/flv]

The Wall Street Journal digs into Verizon’s video announcement, and how it will likely impact Netflix and the online video marketplace.  With a programming bidding war, customers may actually end up paying more for online video.  (5 minutes)

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSJ Comcast and Verizon Merge Without Merging 12-2-11.flv[/flv]

Comcast and Verizon are attempting a virtual merger, meaning that both sides are agreeing to work together by staying out of each other’s way, Peter Kafka reports on the Wall Street Journal’s digits.  (3 minutes)

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSJ Verizons 3-6 Billion Spectrum Deal Turns Heat on ATT 12-2-11.flv[/flv]

And what of AT&T?  The Wall Street Journal reports Verizon Wireless’ deal is ramping up pressure on rival AT&T, which is fighting to salvage its deal to take over T-Mobile USA, Greg Bensinger reports.  (5 minutes)