Bright House Networks charges a $20 “collection processing fee” when the cable operator calls customers to remind them they have a past due balance. The fee, charged in addition to the company’s traditional “late charge,” has some Bright House customers upset.

The cable company explains the $20 “collection fee” is levied when a customer is two months past due and represents the costs of contacting the customer and “paperwork” inside Bright House’s offices.  But some customers consider it gouging, especially because they already pay a late fee.

Bright House Networks’ Residential Services Agreement implies a “collection fee” may only be charged when the company dispatches a representative to your home to request/collect payment for a past due amount (underlining ours):

If my Services account is past due and BHN sends a collector to my premises, a field collection fee may be charged. The current field collection fee is on the price list or can be provided on request. I will also be responsible for all other expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs) incurred by BHN in collecting any amounts due under this Agreement and not paid by me.

Bright House charges a $20 "Collection Processing Fee" when it calls past due customers.

It also appears the “collection fee” has been a part of the Bright House experience since at least 2009.  We found one customer from Ocoee, Fla. complaining Bright House was charging a $20 “collection fee” for cable service billed at less than $21 a month.

If you have been charged both past-due and collection fees by Bright House, ask them to waive the fees.  We found several customers who successfully requested the company forgive one or both charges when an account is brought up to date.

Customers having trouble paying Bright House should consider dropping services to lower the bill or negotiate for a retention deal.  Customers threatening to switch to the competition are often able to secure a substantially lower price for service.

Bright House’s reasons for charging the $20 fee seem dubious to us, unless the company actually dispatches an employee to a customer’s home to seek payment.  But then we’d find it difficult to recommend any company that would send an employee to visit a customer’s home demanding money.  Cutting off service to deadbeat customers is often effective enough to prompt a payment arrangement.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WOFL Orlando BrightHouse Late Fees 4-12-12.mp4[/flv]

WOFL in Orlando covers the case of one late-paying Seminole County man who is annoyed Bright House charges him $20 to let him know he is past due.  (2 minutes)

[Updated 3:59pm ET 4/19 — A Bright House representative reached out to emphasize the cable company charges a $20 collection fee only after not receiving payment for two months.  A collections agent is physically sent to the address to give notice of possible termination and at that time a collections fee is billed.  The company denies it bills this fee when calling customers to inquire about a payment.  This seems in keeping with the company’s residential customer agreement, quoted above.  We appreciate the additional information and are happy to pass it on to our readers.]

If you thought paying an average of $86 a month for basic pay television and premium movie channels in 2011 was out of line, just wait.  A new report predicts you could pay $123 by the year 2015 and $200 by 2020 — and that only includes the TV portion of your bill.

That is in keeping with typical annual rate increases, typically blamed on “increased programming costs,” which currently run an average of six percent a year.

The NPD Group, who published the findings, predicts consumers may not sit still for that kind of monthly cable television bill, especially as household incomes for the middle class continue to remain stagnant, even as high fuel and health care prices continue to march higher.

The pay television industry isn’t entirely responsible for the annual rate hikes that nearly always outpace the rate of inflation.  The real money is in programming production and distribution, which is why giant companies like Comcast, Bell, Rogers, and Viacom are buying up programming studios, distributors, and networks at a rapid pace.

With new players like Netflix, Amazon, and Redbox joining traditional pay television and broadcast network bidders, auctions for exclusive licensing agreements bring higher and higher bids.  Ultimately, consumers pay the price in the form of higher bills.  Even cable networks, sensing an increase in the value of their programming, are extracting higher monthly fees at contract renewal time.

The last to arrive at the programming money party?  Local over-the-air broadcasters that used to beg cable companies to carry their channels on the local lineup.  Now some are demanding as much as $5 or more per month per subscriber to allow the cable operator to keep carrying the stations.

“As pay-TV costs rise and consumers’ spending power stays flat, the traditional affiliate-fee business model for pay-TV companies appears to be unsustainable in the long term,” said Keith Nissen, research director for The NPD Group. “Much needed structural changes to the pay-TV industry will not happen quickly or easily; however, the emerging competition between video on demand and premium-TV suppliers might be the spark that ignites the necessary business-model transformation of the pay-TV industry.”

In other words, the more consumers cut cable’s cord and go find other ways to watch their favorite shows, the more unsustainable the traditional pay television business model will become.  Some industry watchers believe cord-cutting is not a major issue.  Others believe continued rate increases will drive customers to cancel service, particularly when alternatives are available. But NPD believes economic factors are the biggest reason for cable cord-cutting.  Those ex-customers are switching back to free “over the air” television, which now delivers better picture quality and often includes additional channels that increase the number of viewing options.

NPD Group research shows most consumers don’t want to exert too much effort to hunt down online programming. Most will put up with their current provider as long as they deliver the shows they want at a price they can afford.  What could change that?  Easy-to-access to a-la-carte programming, perhaps available from services that may soon come built-in with the newest television sets.

“Pay-TV providers offer a convenient, one-stop shop for subscribers, and the majority of customers like it that way,” said Russ Crupnick, senior vice president of industry analysis for The NPD Group. “There is an open window for the industry to meet consumer needs and become to television what iTunes is to music; however, there is also a definite risk if pay-TV providers don’t capitalize on the opportunity — and soon.”

As consumers continue to blow through their $30 2-3GB usage capped 4G/LTE wireless tablet plans offered by Verizon Wireless and AT&T, Public Knowledge is repeating calls for the Federal Communications Commission to launch a formal investigation into data caps.

“It’s a ridiculous situation that the carriers sell millions of these devices specifically designed to view video on one hand, while they restrict the usage of their networks for video on the other,” said Gigi B. Sohn, president and CEO of the consumer group.

Public Knowledge is specifically calling out wireless phone companies because they stand to make millions as customers rack up usage charges when using 4G-equipped tablets with the carriers’ usage-limited wireless networks.

“It is simply inexcusable that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has not even seen fit to ask wireless and landline carriers to explain why those caps are necessary, how they are set and how consumers are affected by them,” Sohn added. “If the Commission is truly interested in consumer protection, it will ask the crucial questions and come up with some answers before consumers start getting hit with ever-increasing bills just for using the devices they bought in good faith.”

Sohn

Although the majority of Apple iPads sold in North America only support Wi-Fi, 4G-equipped models have proven addictive, with some customers obliterating their usage allowances with AT&T and Verizon after just a few hours of use.

Wireless carriers largely blame online video for the heavy usage.

“Streaming video consumes the most data of all possible activities and is often the reason customers are among the top 5% of heaviest users,” AT&T notes on its website.

The Federal Communications Commission’s apparent lack of interest in investigating data caps may not be that surprising, however.

In releasing the Commission’s own proposed Net Neutrality rules in late 2010, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski made it clear he was open to new billing models that charge by how much data a user consumes.  With a green light for Internet Overcharging, carriers responded with usage limits and usage-based pricing, raising customer bills in the process.

Consumers and community leaders across Georgia can now rest a little easier knowing AT&T’s plans to throw up roadblocks against community broadband have gone awry.  SB313, a custom-written corporate welfare bill designed to protect cable and phone companies from competition, has reportedly been turned into a “study bill” — a graceful way to kill bad legislation without hurting too many feelings.

It wasn’t just the fact incumbent phone and cable companies wanted to stop community broadband projects from wiring communities they’ve ignored for years.  It wasn’t even the absurdity of the bill defining Georgia’s “broadband” speeds at just 200kbps (later ‘generously’ amended and increased to 758kbps).  This bill died because of consumer and community outrage — local officials working hand in hand with woefully under-served Georgians asking their elected officials why they seemed to care more about AT&T’s interests than those of the people who elected them to office.

Specious political arguments about “government/taxpayer involvement in broadband” and a sudden blitz of campaign contributions for the bill’s backers simply couldn’t overcome the reality of broadband-challenged rural Georgia.

According to the National Broadband Map, Georgia ranks 20th in the nation for broadband access. According to the forward of a report by Rich Calhoun, Program Director of the Georgia Technology Initiative, “As I traveled through the state to talk with leaders in municipalities, counties and community anchor institutions, I found that many places throughout Georgia indicated that they did not have access to affordable or sufficient broadband services. Telecommunications firms who have made significant investments in Georgia indicated that in some areas of the state the return on investment would not qualify for further investment at the present time.”

As Stop the Cap! exposed to our readers, AT&T isn’t interested in serving the broadband needs of rural Georgia and doesn’t want anyone else serving them either.

We exposed the well-financed propaganda campaign that maligned some of Georgia’s past experiences with municipal broadband, many projects derailed not by government ‘failure’ but through political interference and the private sector.  We showed readers how to follow the money to see the connection between campaign contributions and the sudden interest in effectively banning community broadband.  We exposed the fact this is a coordinated, nationwide effort by a corporate backed lobbying group (ALEC) that pays to wine and dine lawmakers and then sell them on a catalog of bills ghost-written by some of the nation’s largest telecommunications companies.  Legislation that hamstrings competition and protects monopoly profits, while always conveniently exempting incumbent providers from the terms of the bills they effectively wrote.

But the real victory goes to readers who picked up the phone or sent e-mail letting Georgia legislators know you were watching them and paying attention to this obvious corporate welfare bill.  You made it more expensive for lawmakers to vote with AT&T, despite their campaign contributions, than to vote for -your- interests.  The next election is never too far away.

Why We Fight: These are the minimum speeds needed by some of Georgia's most important institutions. While state lawmakers have 100Mbps access in Atlanta, some are content to define 758kbps "broadband" as just fine for the rest of the state.

We also applaud the Institute for Local Self-Reliance.  Their Community Broadband Networks project was able to educate, coordinate, and rally local governments who may not have been aware their broadband future was about to be indefinitely held ransom by AT&T and Comcast.

We never underestimate AT&T’s power and money.  But they continue to underestimate us and the communities they are supposed to be serving.

Common sense prevailed in Georgia.  South Carolina may be a different story.  Their own anti-broadband measure is still alive and kicking.  We’ll be holding additional “calls to action” on this bad bill shortly.

Stay involved in the fight.  The better broadband you protect may be your own.

Rabbit ears are making a comeback.

After this year’s cable and satellite rate increases, the average American is now spending $550 a year on basic cable television.  With declining middle class incomes and increasing energy and health care costs busting the budget, something had to give.  Increasingly, it is cable and satellite TV.  Now consumers are combining the past with the future to find a cheaper way to watch television — over the air “free TV” with streamed online video entertainment.  Many broadcasters even offer extra channels that are made possible through digital signal compression.

Some marketers are going over the top with the renewed interest in over the air television, pitching “futuristic” television antennas at a steep price to customers who want to cut cable’s cord.  While your parents and grandparents were well-acquainted with antenna technology, today’s younger generations are not, and are overpaying for antennas you can find for a fraction of the price at Wal-Mart.

The concept of cord cutting is simple.  You can watch live sporting events and local news and network shows from over-the-air broadcasters and catch up on favorite movies and TV series streaming shows online.  The days of the snowy picture are over since the country converted to digital TV.  But in many cases, an antenna is essential to getting the best reception.

Satellite and cable companies are trying to compete, offering discounts and, in some cases, pared down packages.  But prices will need to come down further: the average video streamer and over-the-air viewer pays $180 a year on average for a premium streaming package from Netflix, Hulu or other online viewing option.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KIMT Mason City IA TV Antenna Making a Comeback 2-21-12.mp4[/flv]

KIMT in Mason City, Iowa explores the growing interest in the old-fashioned TV antenna.  (3 minutes)