Cable subscribers paying ever-increasing television bills for hundreds of channels they never watch may find some relief if Comcast decides its experiment in “a-la-carte” cable-TV is a success.

The company is testing a new way of selling service that delivers a basic package of channels for a lower price and then offers customers bouquets of add-on channels sold in “theme packs” for $10 apiece.

Comcast is testing what it calls MyTV Choice in parts of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont and Charleston, South Carolina, and plans to expand it to the Seattle area soon.

Here’s how MyTV Choice works:

Customers start with a basic package of channels that Comcast calls “Get Started” ($24.95) or “Get Started Plus,” which sells for $44.95 a month.

What differentiates the two options are the networks they contain.  Inexpensive cable networks turn up in Get Started — A&E, Discovery, C-SPAN, Animal Planet, Daystar, Food Network, home shopping, and The Weather Channel are among the 32 channels that accompanies a basic package of local channels.

Get Started Plus includes all of those networks plus sports — the budget-busting networks that help keep cable bills growing.  ESPN and other regional sports channels are included in the more expensive package.

Missing from the basic package of channels are kids shows, news, movies, and niche networks.  That’s where Comcast’s “Choice” packs come into play.  Customers can add a 19-channel News & Info pack, 31-channel Entertainment & Lifestyle pack, 16-channel Movie pack, and/or an 11-channel Kids pack for $10 each.

That’s where the “choice” ends.  Customers cannot skip the basic channel package to select only one of the theme packages, individual channels are not for sale, and anywhere outside of Charleston, customers also have to buy phone and Internet service from Comcast. HD also costs extra.

So much for a lower bill.

In fact, Comcast sells a digital cable package incorporating a full lineup of basic cable channels for just under $60.  If your family loves sports, has kids, and needs news channels, sticking with the digital cable package is actually cheaper than MyTV Choice.  That’s because the latter will require a $44.95 base package, plus three theme packs for an additional $30 a month.

Comcast denies their experimental a-la-carte package has anything to do with cord-cutting Internet viewers.

“It’s more or less responding to feedback from customers that they want more choice,” Comcast spokesman Bill Ferry told the Post & Courier.

While Ferry and others argue the pay-per-channel is not economically feasible, Christopher C. King, a telecom analyst for Stifel Nicolaus in Baltimore told the newspaper that is the trend.

“Certainly the industry’s moving more toward an a la carte model,” King said.

Theme-packs are not a new concept for some pay television viewers.  In the 1980s and 1990s, consumers owning large 6-to-12 foot satellite dishes routinely encountered the channel bouquet concept.  Customers would purchase a basic package and then select from a dozen or more mini-tiers, usually made up of networks owned by one company.  Want TBS and TNT?  Turner Broadcasting sold an add-on with those two channels.  Wanted a superstation package?  Channels uplinked by cable companies like TCI from Denver could be purchased as a small package.  So could stations like WSBK in Boston, WWOR and WPIX in New York, KTVT in Dallas and KTLA in Los Angeles.

Comcast has “simplified” things with a much smaller set of choices.  But that also dramatically limits any potential savings.

The concept of a-la-carte cable horrifies cable companies and their Wall Street shareholders, because a true “pay-per-channel” offer would dramatically cut the average revenue earned per subscriber if customers took a hatchet to the bloated channel packages most customers receive today.

Cable operators have resisted the concept because every channel would have to be encrypted to sell individually, billing would become more complicated, and the business model of niche-oriented networks supported by more popular fare would end.  That’s why programmers hate the idea as well.  While A&E, TNT, and CNN would have no trouble surviving, networks like Current TV, TV One, Hallmark, Cloo, and LOGO probably would not.

More importantly, many subscribers might find savings elusive from a-la-carte, because the most expensive cable programming networks also happen to be among the most popular.  ESPN and Fox News Channel, for example, have dramatically increased their rates to cable companies, who helpfully pass them along to you.  But if cable operators suddenly stripped those networks out of basic packages, while leaving the much cheaper networks together in broad-based theme packages like “lifestyle and entertainment,” subscribers may howl in protest or accuse the cable operator of playing politics.

It gets even harder when the cable companies selling the big packages of channels customers never watch also happen to own some of the networks found within those packages.  Comcast shareholders may not like the cable side of the business kicking lucrative NBC-owned and operated cable networks like The Weather Channel, USA, E!, Cloo, and other owned networks to a-la-carte Siberia.  Every cable subscriber pays for Cloo and E! today.  How many will choose to pay for those networks under an “a-la-carte” model is an open question.

Only two cable operators have expressed an interest in switching to a true, a-la-carte model to date — Suddenlink and Mediacom — both small, regional players that have no programming interests and lack sufficient buying power to score the kinds of discounts available to companies like Comcast and Time Warner Cable — discounts they can have if they agree to keep as many channels bundled in one digital cable package as possible.

Even Jessica Fletcher can't solve the case of The Digitally Murdered VCR

Time Warner Cable customers in Maine are learning the cable operator’s move to digital cable is making VCR programming downright murder.

Although many of us have retired the videocassette recorder to closets, attics, or basements, millions of them are still being used on a daily basis to time-shift shows and to record one channel while watching another.  But in Maine, the first area to experience Time Warner’s shift to an all-digital cable experience, viewers like Nancy Blethen from Hallowell are learning those days are coming to an end.

Blethen shared her plight with the Kennebec Journal:

I read with interest the story about the converter box for Time Warner subscribers. Although, the idea of more channels is appealing, they really aren’t any that I care to watch.

Another point the story omitted is that if you have a VCR and connect the converter from your cable through the VCR to the TV set, you will only be able to record the channel you are watching. No more recording when you are not home or if you want to watch another channel while recording another program.

I spent at least 20 minutes on the phone with a tech person, and they checked with their supervisor and concluded that this is something subscribers will have to live with, at least for the present. You can avoid this by using one of their DVR recorders, but at an additional monthly fee. Time Warner is the only choice I have where I live so I have to forget recording on the VCR.

Although Time Warner Cable will happily supply a digital solution to this analog quagmire, it doesn’t come for free.  DVR service costs $13 a month or more each month.  While it solves the problem of the flashing 12:00-clock for confounded consumers, it also increases their cable bill by well over $100 a year, more than the cost of the VCR (and tapes) that used to let them record shows for free.

These kinds of testimonials help fuel our fight on behalf of consumers for better (and cheaper) broadband:

Hi Guys,

I don’t usually take the time to write thank you’s, but I found your site the other day and managed to save over $20 on my cable bill by switching to ”Earthlink” which I had no idea was possible. When I signed up with Bright House I was promised the $45 a month price for standard Internet, but I signed up a day before their prices jumped to $50. I managed to fight to get my price down for $45, but all of a sudden that stopped and they were refusing to give me the price I signed up for, for the remainder of the year. Due to that, I switched to the Earthlink promo prices and got Bright House to switch me over. They tried to lie to me on the phone to make me think I couldn’t get the Earthlink promo pricing, but I won the argument and am now very happy.

In six months, I’ll try to switch back to Road Runner and get their promo prices.

This is such a hidden unknown gem and has saved my family lots of money. Thank you!

— Scott

Thanks Scott.  Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks have Earthlink as a hidden little secret most customers know nothing about.  It’s an arrangement that started way back in 2001 with the now-long-forgotten (and broken up) merger between AOL and Time Warner.  A voluntary agreement to allow third party ISPs to sell broadband service over Time Warner Cable has been ongoing ever since, even though customers would routinely find Earthlink’s regular prices not so exciting, if they found them at all.

The Earthlink savings are best realized for broadband-only customers who do not want to get tied down with a double or triple-play package from their cable company.  Both Time Warner Cable and Bright House charge considerably higher prices for standalone broadband service.  It’s part of a marketing tactic to convince you better savings are possible with a bundled service package.  But if you don’t care about the phone line or cable TV, why pay for either?

For every third-party ISP we’ve encountered reselling service on Time Warner Cable or Bright House, it seems mostly an exercise in branding.  For example, Earthlink’s standard and “turbo” products are totally identical to Road Runner offered by both cable companies, with two important distinctions:

• You do not get the benefit of SpeedBoost, a temporary speed increase during the first few seconds of a file transfer;
• You are assigned an Earthlink e-mail address, not one from Bright House or Time Warner Cable.

In fact, Earthlink as a company seems to be running mostly on auto-pilot these days.  We found their website woefully outdated, still selling speeds upgraded several years ago. If Bright House locally sells 10/1Mbps standard Road Runner service and Earthlink offers 7Mbps with a 384kbps upload speed, you will actually get 10/1Mbps from Earthlink as well.  The only difference is the name of the service as it appears on your monthly Time Warner Cable or Bright House bill.  Both cable companies literally just select Earthlink from a drop-down menu on the customer service computer screen.  All service calls and billing are handled by the cable companies.  If you need technical support, however, it will come from an overseas call center or online “chat” platform Earthlink runs.  But Earthlink includes something Time Warner Cable and Bright House customers lost several years ago — up to 20 hours a month of free dial-up usage when away from home.

After the Six Month Promotion….

Earthlink charges $29.99 a month for speeds that are identical to Time Warner Cable or Bright House’s Road Runner Standard service.  In most areas this is or will soon be 10/1Mbps.  Turbo, which usually increases speeds to 15/1Mbps, costs another $10 a month.  These promotional prices are good for six months.

When the six months are up, you are then qualified to participate in whatever New Customer Promotions Time Warner and Bright House are running for their broadband service.  We are commonly seeing offers of $29.99 a month for a year of standard Road Runner service in upstate New York, with occasional offers of a year of free Road Runner Turbo service thrown in.  Assuming those prices remain in effect, you should be able to secure at least 1.5 years of broadband service for $30 a month.  Remember, if your cable company charges you a modem rental fee, consider investing in your own to save that additional charge.  They are priced well under $100.

When your six months of Earthlink and a year of Time Warner/Bright House promotional pricing is up, simply threaten to take your business elsewhere, and you will usually find them willing to extend the promotion for an additional year.  If not, schedule a cancellation date two weeks out and wait for an inevitable phone call from the customer retentions department with a special “winback” offer.

Also remember you can always start new service under the name of a spouse or family member.  Third party resellers (Google “Time Warner Cable “and pay attention to the online ads) may even throw in a prepaid rebate card for signing up for service through them, so shop around when the promotions expire.

These shopping tips may apply to other cable broadband providers as well.  Remember, if your local phone company is now providing more than traditional DSL, most cable companies will go out of their way to hang on to a customer threatening to walk to AT&T U-verse or Verizon FiOS.  Let them fight to keep you as a customer, and you keep the savings.

Charter Cable told a Howell, Mich. family that lost everything in a major house fire they owed the cable company $1,600 for cable equipment, remote controls — even the batteries — that were consumed in the blaze.

Kerry Cacchione, her three children and her husband Jeff lost every single possession they owned in the fire seven weeks ago.  The Cacchione family, like many home renters, neglected to purchase all-important renter’s insurance, and without it, all of their furniture, clothing, and other valuables were gone for good.

When the family returned home to see the property, undergoing repairs paid for by their landlord, they were confronted with an enormous bill from Charter Communications, their cable company.

“$1,600, and they [charged us] for every remote, every battery, every modem, every cable box, and every DVR box,” said Cacchione.

The Cacchione family took the bill to Charter Cable and begged for forgiveness, telling employees there was no way they could afford to pay that cable bill.

Kerry reports Charter was unsympathetic and refused to waive the charges, leading her to ask WXYZ’s “Call for Action” to intervene.

With the threat of more bad publicity on the 6 o’clock news, Charter Communications decided to wipe out their bill.

Charter is among the most intransigent cable companies when it comes to demanding compensation for cable equipment destroyed or damaged in fires.  The company always relents when confronted with the prospect of bad publicity, such as when a customer service representative told one tornado victim in Alabama she would wait on the phone while she searched through debris in the neighborhood for lost cable equipment.

Every renter should always have renter’s insurance, which typically will cover damaged cable equipment. It’s very affordable and protects renters from losses. Many consumers believe landlords carry insurance which will protect them in the event of a natural disaster or fire, but those insurance policies protect the landlord’s property, not renters’ possessions. The peace of mind afforded by renter’s insurance can make all the difference in a major loss like the one experienced by the Cacchione family.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WXYZ Detroit Losing It All 8-31-11.mp4[/flv]

WXYZ in Detroit comes to the rescue of yet another family falling victim to an enormous cable bill from equipment lost or damaged in a house fire.  (3 minutes)

Residents in greater Philadelphia overpaid Comcast more than $875 million dollars, thanks to the cable company’s alleged anti-competitive practice of building regional cable clusters that scare would-be competitors away.

Those are the primary allegations in a 2003 class action case brought against the country’s largest cable operator — a lawsuit Comcast has appealed, so far unsuccessfully.  A three-judge panel of the 3rd Circuit on Tuesday delivered the latest blow to the cable company, denying Comcast’s efforts to get the case thrown out.

At issue is the cable industry’s practice of acquiring and trading cable systems with each another to create regional “clusters,” — large geographic areas all served by the same cable provider — and what that practice does to cable pricing.  All the rage in the late 1990s and early 2000s, cable clustering largely put an end to multiple cable systems serving individual cities.  In the 1980s and 90s, it was not uncommon to find up to four different cable systems serving different sections of a community.  Philadelphia was no different, served by more than a half-dozen cable operators in the greater metropolitan region and surrounding counties.

In the late 1990s, the Court noted Comcast launched a major shopping spree to consolidate the entire area around one cable provider: Comcast.  The lawsuit claims subscribers have paid the price ever since.

Comcast’s Cable Swaps and Acquisitions

• April 1998: Comcast acquires 27,000 Marcus Cable customers in Harrington, Delaware, which is part of the Philadelphia Designated Market Area (DMA);
• June 1999: Comcast acquires 79,000 Greater Philadelphia Cablevision customers in the city of Philadelphia;
• January 2000: Comcast acquires 1.1 million Lenfest Communications customers in Berks, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery counties in Pennsylvania, and New Castle County in Delaware;
• January 2000: Comcast acquires 212,000 Garden State Cablevision customers in Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, Mercer, and Salem counties in New Jersey, which is part of the Philadelphia DMA;
• December 2000: Comcast acquires 770,000 AT&T Cable customers in Eastern Pennsylvania (Berks and Bucks counties) and New Jersey, in return for trading 700,000 Comcast customers in Chicago with AT&T (Comcast would later win them back by acquiring AT&T Cable itself);
• January 2001: Comcast acquires 464,000 subscribers in Philadelphia and nearby communities in New Jersey in a subscriber trade with Adelphia Communications Corp., wherein Comcast obtained cable systems and approximately 464,000 subscribers located primarily in the Philadelphia area and adjacent New Jersey areas.  In return, Comcast turns over its subscribers in Palm Beach, Florida and Los Angeles, California to Adelphia.
• April 2001: Comcast wins another 595,000 subscribers in the region in a trade with AT&T Cable;
• August 2006: Adelphia implodes and cable companies including Time Warner Cable and Comcast pick over what’s left.  Comcast manages to pick up another 41,000 former Adelphia customers that were originally headed to Time Warner in yet another subscriber swap;
• August 2007: Comcast acquires Patriot Media and its 81,000 New Jersey customers located within the Philadelphia DMA.

When the acquisitions and transfers were complete, Comcast managed to build a major empire in southeastern Pennsylvania.  In 1998, the company had just a 23.9 percent market share in the Philadelphia DMA.  Comcast managed to control 77.8 percent of the market by 2002.  Despite competition from satellite television and one struggling cable competitor — RCN, Comcast still controlled nearly 70 percent of the market as late as 2007.

Who Pays for the Shopping Spree?  Comcast Customers, Say Plaintiffs

Six Comcast customers upset with the relentless rate increases that came with Comcast’s acquisitions joined forces and filed suit against Comcast in 2003.  The plaintiffs charged Comcast with anti-competitive business practices and violations of the Sherman Act for building a monopoly presence in the market that also helped keep competitors at bay.

One plaintiff’s expert was able to calculate what he called “a conservative estimate” of how much Comcast has effectively overcharged customers in Philadelphia by preventing effective competition: $875,576,662.

That figure was hotly disputed in Comcast’s court appeal, but last Tuesday the Court rejected Comcast’s arguments.  In fact, the Court found merit in the formula used to arrive at the amount of overcharging Comcast has allegedly engaged in — in Philadelphia alone.  Comcast’s argument that customers enjoy lower pricing through promotions and other special pricing arrangements fell apart when the Court learned at least 80 percent of Comcast subscribers pay regular “list prices” for service, and the expert who created the ‘wallet damage‘ formula had taken that special pricing into account.

The plaintiffs suggest that had Comcast not engaged in system clustering, one or more of the area’s cable systems might have decided to compete against the other cable systems.  In that scenario, customers might have been able to choose from Comcast, Lenfest Communications, Marcus Cable, and/or Patriot Cable for cable service, resulting in increased price competition.  While there have been instances of traditional cable operators overbuilding into each other’s territories, those instances have been rare — a point Comcast made in an effort to have the case tossed out.  Comcast’s case is that the majority of Americans are served by a single cable provider, but that’s not a problem because the industry faces increasing competition from satellite TV providers and, as of late, large phone companies.

But the Court found the reason for this lack of competition could be, as plaintiffs argue, the successful outcome of the alleged anti-competitive, cable system-clustering strategy.

As an example, a railway monopoly from 100 years ago could claim it isn’t economical for more than one railroad to serve a particular community, but that isn’t a problem because other forms of transportation exist to move goods and people.  That argument would be based on a market reality created by the railway industry, which routinely bought out the competition through withering price wars, cross-subsidized by higher prices in other monopoly markets. The end effect was a shrinking number of competitive markets, increasing profits (and prices), and a strong deterrent for would-be competitors to enter the business.

A similar case has been brought by the plaintiffs struggling with high cable bills.  In their eyes, cable customers paid for the Monopoly game board on which cable properties were traded or sold.  When the shopping spree was complete, higher rates were the result, indefinitely.

The Case of RCN — Programming Denied

Most traditional cable companies do not compete in areas already served by another cable company.  It’s a tradition some liken to a cartel, where companies carve up territories and enjoy the market benefits afforded by a lack of competition.  But this model is also considered standard operating procedure by Wall Street and other private investors, who fear all-0ut price wars cutting revenues and destroying value and profits.  But there are some companies whose entire mission is to challenge this economic model: the cable overbuilders.  The business plan of the cable overbuilder is to challenge the status quo and deliver service where cable TV already exists and do so profitably.

One such overbuilder is RCN Corporation, which delivers competitive cable service in Boston, Washington, D.C., New York City, Chicago, and parts of the Lehigh Valley.  RCN began operations in 1996 in Boston, just before the cable industry’s quest for clusters went into hyper-drive.  Their plans to compete have been challenged by the ever-increasing concentration in the cable-TV marketplace ever since, and the company has had a particularly tough time attracting subscribers in the Philadelphia area.  Much of RCN’s service area these days is limited to multi-dwelling units like high-rise condos and apartments, where wiring costs are lower.

One of the most effective ways to keep customers from switching to a competitor is to develop or maintain exclusive programming rights.  If a Comcast customer discovered his favorite sporting events could only be seen with a Comcast subscription, that could be a deal-breaker for signing up with RCN.  Before the 1992 Cable Act, the cable industry which owned and controlled a number of popular cable networks refused to sell those channels to would-be competitors (or charged unreasonable prices for access).

When this lawsuit was filed in 2003, RCN found itself locked out of Comcast’s SportsNet, just one of several regional sports networks that cable operators withheld from satellite and cable competitors.  That’s because the 1992 Cable Act included a loophole: it applied only to networks distributed on satellite.  Several regional sports channels were not on satellite, so they could, and were, legally withheld from competitors like RCN.  That loophole was finally closed by the FCC last summer.  But for more than a decade, RCN had to convince sports fans to sign up for a competing service that didn’t have one of the most popular sports channels on the lineup.

Satellite competitors DirecTV and DISH Network were in the same boat, and the legal case recognizes the impact: satellite TV competition in Philadelphia has a below-average percentage of the market, when compared to other cities.

Plaintiffs argued RCN never had fair access to programming, leaving them to compete with one hand tied behind their back.  Even worse, they allege Comcast compelled local contractors into non-compete contracts agreeing not to work for any Comcast competitor, and signing customers up to unusually long contract terms with hefty cancellation penalties in RCN service areas.

All of these accusations were deemed credible by the Court, much to the objection of Comcast, which argued RCN was in serious financial distress and would never be a strongly viable competitor in Philadelphia.  Last week’s Court decision found that ironic, accepting that RCN’s present condition could be, as plaintiffs allege, the result of the anti-competitive, unfair business practices Comcast is charged with.

The evidence on the record “demonstrates that Comcast’s alleged clustering conduct indeed could have reduced competition, raised barriers to market entry [by other competitors] … and resulted in higher cable prices to all of its subscribers in the Philadelphia Designated Market Area,” the court ruled.

Comcast: A Competitive Marketplace Begins And Ends Only at Home

One of the most-disputed elements in the case is determining how much, if any, damage was done to consumers in the greater Philadelphia area.  Much of the plaintiffs’ case rests on pricing anomalies found in the Philadelphia region, where customers are alleged to be paying significantly higher prices for cable service and not enjoying a significant amount of competition.  To build that case, lawyers measured cable rates and available competitors in the various counties in and around the city of Philadelphia.

This is also critical for determining the size of the “class” in the class action lawsuit.  The larger the class, the greater risk of significant damages if the court rules against the cable company (or if the case reaches a settlement.)  Plaintiffs claim their case should include all cable television customers who subscribe or subscribed at any time since December 1, 1999, to the present to video programming services (other than solely to basic cable services) from Comcast, or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates in Comcast‘s Philadelphia cluster.

They specifically defined the cluster as “areas covered by Comcast‘s cable franchises, or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates, located in the following counties: Berks, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Kent and New Castle, Delaware; and Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, Mercer and Salem, New Jersey.”

Comcast counters the geographic market is exactly the size of one, single household.  They argue that subscribers can only choose among video providers serving that customer’s specific home, so what cable competition exists in other counties or communities isn’t relevant.

The side effect of such an argument would be the end of a class action case, since the class size would be reduced from a number in the millions to just one, requiring every impacted consumer to file their own case.

The three judge panel was wholly unimpressed with Comcast’s argument, throwing it out and allowing the case to proceed.