Big cable companies are targeting their non-customers, and those current customers who refuse to sign up for triple-play bundles, with some of the most aggressively-priced promotions in years.  The two largest, Comcast/Xfinity and Time Warner Cable, have been sending out letters offering dirt cheap $20 Internet service or cable television packages that include DVR service, a second set top box, and hundreds of digital cable channels for $49.99 a month for two years.

Comcast

Comcast promotions vary in different markets, depending on who their competitors are.  The best pricing goes to new customers, as a recent promotion sent to suspected DSL customers in their service areas illustrates.

(click to enlarge)

The cable company is pitching 12 months of Xfinity Performance (typically around 12Mbps) for $19.99 a month for the first year for new customers only.  Some customers report they can cancel penalty-free at the end of the first year, while others are told Comcast is actually pitching a two-year contract where the price of the service increases to $34.99 a month during the second year (a early cancellation fee pro-rated to less than $50 applies in some areas if you cancel early).  This pricing applies to standalone service, which makes it aggressively priced.  Most cable providers charge a higher price for Internet-only service.  Some customers also report a $25 or more installation fee applies (and in some areas an in-person install is required for new customers).  We’ve heard from some readers that successfully qualified for the promotion under the name of a spouse if they have had Comcast service previously.  Otherwise, Comcast usually requires customers to be without service for 90 days before they are considered “new customers.”

Customers can try calling 1-877-508-5492 to request this offer: $19.99/Month for 1 year with no additional service required (Code at bottom of letter: LTP79376-0014).

If that number does not work from your calling area, other numbers to try include: 1-877-298-0903 (CA, TX), 1-877-508-5492 (CA, WV), 1-877-494-9166 in NJ (currently pitching 6-month version of this promotion without contract.)

If 12Mbps is not fast enough, ask the representative what promotional pricing exists for faster speeds.  Some customers scored 35Mbps service for $10 more per month.

A separate ongoing promotion from Comcast offers Blast Internet service at 25Mbps+ on similar terms.  But pricing varies wildly in different markets.  Customers in California were able to purchase this promotion for as little as $19.99 a month with a year-long contract, while customers in Chicago were asked to pay $39 for essentially the same service.

Comcast’s promotions list runs several pages, so if you are shot down asking for these promotions, ask about other current offers or hang up and try calling again and asking to speak with someone else.  Your results may vary depending on the representative you speak with.  Remember Comcast’s 250GB usage cap applies to all residential service plans.

Time Warner Cable

In addition to regular Road Runner standalone Internet service promotions that deliver Standard Service speeds for $29-35 a month for a year, Time Warner has been getting very aggressive trying to win back cord-cutters and those who have left for a competing pay television provider.  The cable company has mailed letters to non-cable TV customers in the northeast pitching substantial discounts on cable TV service price-locked (but no commitment term for you) for two years and includes free DVR equipment, DVR service, and a second set top box with digital cable TV for $49.99 a month.  They’ll even credit back the cost of any early termination fees charged by another provider over the course of the first year of service.

(click to enlarge)

The promotion is intended primarily for customers who already receive service from another provider, but new customers can call 1-855-364-7797 and ask for the offer without the competing provider early termination fee rebate.  If you do receive service from another provider, there are various requirements and steps to follow to qualify for up to $200 in termination fee credits.  Visit SwitchtoTWC or call them to learn the details.

Neither of these promotions work for existing Time Warner Cable customers.  If you already subscribe, discounts will be offered when you threaten to cancel service.  Retention deals from Time Warner Cable can be as aggressively priced as new customer promotions.  We have found retention offers made during the initial call to request a service disconnection are often not very aggressive.  Most representatives try and pare back your package before starting to offer retention pricing (which gradually gets better the more times you reply, “is that the best you can offer?”)

Our best recommendation is to call and request to cancel service 2-3 weeks from today and wait for a Time Warner Cable retention specialist to call you (answer those mystery caller ID calls — it could be Time Warner).  The reps that call you directly often deliver the most aggressive retention deals.  If nobody does reach out to you, call Time Warner yourself a few days before the disconnect is scheduled and ask them to make you an offer to rescind your disconnect request.  You may find some serious savings taking this approach.  If not, you still have time to rescind your disconnect request on your own before the plug gets pulled.

Julia Chastin is old enough to know that life sometimes makes you wait, but three hours is ridiculous.

Chastin (her maiden name, to protect her privacy), is a customer of Shaw Cable in Fort Macleod, Alb.  Her Internet service went down last weekend when the neighbor’s overzealous application of a “weed whacker” went awry and damaged her cable connection.  Chastin called Shaw Cable to report the problem, and there began her life in call queue hell.

“Usually companies who make you wait will tell you if their lines are especially busy, which is fine because I can just set the telephone on the speakerphone and go about my business until someone answers, but this turned a phone call into an afternoon adventure,” Chastin says.

In total, it was two hours, fifty-three minutes before a human being finally came on the phone, but only briefly.

“I heard this fumbling sound like someone’s headset was coming off, some mumbling and laughter, and then the line disconnected,” Chastin reports.  “I was furious.”

Chastin is not alone.

“Shaw’s hold times are legendary here in the west,” says Rob Kelvey, a Shaw customer near Vancouver.  “You can easily wait on hold an hour or two before someone answers, and that is day or night.”

Kelvey reports Shaw teases customers with an option inviting customers to accept a call back from a Shaw representative instead of waiting on hold, but it doesn’t work.

“I have used this option at least three times in the past year or so and it has never worked once.”

The problem isn’t just noticed by customers.  A recent polite editorial in the Grand Forks (B.C.) Gazette called out Shaw’s ridiculous hold times and poor customer service:

There are probably many people out there who have had to call the cable company when a TV or Internet-related problem arises only to be put on hold and not just recently.

It is not unusual to be put in a phone queue, especially when it comes to customer service, but the sometimes extraordinarily long wait times can even test those with the greatest of patience.

“Three hours isn’t patience, it’s perseverance,” retorts Chastin.

Customer Service Scoreboard bottom-rated Shaw, based on several hundred responses from customers.  More than 300 were critical of Shaw; only 17 people shared positive experiences with the company’s representatives.   The website rated Shaw Cable a dismal 29 out of 200, putting them firmly in the “terrible” category.

“Sometimes it really is faster to walk to a local Shaw Cable office to report problems instead of calling them on the phone, an ironic fact for a telecommunications company,” says Kelvey.

Shaw officials will occasionally tweet apologies for extended hold times and suggest customers use their online chat customer support feature or their Facebook page for assistance.  But some customers found Shaw’s online chat had “hold times” as well, sometimes as long as 40 minutes.

“Fort Macleod doesn’t offer a lot of options for Internet access, so waiting for Shaw is unfortunately the best option, but when I finally did manage to get someone on the phone, they heard from me good and I received a $20 service credit as an olive branch, which I appreciated,” Chastin says.

“I’d appreciate more not having to wait my life away on hold for hours even more.”

When high definition television was a novelty, there was just one network that specialized in showing off what digital HD could do for television viewing: Mark Cuban’s HDNet.  Broadcasting exclusively in 1080i High Definition, HDNet featured prominently in television showrooms and HD-capable homes, showing a mix of sports, movies, documentaries, specials and current events programming in crystal clarity.

It was also a novelty in that it had no direct affiliations with either a movie studio or a cable television company.  That independence (and a desire to be included on standard HD tiers and not ‘mini-pay‘), has proved costly for Cuban’s venture, celebrating its 10th anniversary this month.  HDNet is in a unique position of finding itself off of an increasing number of cable providers’ lineups.

The latest: Rogers Cable, who has told subscribers it intends to drop the channel Nov. 1.

The cable company did not explain why it was planning to remove the channel, but it is hardly alone.  Bell dropped the network last December.  In the United States, HDNet has lost lucrative carriage agreements with Time Warner Cable, Bright House Networks, Cox Cable, Mediacom, RCN, and MetroCast Cablevision.

It is rare for cable operators to sever relationships with networks, except for brief periods during contract renewal talks.  But they make an exception for Mark Cuban’s networks, even if it means replacing HDNet programming with live cattle auctions.

A new proposal from the nation’s six largest telephone companies would double or triple Universal Service Fund (USF) fees on many telephone lines, extending them to wireless, broadband-based phones, cable TV “digital phone” products, and potentially even Internet accounts, providing billions from consumers for the companies proposing the plan.

Universal Service Fund reform has been a hot topic this year in Washington, as regulators attempt to reform a long-standing program designed to help keep rural landline telephone service affordable, subsidized with small charges levied on customer phone bills that range between $1-3 dollars, depending on the size of your community.

The original goals of the USF have largely been achieved, and with costs dropping to provide telephone service, and ancillary services like broadband DSL opening the door to new revenue streams, some rural phone companies don’t need the same level of support they received in earlier years.  As a result, USF funds have progressively been disbursed to an increasing number of projects that have little to do with rural phone service.  Several funding scandals over the past decade have underlined the need for USF reform, and FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has been a strong advocate for directing an increasing amount of USF resources towards rural broadband deployment projects.

But now some of America’s largest phone companies want to establish their own vision for a future USF — one that preserves existing funding for rural phone service –and– levies new fees on ratepayers to support broadband expansion.

The ABC Plan's chief sponsors are AT&T...

America’s Broadband Connectivity Plan (ABC), proposed jointly by AT&T, Verizon, CenturyLink, Windstream, Frontier Communications and FairPoint Communications, departs markedly from Genachowski’s vision for a revised USF that would not increase the overall size of the Fund or its cost to consumers.

That’s why some ratepayer consumer groups and utility regulators have taken a dim view on the phone companies’ plan.

Colleen Harrell, assistant general counsel to the Kansas Corporation Commission says customers would find USF fees doubling, if not tripling on their home phone bills under ABC.  That could mean charges of $6 or more per month per phone line.

While the plan substantially benefits the companies that propose it, critics say ABC will do little to enhance service for ordinary consumers.  In fact, some language in the proposal could open the door for landline companies to discontinue universal landline service, a long time goal of AT&T.

In fact, protection for incumbent phone companies seems to be the highest priority in most of the ABC’s framework:

1. The proposal provides a right of first refusal to the incumbent phone company, meaning USF grant funds effectively start at the landline provider, and are theirs to accept or reject.  This has competitors howling, ranging from Wireless ISPs, mobile data providers, cable companies, and even fiber networks.  The ABC proposal ignores who can deliver the best broadband most efficiently at the lowest price, and is crafted instead to deliver the bulk of funding to the provider that has been around the longest: phone companies.
2. Provisions in the ABC Plan provide a convenient exit door for landline providers saddled with providing service to some of America’s most rural communities.  An escape clause allows “satellite service” to be provided to these rural households as a suitable alternative to traditional wired service, sponsored by an annual $300 million Advanced Mobility/Satellite Fund.  This, despite the fact consumer ratings for satellite providers are dismal and existing providers warn their services are often unsuitable for voice calls because of incredibly high latency rates.
3. Provisions in the ABC Plan adhere to a definition of acceptable broadband well within the range favored by telephone company DSL providers — 4Mbps.  Setting the bar much higher could force phone companies to invest in their networks to reduce the distance of copper wire between their offices and customer homes and businesses, allowing for faster speeds.  Instead, lowering the bar on broadband speeds assures today’s deteriorating rural landline network will make-do, leaving a rural/urban speed divide in the United States.
4. To “resolve” the issue of the increased fees and surcharges that could result from the plan’s adoption, it includes a subjective cap of $30 a month on residential basic landline home phone service (without calling features).  But since most ratepayers pay substantially less for basic home phone service, the maximum rate cap provides plenty of room for future rate increases.  Also, nothing precludes phone companies from raising other charges, or creating new “junk fees” to raise rates further, ignoring the “cap.”

...and Verizon

Rural states seem unimpressed with the phone companies’ proposal.  The Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) called various provisions of the plan “a train wreck.”  Kansas is one of several states that developed their own state-based Universal Service Fund to help the state’s many rural agricultural areas receive acceptable telecommunications services.  Kansans initially paid one of the highest USF rates in the country when their state plan was enacted in 1996.  But Kansas phone companies used that money to modernize their networks, especially in rural communities — some of which now receive fiber-based phone service, and the rates have fallen dramatically as upgrade projects have been completed.  Today, most Kansans pay just $1.45 in USF fees to rural phone companies, while AT&T customers in larger Kansas towns and cities pay an average of $2.04.

If the ABC Plan is enacted as-is, Kansans will see phone bills spike as new USF fees are levied.  That’s because the federally-based USF Fund reform program would require today’s 6.18% state USF rate double or triple to sustain various programs within its scope.

And forget about the $30 ‘smoke and mirrors’ “rate cap”, according to the KCC:

[…] The ceiling will not preclude carriers from increasing the basic rate beyond $25 or $30 through higher state USF surcharges or higher local rates.  Multiple states including Kansas  have partially or totally deregulated basic local phone service rates, and the only component of retail  local service pricing that the FCC regulates is the federal Subscriber Line Charge.  Thus, a carrier may face no constraint whatsoever in increasing basic local rates to the point that total local rates are well above the illusory ceiling.

The state of Wyoming was also unimpressed with a one-size-fits-all national approach advocated primarily by big city phone companies AT&T and Verizon, the chief sponsors of the ABC Plan.

The Wyoming Public Service Commission filed comments effectively calling the ABC Plan boneheaded, because it ignores the plight of particularly rural states like Wyoming, chiefly served by smaller phone and cable companies that face challenges in the sparsely populated, mountainous state.

First among the Wyoming PSC’s complaints is that the plan ignores business realities in rural states.  No matter how much USF funding becomes available or what compensation schemes are enacted, dominant state phone companies like CenturyLink are unlikely to “invest in broadband infrastructure unless it is economically opportune to do so.”

The PSC points to the most likely outcomes if the ABC Plan is enacted:

• Phone companies not challenged by a broadband competitor will make due with their current copper wire wireline infrastructure the PSC says has been deteriorating for years.  The PSC fears broadband expansion funds will be used to improve that copper network in larger areas where cable competition exists, while the rest of the more-rural network gets ignored;
• In areas like larger towns or suburbs where phone companies suspect a cable (or other) competitor might eventually expand or launch service, USF funding could be spent to bolster the phone company’s existing DSL service to deter would-be competitors from entering the market;
• 

  We'll pass, too.

  The Wyoming PSC believes phone companies will spend broadband funds only where it would improve the phone company’s competitive position with respect to cable competitors.  Providers are unlikely to expand into currently-ignored rural areas for two reasons: lack of ongoing return on investment and support costs and the ABC Plan’s willingness to abandon rural America to satellite providers.  “We are familiar to a degree with satellite service at it presently exists in Wyoming markets, and we are not particularly enamored of the satellite solution,” the PSC writes.  But if adopted, no rural phone company would invest in DSL service expansion in areas that could be designated to receive federally-supported satellite service instead.

Wireless competitors are not happy with the ABC Plan because it ignores Wireless ISPs and sets ground rules that make them unlikely to ever win financial support.  Many also believe the ABC Plan picks technology winners and losers — namely telephone company provided DSL service as the big winner, and everyone else a loser.

The Fiber to the Home Council also heaped criticism on the ABC Plan for the low bar it sets — low enough for any phone company to meet — on broadband speeds.  The FTTH Council notes the ABC Plan would leave rural America on a broadband dirt road while urban America enjoys high-speed-rail-like service.

Coming Next… Who Really Supports the Phone Companies’ ABC Plan.

When is a cable, wireless, and video rental conglomerate big enough to start its own financial institution?  When it achieves the size and scope of Rogers Communications.

Rogers announced, through a tiny legal notice filed over the weekend, it had taken the first steps to achieve its ambition of launching Rogers Bank:

ROGERS BANK

APPLICATION TO ESTABLISH A BANK

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to subsection 25(2) of the Bank Act (Canada), that Rogers Communications Inc. intends to apply to the Minister of Finance for the issue of letters patent incorporating a bank under the Bank Act (Canada) primarily focused on credit, payment and charge card services.

The bank will carry on business in Canada under the name of Rogers Bank in English and Banque Rogers in French, and its head office will be located in Toronto, Ontario.

Any person who objects may submit an objection in writing to the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, 255 Albert Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H2, on or before October 24, 2011.

If approved by the Minister of Finance, don’t expect to get your next home mortgage or checking account from the cable company.  Rogers Bank intends to focus mostly on the payment services business, according to the application.  Among the potential angles to be pursued by Rogers Bank:

• Offering a Rogers-branded credit card to interested customers, perhaps tied to a rewards program;
• Getting a substantial discount processing credit card payments and the growing popularity of mobile micropayment services, which allow consumers to purchase items from vending machines, parking meters, and other in-person transactions using a mobile phone;
• Offering its own payment transfer service, similar to PayPal;
• Leveraging credit opportunities by running the credit-granting institution inside the company, instead of appealing to outside institutions.

Rogers’ idea, while unusual, is not unique.  Canadian Tire and Loblaw both operate their own “banks,” primarily for financing products and services.