Charter's dumping ground for sneaky rate increases can be found in the Adjustments, Taxes and Fees portion of your monthly bill.

Charter Cable is literally passing the buck onto its cable TV subscribers.

Effective this October, Charter Cable customers will pay about a dollar more per month thanks to a new junk fee the company is adding to subscribers’ bills.

Federal law allows local U.S. broadcast television stations (i.e., affiliates of networks such as CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, etc.) to negotiate with cable and satellite providers in order to obtain “consent” to carry their broadcast signals (Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992).

As a direct result of local broadcast, or “network-affiliated,” TV stations increasing the rates to Charter to distribute their signals to our customers, we will be passing those charges on as a Broadcast TV Surcharge, in the Taxes and Fees section of the billing statement. These local TV signals were historically made available to Charter at no cost, or low cost. However, in recent years the prices demanded by local broadcast TV stations have necessitated that we pass these costs on to customers.

For most customers, the fee will average $0.94 per month, but in some areas it will be as high as $1.31 per month.  Charter argues the fee is not arbitrary. claiming it represents the average price the company pays – per subscriber – for local broadcast stations in the communities it serves.

Stop the Cap! contacted Charter this morning and learned the company intends to impose this new fee even on customers with Charter’s Price Guarantee Package, which is supposed to guarantee customers no change in pricing for up to two years (see notes at the end of the article for an update).  A Charter representative we contacted claimed the company will impose the fee on all customers, including those on contract, because of a clause in the terms and conditions which says, “The guaranteed price does not include the cost of installation and equipment, any applicable franchise fees, taxes or late fees, or costs for other ancillary services that you may order.”

Of course, the new fee is completely arbitrary and is neither a franchise fee or tax, nor is it for an “ancillary service.”  We predict a closer review of Charter Cable’s thinking on this matter by state regulatory agencies and Attorneys General.

Charter’s FAQ seeks to pass the blame for the new fee to the federal government and local broadcasters:

Federal law treats [cable networks and over-the-air TV stations] differently. Unlike cable TV networks, local broadcast TV stations distribute their signals over the air, using free spectrum granted to them by the federal government. In effect, taxpayers are subsidizing the distribution of broadcast TV signals. These same broadcast TV stations are then allowed by the government to charge for their signals — and if we don’t agree to pay, broadcasters can force us to drop their channels, thereby adversely impacting our customers.

“Given cable’s well-documented history of raising rates 4-6 times the annual rate of inflation, it seems rather disingenuous for them to now claim their rate hikes are coming as a result of broadcast TV stations, which provide the highest-rated entertainment and local news programming on the cable line-up,” National Association of Broadcasters Executive VP Dennis Wharton told Multichannel News in response to Charter’s move.

The new Broadcast TV Surcharge will appear in the Taxes and Fees section of your bill, joined by other junk fees Charter has invented to pass along the ordinary costs of doing business to cable subscribers while claiming they are not increasing rates:

Charter’s “It’s Someone Else’s Fault We Charge These” Junk Fees

• TV and Internet Late Payment Fee — A late fee will be assessed for past due unpaid Charter TV and Internet charges.
  
• Phone Processing Fee — This fee is assessed when Charter does not receive payment for the full balance of your phone charges.
• Regulatory Cost Fee — The cost of doing paperwork and whatever else the company deems.
• State Telephone Relay Charge — Funds a Telecommunications Relay Service for hearing impaired/speech disabled residents.
  
• Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Fee — The FCC charges an annual regulatory fee for cable operators.
  
• Franchise Fee — Local communities collect a percentage of revenue from cable operators in return for doing business in the community.
  
• Public Education and Government Channels (PEG) Fee — Many cable franchise agreements ask cable operators to help fund the operations of these channels.
  
• Public Utilities Commission (PUC) Fee — Some states ask regulated providers to defray the costs of utility commissions that oversee providers on the state level.
• County 911 Charge (9-1-1 fee) — Some counties ask telephone providers to help pay to administer emergency 911 service.
  
• Telephone Right Of Way Fee (Municipal right-of-way fee) — A fee used to compensate municipalities for the use of their rights-of-way.
• E911 Equalization Surcharge (9-1-1 equalization fee) — A fee charged in wealthier, urban areas to help subsidize the costs of 911 service provision in rural and poor areas.

(Those fees in blue represent completely optional “junk fees” that hide revenue enhancements.)

(Those charges in red are fees mandated by government entities, but traditionally deemed “the cost of doing business.”  Nobody requires these fees be billed directly to subscribers on a line-by-line basis, and most cable operators used to include them in the monthly price for service.  But in a quest for increased revenue, cable companies began breaking them out of cable package pricing, charging for them independently.  That effectively raises your total bill without changing the price of the programming package.  It’s comparable to an airline charging for your airline ticket, but then padding the price with a Seat Rental Fee, a Boarding Fee to enter and exit the plane, an FAA Cost Recovery Fee to pay the Federal Aviation Administration for its services, a Flight Plan Filing Surcharge to cover the costs of filing a flight plan, and a Control Tower Charge to defray the expense of dealing with air traffic controllers.  Snacks and soft drinks are extra.)

Charter Cable has been notifying subscribers about the new fee in mailings sent to subscribers.  The company’s argument that broadcasters and the federal government conspired to make subscribers pay more may have some merit, but nobody forced Charter Cable’s hand to add a new junk fee to customer bills.

Local broadcasters are in an enviable position because federal government rules have given them all the cards to charge whatever they want for cable carriage.  Government policy forbids most cable systems from taking their business elsewhere — perhaps to a station in a nearby city or network affiliate delivered via satellite that is willing to accept less than what local stations demand.  Network-affiliated stations need not compete for cable carriage because they can demand cable systems not go outside of the area for an alternative.

Broadcasters do not enjoy “free spectrum granted by the federal government.”  Television stations pay license fees and taxes just like other spectrum users and are mandated by the federal government to meet certain minimum programming standards and decency rules.  Unlike other private license holders, broadcasters are supposed to serve the public interest, although what exactly defines that has evolved and eroded over the years.  Cable programming is not regulated.

Charter Cable’s claim that “taxpayers are subsidizing the distribution of broadcast TV signals” is dubious at best.  Broadcast radio and television preceded the paid television industry by decades, and was created to deliver unique “local service” to communities where stations were licensed in the public interest.  Should Charter argue that broadcasters should bid for auctioned spectrum, they’d have much more to complain about when those costs are passed on in considerably higher broadcast carriage fees.

As usual, regardless of who wins the spat over local broadcast carriage fees, it’s Charter’s subscribers who will lose thanks to the higher bills that follow.  But not our readers.

If you follow our advice, you can save far more than a dollar a month.

Score a new customer promotion and save far more than Charter hoped to collect from its new Broadcast TV Surcharge.

Stop the Cap! has been in touch with several Charter subscribers who successfully argued their way to considerably lower monthly bills, often by $20 or more a month.  Here’s how you can let the bully boys argue over someone else’s money:

Gather Information

Get out a copy of your latest Charter Cable bill showing your packages, programming fees and the taxes and surcharges piled on at the end of the bill.  Then, visit DISH Network or DirecTV’s website and gather pricing information for a comparable video package using their promotional pricing for new customers.  Also visit your local phone company website for pricing for their phone and broadband services, taking note of any new customer promotional pricing and gifts.

On a sheet of paper, list the costs for Charter’s services on one side and the prices you would pay with their competitor(s) on the other and determine how much you would save with the competition.

Armed with this information, you’re now ready to sit down, call Charter, and talk business.

Sit Down And Make the Call

When you call Charter, select the option to cancel service or just say the word “cancel.”  This will transfer you to Charter’s “customer retention” department.  This group of customer service representatives have been specially trained to talk you out of dropping your service.

Explain that you are calling to cancel your Charter service after you received word of the latest fee increase.  Tell them it was the last straw after years of rate increases and that you’ve been comparison shopping.

A Sample Conversation

You: “My husband/wife and I carefully considered an offer we received from [competitor] last night and decided it was time to make a change.  It’s really all about the pricing.  This economy has been killing us and we simply cannot handle a higher bill.  When we looked at [competitor’s] offer, we discovered we could be saving $20 (insert amount applicable to you) or more a month over your own pricing.  But I’ve been a Charter subscriber for a long time and I decided I should call and see if there was any way we could stay as a customer, if we could only negotiate a lower bill.”

Charter: “I see you have been a customer for a long time.  Did you know that Charter delivers… (expect a comparison about the differences between satellite and phone company competition and Charter at this point.  Your goal is to patiently wait until they finish and then stick to your guns that it’s really all about the monthly cost).

You: “I understand all that but you have to understand the only reason we are calling to cancel service is because of your prices.  I am really giving you a last chance to see if we could stay and pay a lower price.”

Charter: “Let’s review your bill and see if we can drop any services you may not be using or perhaps sign you up for a different tier of broadband service.”

You: “The thing is, with [competitor’s] service, I don’t have to drop anything and I will still get a much lower price.  Let me suggest an alternative idea.  You could save our family as a customer if you could sign me up for the same kind of package pricing new customers pay.”

Charter: “I’m sorry, but those prices are only for new customers.  But perhaps if we credited your account for a year’s worth of the fee you are upset about, that would help?”

You: “No, not really.  Not after I saw what we could be paying by switching.  Again, we’ve really already decided on making this change, but I decided it would be fair to give Charter a last chance to come closer to the prices I would be paying with your competitor.  Isn’t there anything you could do to sign me up to a new customer promotion?”

Charter: “Well, let me put you on hold and talk to my supervisor.”

At this point, you may or may not get your request granted.  Sometimes the representative will try and negotiate dollar amounts, try to sell you a bundled package of services to deliver “more savings,” or offer you a lower discount.  Stick to your guns, but always remain polite.  Sometimes their counteroffer may not deliver new customer pricing, but will still leave you saving far more than when you started, and keeps you off a term contract.  If you are uncomfortable with the progress of the negotiations, or find an unsatisfactory outcome, politely end the call telling the representative you would like some time to think about it.  It’s your chance to call back and speak with someone else.

In general, the more seriously they sense you are ready to commit to the competition, the better the offers will get to stay.  Feel free to let them know you’ve already scheduled an installation with the “other guy” or would like information about where to drop off your cable equipment.  If you are queasy about playing hardball, blame it on your spouse, letting Charter know “he/she will never go for that.”  Stay friendly with the representative at all times — try to make them your advocate by encouraging them to find an even better deal for you and that you appreciate the time they are spending working with you.  It’s a lot easier to get a better offer when you are not screaming at the representative that can’t wait to get off the phone with you.

A Charter customer e-mailed this segment of their bill to clarify whether or not customers under a Price Guarantee contract would also pay the dollar fee.

If you find stubborn resistance to discounting your bill, consider showing up at the local cable office with your equipment and try negotiating one last time.

Charter Cable allows customers to cancel service and, after 30 days, sign up under a new customer promotion, so asking them to waive the 30 day requirement when it will save them money to reinstall service may be something they’ll consider.  You could also re-establish “new service” under a spouse’s name for an even faster turnaround.

As Charter has taught their subscribers, it’s all about business with them.  Turnabout is fair play, so give them the business about their pricing and demand savings.

[Updated 9:42pm ET — A Charter subscriber e-mailed Broadband Reports a copy of their latest Charter Cable bill saying the fee would -not- be applied to customers under a current Price Guarantee contract, in direct contradiction to what a Charter representative told us this morning.  This is not much of a surprise, considering it took eight calls to Time Warner Cable last week to get the straight story about their DVR price hike in upstate New York.

Perhaps we should start calling cable companies not less than five times for answers to basic questions and then average the responses we get.  As we said last week, we’ll believe the bill over what company representatives say any day.

Thanks to our reader Gabe and Broadband Reports for for alerting us to this development and helping clarify matters.]

[Update #2: 10:52am ET 9/16 — A Charter customer on Broadband Reports shared an online chat he had with Charter that shows I’m not the only one getting inaccurate information about this fee:

Scott: I heard that charter decided to add a new fee to user bills for “broadcast tv surcharge” even for customers that have locked in rates.

TTD Straissan : Yes. That is correct. The locked rates are for the services that are included on the locked promotion. Taxes and fees are not part of the locked promotion we have.

TTD Straissan : Broadcast TV Surcharge
Federal law allows local U.S. broadcast television stations (i.e., affiliates of networks such as CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, etc.) to negotiate with cable and satellite providers in order to obtain “consent” to carry their broadcast signals (Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992).

As a direct result of local broadcast, or “network-affiliated,” TV stations increasing the rates to Charter to distribute their signals to our customers, we will be passing those charges on as a Broadcast TV Surcharge, in the Taxes and Fees section of the billing statement. These local TV signals were historically made available to Charter at no cost, or low cost. However, in recent years the prices demanded by local broadcast TV stations have necessitated that we pass these costs on to customers.

This surcharge displays in the Taxes and Fees section of the bill statement.

Scott: when will this be on my bill?

TTD Straissan : Expected increase will be around October 1, 2010 on some areas.]

Sezmi set top DVR box, antenna, and remote control

While most of the pay television industry forces huge basic cable packages on subscribers containing dozens of channels never watched, an innovative California company thinks it has the perfect solution for those who want to cut cable’s cord but still keep some of their favorite cable channels.

Sezmi combines a super-sized 1 terabyte DVR set-top box ($149.99) with a digital broadcast receiver to deliver every local television signals, 23 popular cable channels, on-demand movies, video podcasts, and YouTube content for $19.99 per month.  Don’t care about the cable channels or live outside of Los Angeles?  The price drops to $4.99 per month.

Sezmi’s inventors believe the marketplace is ripe for a compromise between paying enormous cable bills or simply going without popular cable series and 24/7 news.

Besides, Sezmi’s founders argue, with free digital television stations increasing the amount of programming they offer and Americans wanting to watch more of their favorite shows on-demand, Sezmi’s super-sized DVR may provide enough live and recorded programs to more than satisfy average viewers.  If not, a budget-priced package of two dozen popular cable channels could give people enough courage to cut cable’s cord forever.

At its core, Sezmi’s set top box offers an enormous capacity hard drive that can store up to 1400 hours of SD (standard definition) and 340 hours of HD (high definition) programming.  It can also record one channel while watching another, and its software gives each member of a viewing family their own personal menu to access, record, and view the programming they want.

[flv width=”446″ height=”270″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Sezmi All-In-One Personal TV Service.mp4[/flv]

A promotional reel introducing shoppers to Sezmi and its services.  (3 minutes)

Sezmi’s founders future-proofed their technology to be immune from broadband providers with Internet Overcharging schemes in mind.  Unlike other cord-cutting alternative set top technology that relies on broadband to access programming, Sezmi receives its live TV and cable network programming entirely over the air.  That keeps your local cable or phone company from stopping all the fun by imposing broadband usage limitations or charging steep penalties for watching too much of a competitor’s service.

Sezmi’s unique way of bypassing the local broadband provider is both innovative and challenging at the same time.  In the Los Angeles market, currently the only city where Sezmi provides cable networks, it leases leftover capacity from local stations to transmit the encrypted cable networks over the air to Sezmi receivers.  As long as you get a signal from a local station, the cable signals come along for the ride.

While that can work in Los Angeles, which has at least 26 full powered broadcast stations in the market from whom it can potentially lease capacity, most American cities have fewer than eight full power local channels.  If those stations can’t or won’t lease out their extra bandwidth, the cable programming service simply won’t work.

Part of the original business plan for Sezmi was to provide the set top box as a solution for phone companies like Frontier and other independents who want to deliver a video package without improving their current copper-based networks to deliver it.  Because the box will work reasonably well with a broadband connection of 3.1Mbps or higher, companies selling DSL broadband packages to customers could use Sezmi to deliver video content to subscribers.  In rural areas, relying on broadband delivery may prove more effective than over-the-air reception, and since the provider offers the service themselves, there is little chance they’d limit their own customers’ use of Sezmi.

Now Sezmi is directly being sold to consumers on Amazon.com and in Best Buy stores in the 35 U.S. cities Sezmi serves.

Sezmi's cable channel lineup is currently only available in Los Angeles.

Buyers are pre-qualified before purchase to determine if they’ll be able to receive a suitable broadcast TV signal required for Sezmi to operate.

A lengthy beta test in Los Angeles revealed many consumers loved the concept of Sezmi, but definitely discovered some flaws:

• There is no wireless connection supported for broadband.  You must use a supplied Ethernet cable to connect to a router;
• The remote control and its functionality was frequently reviewed as unintuitive and slow to respond to commands;
• Cable networks arrived only in standard definition video;
• Reception varied considerably depending on where one lives in relation to local broadcast transmitters.  Where TV stations use different transmitting locations, reception problems for one or more stations can be an issue unless you regularly reposition the antenna;
• Sezmi’s antenna module looks like a small bookshelf speaker and was more obtrusive than many thought necessary;
• Sezmi’s online viewing options are limited to YouTube and Sezmi-partnered content.  No Hulu or Netflix access is supported.
• Some reviewers felt charging $5 a month for a Sezmi package that only included free, over the air broadcast stations was unjustified when they also had to purchase the required set top box.  Many of these comments came when the box was priced at $299, however.  Sezmi has reduced the price of the set top box by half, so it’s likely the monthly fee includes some hardware cost recovery;
• The cable networks chosen do not include a lot of sports, although the company is currently negotiating with ESPN;
• Love it or hate it, one of America’s favorite cable channels – Fox News, is not included in the lineup although CNN and MSNBC are.  Their asking price may have been too high.

Sezmi’s co-founder probably expects that detailed level of critique considering the company’s business plan targets technology-minded “early adopters” who are well versed on technology and very opinionated about how it works.  They also feature prominently in the group of consumers that are now spending less time watching live television and less-willing to pay the asking price for it.

“The Sezmi offering is geared toward the next wave of consumers who want a very high-quality experience and the latest technology features, but are not willing to overpay for that,” said Phil Wiser, co-founder and president. “We’ve limited ourselves to really focus on that segment who are value-oriented and tech-oriented.”

Those who are value-oriented have responded positively to Sezmi.  Stop the Cap! reader John in Sherman Oaks, Calif., who notified us about Sezmi’s local media blitz says it’s exactly what he was looking for, and he’s enjoying some shows he missed from USA, TNT and Discovery.  But his wife misses her favorite HGTV and Food Network shows, which Sezmi doesn’t carry.

“I told cable to take a hike,” he writes. “I only watch perhaps a dozen channels and Sezmi has most of them covered for about 1/3rd of the cost the cable company charges, not including the fees, taxes, and renting cable’s set top boxes.”

John adds 24/7 access to live news programming was the one thing that held him back from dropping cable before Sezmi arrived.

Sezmi's Los Angeles Coverage Map (click to enlarge)

“I wasn’t going to give up CNN and MSNBC for breaking news,” he said.

Wiser’s comments to the San Francisco Chronicle seem to match John’s perceptions about the service.

“The key thing we realized with Sezmi is that consumers would not be ready to drop a paid TV experience purely for Internet offerings,” he said. “You need a bridge that includes a traditional cable experience with a more on-demand interactivity.”

Although John says he has few problems getting good broadcast signals from Mt. Wilson, where most Los Angeles-area broadcasters maintain their transmitters, some  residents further east in Riverside say their experiences were considerably worse.

“If you walked in front of the antenna, reception would drop out,” wrote one reviewer.  “A rooftop antenna is really a smart idea if you need reliable reception to make sure your shows get recorded,” wrote another.

The potential impact Sezmi could have on cable and phone company pay television packages varies depending on which analyst you choose.

Mike Jude, with Frost & Sullivan, told the Chronicle devices like Sezmi will probably remain niche products that will have trouble attracting interest from traditional cable subscribers.

But Gerry Kaufhold, an analyst at In-Stat, said Sezmi’s innovative approach could find a significant audience especially with more casual TV viewers. He said 15 percent of viewers don’t pay for TV while 35 to 40 percent of cable users pay about $40 for basic cable. Both could find a lot of utility in a product like Sezmi, he said.

“Anyone that gets a big digital cable (package) is unlikely to leave, but people who get basic cable may be willing to make that jump and cut some 20 bucks off their bill,” Kaufhold said. “They can also get people who don’t pay for TV to try it.”

With a Yankee Group study looming that estimates one in eight Americans will disconnect or downgrade their paid TV services by April, devices like Sezmi could threaten industry profits even sooner than some analysts think.

Service Coverage – Click links for respective channel lineups

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Sezmi Services Described.flv[/flv]

Sezmi Explained: This series of videos walks you through all of Sezmi’s features and services.  (12 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Sezmi Setup.flv[/flv]

Sezmi’s setup is explained in this video, guiding you through the process of hooking up the equipment.  (10 minutes)

An inmate serving time for robbery is convinced the local cable company and state corrections department are robbing him on his monthly cable bill.

Joel Santos Maldonado, 28, of Lancaster is serving a 12- to 26-year sentence at the State Correctional Institute at Fayette in Labelle, Luzerne Township, according to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

Maldonado already feels his monthly bill from Texas-based Correctional Cable TV (CCTV), which provides cable service to prisoners, is high enough, but when he discovered the state included a 75-cent monthly “administrative fee” he filed a lawsuit.

Maldonado accuses the state of interfering with his business relationship with CCTV by including the fee.  Without the fee, his bill would be $15.75 a month for the 47-channel cable package.

His suit asks for a reversal of the 75-cent fee as well as unspecified damages.

Prison officials counter the administrative fee has been part of the cable package for at least four years.

Trinity Broadcasting Network offers inmates special programming on CCTV that it claims "rebuilds inmate lives and reduces recidivism"

“The inmate signs an agreement that states we charge this fee when he elects to purchase cable,” corrections department spokeswoman Susan Bensinger told the newspaper. “If he doesn’t want to pay the fee, he can simply elect to not purchase cable TV service.”

Those outside of prison pay more for their cable service.  Cable pricing from Atlantic Broadband is a comparably worse deal.  For $19.99 a month, residents of Labelle get 20 channels, mostly local broadcast stations, public access, and a handful of basic cable channels.  To get a package comparable to what Madonado receives, a customer would have to upgrade to the 67-channel standard service package — for $59.99 a month.

The lawsuit awaits further action in Fayette County court.

Correctional Cable TV began providing cable service to Correctional Facilities in the early 1990’s and currently serves more than 130 facilities across 20 states, particularly in Colorado, Virginia, Michigan and Pennsylvania.  The company furnishes, installs, and maintains the equipment to provide the programming at no up front cost to the prison authority.  Programming costs are recouped by charges paid by inmates to receive the service.

Consumers are increasingly cutting down their cable packages to keep their monthly bill down

Cable television customers have finally reached their limit.  For years, annual rate increases well in excess of inflation have annoyed customers, but beyond complaining, few actually dropped service.  That has begun to change as the economy, consumer debt, job fears, and other expenses have finally provoked customers to begin paring back on their cable package.

According to research from Centris, a consumer research organization, a virtual ceiling of tolerance for cable rate increases appears to have been reached for many subscribers.  Although consumers are not dropping cable en masse, they are not simply accepting a higher bill either.  They are dropping services from their cable package.  In 2008 and 2009, premium movie channels and pay per view suffered most from customer downgrades.  Consumers with multiple premium movie channels started by dropping one or two of them, and their use of pay per view service also dropped.  As the financial impact of the recession wore on, the next round of rate increases caused additional erosion — by late 2009 many consumers discontinued all of their premium services.

The goal?  To reduce or at least maintain a consistent monthly bill.  The average amount consumers are paying for digital cable dropped from $79 a month in the third quarter of 2008 to $70 in the third quarter of 2009.  That decline didn’t come from discounts from the industry — it came from dropping channels and services. In 2010, consumers are still pruning away, now impacting digital basic cable and smaller add-ons like sports and movie tiers.  They are also phoning their provider threatening to cancel service altogether if additional discounts cannot be found.  Cable operators, not surprisingly, have managed to find plenty of savings for consumers who ask and stand their ground, ready to walk away from cable.

The cable industry has sought to promote bundled services as an anti-erosion measure.  It’s much harder to walk away from a provider supplying your television, Internet, and phone service, especially if they lock you into a multi-year service agreement with a cancellation fee.  The savings promoted from bundled services come largely as a result of steeper price increases on standalone products and services, manufacturing “added value” for so-called “triple play” packages.

Some customers have divorced from pay television service altogether, deciding relentless price increases and the 500 channel universe shoveled in their direction just isn’t worth the price.  For many American families, however, such drastic cord cutting would border on traumatic, and they haven’t managed such a drastic step.

Luckily, a growing number of consumers have discovered taking the Luddite approach to television entertainment isn’t a requirement any longer.

Cutting the Cord With Online Viewing

With the growing penetration of fast broadband service in homes across the country, online video has rapidly become one of the most popular online services, particularly when it’s available for free.  The benefits don’t stop at the cost — programming catalogs are becoming increasingly deep and diverse allowing fans to watch entire seasons of shows on-demand, with a limited commercial load.  A consumer looking for something to watch might easily find more entertainment online than wading through hundreds of cable channels of niche and re-purposed programming (and program length commercials).

Cable companies are well aware of the trend towards online video.  First considered part-curiosity, part-piracy, today online video is provided by the major American networks, cable programmers, independent filmmakers, YouTube, and of course, Hulu.  It isn’t just for those torrent sites anymore.  And there is plenty of room for online video to grow.

The industry uses research companies like Centris to carefully track subscriber trends.  They want to be out in front of any sea change in viewing practices that could impact their business model and their revenue, and avoid repeating the mistakes others made in ignoring a potential threat for too long.

Wall Street is well aware of the potential threat as well.

Craig Moffett, a cable industry analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein is among the most prominent trend-watchers for the cable industry.  He sees some warning signs for the future.

“Still no evidence of cord-cutting, but as prices spiral higher, the stresses on the system are unquestionably growing,” Moffett said.

So far, the cable industry has decided the best way to fight potential losses is to get into the game themselves on their terms.  Comcast and Time Warner Cable, the nation’s largest cable operators, are launching their TV Everywhere concepts, which provide their broadband customers with online access to a myriad of cable programming, on demand, and currently for free.  The catch?  You must be a verified, current pay television customer.  If you want to watch a basic cable show, you need a basic cable subscription.  Want to watch Bill Maher online?  You can, assuming you are a verified HBO premium television subscriber.

Comcast’s system is already up and running.  Time Warner Cable is expected to roll out their system sometime this year.

The industry is even selling the public they applaud the online video experience as a win for customers.  Time Warner Cable president and CEO Glenn Britt said, “TV Everywhere is an all-around win for those of us who love television. It will give our customers more control over content and allow them greater access to programs they are already paying for, while enhancing the distributors’ and networks’ robust business model that encourages the creation of great content.”

He didn’t say it also protects Time Warner Cable’s flank from cord-cutting.  Lose the cable subscription and your access to online cable programming goes with it.

But the question remains, is that enough to protect cable television revenue?

The answer might be no.

[flv width=”400″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Invasion of the Cable Killers 9-15-09.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News reported on ‘The Invasion of the Cable Killers’ — new hardware that lets you bypass cable, back on September 15, 2009.  (2 minutes)

The Coming Online Viewing War: The Players Assemble

Who owns and controls programming ultimately controls the distribution of it.  Time Warner Cable took several shots at Fox a few weeks ago when threatened with the loss of Fox programming over a contract dispute.  Alex Dudley, spokesman for Time Warner Cable, told NY1 viewers much of Fox’s programming is available online for the taking, so even if the network was thrown off the cable company’s lineup, viewers could simply bypass the dispute and watch online… for free.  His message – the dollar value Fox places on its programming is diminished when it gives it away for free online.

The fact so much of network programming is available online for free is part of the dispute over how much cable operators should pay to carry networks on their cable systems.  When the industry passes along those carriage fees to consumers, will that be the last straw for some who will drop their cable subscription and simply watch everything online?

“They’re the ones who are going to resist these price increases that the programmers are trying to push,” said Dudley. “One need look no further than the music industry for an example of what happens when consumers feel taken advantage of by an entire industry.”

Dudley’s remark is more telling than he realizes.  The cable industry is well aware of what happened when the music and newspaper industry ignored nascent challenges to their business models like piracy or free access to their content.  To cable operators, the music and newspaper industries’ online experiences are lessons to be learned and not repeated.  The music industry waited too long to crack down on piracy and lost pricing power as consumers simply stole what they rationalized was overpriced.  The newspaper industry failed to erect pay walls to control access to their content, and newspaper subscribers dropped print subscriptions to read everything online for free.  Cable industry control of content and distribution is key to protecting their business model for pay television.  More on that in a moment.

Now two other parties want to be heard on this matter — consumer electronics manufacturers and advertisers.

The Roku box is popular among Netflix subscribers who want to stream TV shows and movies to their television sets

This week, Advertising Age is running a story on the implications of cord-cutting.

The magazine takes note that online viewing doesn’t require a computer any longer.  Samsung, Boxee, Apple TV, and even Microsoft, manufacturer of the XBox, are now selling devices that bypass cable television and grab online video for users, often for free.

Netflix has already managed that for a monthly fee, and is rolling out service on all sorts of devices, from a set top box that streams content from the web to your television to video game consoles, and now even builds-in the service to some televisions and Blu-Ray DVD players.  Microsoft’s XBox Live service could be germinating a cable television service of its own, as it seeks to license content from programmers starting with Disney’s ESPN.

All of these services, along with traditional laptop or home computer viewing, could evolve into formidable challengers for the pay television industry.  Oh, and some new televisions on offer at this year’s Consumer Electronics Show build in support for Skype, a Voice Over IP telephone service, so phone revenue could be at risk as well.

Advertising Age believes this could be one of the entertainment industry’s biggest business battles of the next few years as millions, if not billions of dollars are at stake.

For the moment, the public face of the debate is a combination of downplaying its potential impact while the players quietly position themselves and their assets for the fight certain to come.

Both Dudley and Britt at Time Warner Cable call the potential trend towards online viewing interesting, but not much of a threat at the moment.

“We see some interesting stuff out there, but right now people are watching more TV than ever; cable-cutting is largely on the fringe,” said Dudley.

“A lot of manufacturers have come out and made announcements, but I don’t think they really are in a position to erode the pay-TV subscriptions that the cable industry has today,” said Park Associates research analyst Jayant Dafari.

“For many people, cable works just fine; the quality is great; the DVR functionality is great; the only gripe they have is that they’re paying for it,” Boxee’s founder and CEO Avner Ronen told Advertising Age. But “there is a growing generation out there where the whole definition of entertainment is changing, and their main source of entertainment is the internet.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Wii At the Movies 1-13-10.flv[/flv]

CNBC covered last week’s announcement of a partnership between Nintendo and Netflix to provide Netflix on the popular Nintendo Wii, in this exclusive interview with Reed Hastings, chairman and CEO of Netflix and Reggie Fils-Aime, Nintendo of America president & COO (January 13, 2010 – 5 minutes)

‘If It Becomes A Problem, We’ll Just Cut Them Off‘

The cable industry is in a comfortable position to leverage its control over programming and distribution to ultimately limit any competitive threat from online viewing.  In addition to mega-deals like Comcast’s acquisition of content-rich NBC-Universal (a partner in Hulu), the cable industry owns, controls, or can leverage carriage of its cable lineup contingent on programmers not giving away too much for free.  Advertising Age:

One tech exec, who asked not to be named, predicted that the minute cable operators start to feel the disruption, they will clamp down and use their market power to keep TV and films from seeping into next-generation devices. They’re already putting the squeeze on networks; any free distribution is an argument for lower cable distribution fees.

Stop the Cap! is also a player in this struggle, because a key component of the cable industry’s control of programming is the means it is distributed to consumers, and cable modem service representss one half of the duopoly most Americans find when shopping for broadband.  One potential strategy to eliminating the cord-cutting option is to enact Internet Overcharging schemes like usage limits and consumption billing that effectively makes it impractical for a consumer to “switch” to broadband for all of their online viewing.  Switching to the other half of the duopoly may not be an alternative. As online video projects like TV Everywhere will also be available to telco TV partners who wish to participate, there is every incentive to also limit video consumption on Verizon’s FiOS or AT&T’s U-verse systems.

Effective competition against entrenched players in the marketplace is impossible if those players control the content, the means of its distribution, and the ability to cut you off if you watch too much or switch to an independent competitor.

But this is history repeating itself.  Many of the same players and interests followed the same protectionist path against another competitor – satellite television.  It took strong regulatory policy from Washington to force a fair and level playing ground for an industry that didn’t want to sell content to its competitors, overcharged for access, and kept effective competition at bay for years, all while happily increasing rates for beleaguered consumers.

Here we go again.

Phillip Dampier

The Wall Street Journal today published an article reviewing the landscape of flat rate broadband service and how some Internet providers want to change it.

The article quotes me on the issue of Internet Overcharging becoming a political football in the Net Neutrality debate.

“This could come down to carriers saying, ‘If you don’t allow us to manage our networks the way we see fit, then we will just have to cap everything,’ ” says Phillip Dampier, a consumer advocate focusing on technology issues in Rochester, N.Y. “They’ll make it an either/or thing: give them more control over their network or expect metered broadband.”

Mr. Dampier was among those who forced Time Warner Cable to shelve a metered Internet pilot program in several cities last year. The company, which had argued the plan would be a fairer way to charge for access, acknowledged it was a “debacle.” It won’t say if it plans to revive the trials.

Unfortunately, the article never bothers to mention Stop the Cap!, the website dedicated to fighting these overcharging schemes.

AT&T weighs in on their experiment to overcharge consumers in Beaumont, Texas and Reno, Nevada, and analysts think Net Neutrality arguments may give providers an excuse to expand those experiments, launch price increases and blame it on Net Neutrality policies:

“Some type of usage-based model, for those customers who have abnormally high usage patterns, seems inevitable,” an AT&T spokesman says. AT&T declined to provide more details on its trials.

“Unquestionably, the carriers erred in their initial selling of broadband with a flat rate,” says Elroy Jopling, research director of Gartner Inc. “They assumed no one would use it as much as they do now, but then along came high-definition movies. They’re now trying to get around that mistake.”

Network neutrality deals primarily with ensuring that Internet providers don’t favor any online traffic over any other. Still, Mr. Jopling and other analysts argue, the net neutrality debate might provide the carriers with an opening to argue for changing that pricing.

“With network neutrality enforced, the only other option for carriers is to charge by the byte or to raise the flat-rate pricing,” says Johna Till Johnson, president of Nemertes Research. “Right now they’re just deciding which one to do. Just be prepared to pay more.”

It's "Rep. Eric Massa," Not 'Joe Messa'

The article has several flaws.

• It mis-identifies Rep. Eric Massa (D-New York) as “Rep. Joe Messa.”  Rep. Massa introduced legislation to ban Internet Overcharging when companies cannot produce actual evidence to justify it, particularly in the limited competitive marketplace for broadband in the United States.
• The article fails to mention the usage limits proposed by smaller broadband providers, including Frontier’s infamous 5GB usage definition in their Acceptable Use Policy.  This is a very important fact to consider when the article quotes Professor Andrew Odlyzko, an independent authority on broadband usage, as stating the average broadband consumer uses triple that amount (15 gigabytes per month).
• The quotation about the number of e-mails or web page views available under plan allowances that routinely appear in such articles ignores the increasing use of higher bandwidth applications like online video.  Telling a consumer they can send 75 million e-mails is irrelevant information because no consumer would ever need to worry about usage limits if they only used their account for web page browsing and e-mail usage.  They very much do have to be concerned if they use their service to watch online video from Hulu or Netflix, or use one of the online backup services.
• The article makes no mention of publicly available financial reports from broadband providers like Time Warner Cable that prove that at the same time their profits on broadband service are increasing, the company’s costs to provide the service continue to decline, along with the dollar amounts they spend to maintain and expand that network to meet demand.  Providing readers with insight into the true financial picture of a broadband provider, instead of simply quoting the public relations line of the day would seem particularly appropriate for The Wall Street Journal.
• The article doesn’t make mention that the same providers arguing increased Internet traffic is creating a problem for them are also working to launch an online video distribution platform that will rival Hulu in size and scope.  TV Everywhere will consume an enormous amount of the broadband network they claim can’t handle today’s traffic without Internet Overcharging schemes being thrown on customers.  Of course, such usage limits are very convenient for companies like Comcast, Time Warner Cable and AT&T, which are now in the business of selling pay television programming to consumers.  Should a consumer choose to watch all of their television online instead of paying for a cable package, a usage allowance will help put a stop to that very quickly, as will planned restrictions that only provide online video to “authenticated” existing pay television subscribers.

One thing remains certain – providers are still itching to overcharge you for your broadband service.  Consumers and the public interest groups that want to represent them must stand unified in opposition to Internet Overcharging schemes and for Net Neutrality protection, and never accept sacrificing one for the other.