Time Warner Cable customers in the Carolinas will soon pay $90.49 a month for digital cable television, including one set-top cable box. Customers who buy broadband, television, and phone service will see their monthly bill rise to $167.89.

The rate increases will not initially apply to customers on term contracts or promotional pricing until those terms expire. Others will begin to pay higher rates in March.

Almost 70 percent of Time Warner Cable’s eastern North Carolina subscribers have digital cable TV. The rate increase for television-only service amounts to an extra $5 a month or $60 a year. Triple play customers will also pay an extra $5 a month.

Time Warner’s last rate hike, not including the introduction of a $3.95/month cable modem rental fee last fall, was in late 2011.

Although Time Warner claimed increased programming costs were responsible for the bulk of the rate increases, the cable company keeps adding more channels. In 2012, Time Warner added NFL Network and NFL RedZone, both costly sports networks. In the last few months, Time Warner added an additional 30 channels to the cable lineup in the Carolinas, including a number of new HD channels and barely watched networks including Retirement Living Television and Magic Johnson’s Aspire TV.

A rate change notice mailed to customers in the Carolinas will include exact pricing changes applicable in different communities, but customers in Fayetteville and surrounding parts of the eastern Carolinas will see these changes starting in March:

• Broadcast cable: From $16.19 to $17.99
• Cable programming tier: From $53.30 to $54.50
• Basic cable: From $69.49 to $72.49
• Digital tier: From $10.68 to $9.01
• Basic cable, when bundled with standard Internet and/or home phone unlimited nationwide: From $68.99 to $71.99
• Digital cable includes basic cable, digital tier, digital equipment and Navigator interactive guide: From $85.49 to $90.49
• Digital cable when bundled with standard Internet and/or home phone unlimited nationwide: $82.49 to $85.49
• Basic cable, standard Internet and home phone unlimited nationwide: From $162.89 to $167.89
• Cable card: From $2 to $2.50
• Digital equipment primary outlet: From $6.82 to $8.99
• Navigator interactive guide: Not applicable to $2.17

Customers affected should consider reviewing our tips on how to fight for a better deal from Time Warner.

The Federal Cable-Protection Commission

Problem: Solved?

The Federal Communications Commission last Friday unanimously voted to free cable operators from their obligation to sell cable channels they own to rival satellite and phone companies.

In a bizarre justification, FCC chairman Julius Genachowski said ending the unambiguous rules would prevent anti-competitive activity in the market because the FCC would retain the right to review industry abuses on a case-by-case basis. Lawmakers called that an invitation for endless, time consuming litigation that will deprive consumers of competitive choice and favor the still-dominant cable television industry.

“The sunset of the program access rules could lead to a new dawn of less choice and higher prices for consumers,” said Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), one of the original authors of the rules. “If we do not extend the program access rules, the largest cable companies could withhold popular sports and entertainment programming from their competitors, reducing the competition and choice that has benefited consumers. I urge Chairman Genachowski and the FCC commissioners to extend the program access rules that have helped to level the playing field in the paid television marketplace.”

The FCC’s decision could have profound implications on would-be competitors, particularly start-ups like Google Fiber that could find itself without access to popular cable networks at any price.

At a time when cable companies and programmers are constantly pitted against each other in contract/carriage disputes, the deregulatory spirit at the FCC is likely to irritate consumers even more.

Phillip “How nice of the FCC to think about poor cable companies” Dampier

The FCC claims it will continue to protect sports programming from exclusive carriage agreements — a potentially critical concession considering the history of “exclusive, only on cable” programming contracts was largely focused on regional sports channel PRISM.

Comcast successfully kept the popular Philadelphia-based network (today known as Comcast SportsNet Philadephia) off competing satellite services and cable operators by only distributing the network terrestrially. A controversial FCC rule (known as the “terrestrial exception”) states that a television channel does not have to make its shows available to satellite companies if it does not use satellites to transmit its programs. Cox Cable has its own implementation of that loophole running in San Diego.

Derek Chang, executive vice-president of DirecTV, says Comcast’s local market share dominance is a direct consequence of SportsNet. More importantly, Chang believes even if Comcast says it will sell the network to competitors, it is free to set prices for SportsNet as high as it wants.

“They win either way,” Chang said. “They’re either going to gouge our customers, or they’re going to withhold it from our customers.”

Verizon FiOS has secured the right to carry the channel on its system, but won’t say how much it pays.

The PRISM case is today’s best evidence that exclusive agreements do hamper competition — Philadelphia is hardly a hotbed of satellite dishes, with a 40-50% reduced satellite subscriber rate attributable to the lack of popular regional sports on satellite.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s cowardly lion act is back. Will anyone at the FCC stand up to Big Telecom companies while busy watering down pro-competitive policies?

Historically, satellite dish owners and wireless cable customers were the most likely victims of exclusive or predatory programming contracts, with some cable networks refusing to sell their programming to competing technologies at any price.  Others charged enormous, unjustified mark-ups that made the technology non-competitive. Today, wireless cable television is mostly defunct and home satellite dish service has largely been replaced with direct broadcast satellite providers DirecTV and Dish.

Today’s programming landscape is more complicated. The FCC would argue that unlike in the 1980s, most cable programmers are no longer directly controlled by yesteryear’s Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI) and Time Warner (Time Warner Cable was spun off into an independent, unaffiliated entity in March, 2009), which collectively controlled dozens of popular cable networks. But programmers’ know their best customers remain cable operators which maintain a dominant market share in every major American city.

Friday’s ruling has implications for telco-TV providers and satellite dish companies that may find programming negotiations more complicated than ever. AT&T U-verse and Verizon FiOS may find access to cable-owned programming difficult or even impossible to obtain if cable operators decide their unwanted competition is harmful to their business interests.

But an even larger challenge looms for the next generation of video competition: Google Fiber TV and “over the top” online video.

Nobody is complaining about Google’s robust gigabit broadband offering, but Kansas City residents originally expressed concern about the company’s proposed television lineup. As originally announced, Google Fiber TV was missing HBO and ESPN.

A competing cable system without ESPN is dead in the water for sports enthusiasts.

Google has since managed to sign agreements that expand their channel lineup (although it is still missing HBO). But nothing prevents channel owners from dramatically raising the price at renewal. That is a concern for smaller cable operators as well, who want protection from discriminatory pricing that awards the best prices to giant multi-system operators like Comcast and Time Warner Cable.

The most important impact of the FCC’s decision may be for those waiting to launch virtual cable systems delivering online programming to customers who want to pick and choose from a list of networks.

The FCC’s “new rules” give programmers who depend on tens of millions of cable subscribers even more ammunition to kill competing distribution models like over the top video. Start-up providers who cannot obtain reasonable and fair access to cable programming will have to depend on the vague policies the FCC claims it will enforce to prevent egregious abuse. But the FCC is not known for its speed and start-up companies may face enormous legal fees fighting for fair access that is now open to subjective interpretation.

Earlier this year, Bell Canada announced a blockbuster $3.38 billion offer to buy Astral Media, Inc. It is just the latest rush towards media concentration in Canada as the country’s largest cable and phone companies acquire a growing number of television networks, cable services, radio and broadcast television outlets, magazines, and other media.

Bell Canada already owns CTV – a major broadcast network, and TSN sports. Now it is back for more — Astral Media, the company that owns HBO Canada, The Movie Network, Family, Viewers Choice and lots more.

If this deal wins approval, one company will control 37.6% of TV viewing in Canada, more than twice the amount of its largest competitor. It means Bell will be able to set rates for some of Canada’s most popular cable networks and shows — putting competitors at a major disadvantage and forcing you to pay more to watch.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Say No to Bell Canada.flv[/flv]

Say No to Bell’s ad campaign fighting Bell Canada’s attempt to buy Astral Media.  (1 minute)

The federal government has to approve this deal, and a growing number of competing media companies, consumer groups, and politicians are coming together to oppose it.

Stop the Cap! believes Bell Canada owns too much already, and has repeatedly demonstrated that when it flexes its marketplace muscle, consumers pay more for less service. Add your voice against this deal by submitting a letter to Canada’s Ministers of Heritage and Industry, the Competition Bureau, the CRTC and your Member of Parliament and visiting the other opposition websites noted below.

No company needs to own and control 79 TV channels, 107 radio stations and more than 100 major Canadian news, entertainment, and cultural websites.

Even smaller Canadian cable companies fear this deal. Cogeco Cable, Eastlink, and Quebecor (parent company of Vidéotron), have joined forces to launch saynotobell.ca, a website to help consumers fight back. Quebec-based consumer group Option consommateurs has its own online petition in French, and Openmedia’s Stop the Takeover Coalition includes a range of pro-consumer forces opposed to the deal:

• OpenMedia.ca
• the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
• the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC)
• Canada Without Poverty and the CWP Advocacy Network,
• the Canadian Media Guild (which represents over 6,000 media workers, including those from CBC, Reuters, the Canadian Press, and Shaw Media),
• the Consumers’ Association of Canada,
• the Council of Canadians (Canada’s largest citizens’ group),
• the Council of Senior Citizens’ Organizations of British Columbia (COSCO),
• Union des consommateurs.

Some of the arguments against the deal to consider:

• Bell Canada’s TV audience share would be 50% greater than the share of any TV network in the US, Japan, UK, Australia, France, and Russia. It would allow one corporation to control the programming (including news) on a scale not seen outside of countries like Italy, Brazil, and Mexico. When politicians have that much control of the media, they use it to influence viewers. Would Bell do any different?
• Bell can set the rates, terms, and bundling requirements for popular cable programming and services. They have already shown a willingness to tell independent ISPs they must set usage limits on their customers just as Bell does already. What would stop them from insisting you subscribe to more services in order to watch the programming you want?
• Mergers=job losses and cost cutting to pay for inflated bonuses and “cost savings” to help finance these blockbuster deals. Without competition, original Canadian productions can be slashed to the bone or canceled altogether. Why deliver quality when you can limit viewers’ alternative choices instead?
• America allowed media consolidation in radio and television and turned vibrant local stations into corporate money-machines at the expense of local news, original shows, and local content. How many radio stations in the United States now operate like automated electronic jukeboxes? How many local TV newscasts signed off for good to “save money.” Can Canadian local news, weather, and informational programming survive Bell’s ax? If it happened in the United States, it can happen in Canada too.

Ensure diversity by disconnecting this Bell deal permanently, and tell your elected leaders to stop allowing endless media consolidation.

[flv width=”576″ height=”344″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Globe and Mail How much of a competition threat is Bells Astral deal 8-24-12.flv[/flv]

The Globe and Mail considers the issue of Bell’s takeover bid for Astral Media. How will it affect Canadian consumers? (2 minutes)

Time Warner Cable is rolling out a new look to its online program guide and set top box menus after ongoing criticism from customers who found the old look hard to read and software cumbersome to use.

Central New Yorkers woke up this morning to the upgraded look, which the company says now features a sleeker and more modern appearance. It also adjusts the color scheme to make on-screen text easier to read and channels easier to find.

Set top box software is criticized even by cable executives, who call the often-proprietary software outdated and difficult to update and manage. Some cable operators have licensed set top box software from TiVo, while others are switching to an IP-based “web”-like experience that can offer viewers more detail and a customized appearance.

Ultimately, some cable executives would like to see the back of set top boxes altogether, hoping future technology upgrades will let viewers access cable programming and features from hardware built-in to modern televisions.

Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt is among them.

“I hate set-top boxes,” Britt said in a recent interview.

[flv width=”432″ height=”260″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/YNN Syracuse Time Warner Cable makes changes to onscreen guide 6-4-12.mp4[/flv]

YNN Central New York reports on the latest update to Time Warner Cable’s Navigator set top box software, unveiled early this morning in the Syracuse area. (1 minute)

Time Warner Cable has ended the latest round of talks with the National Football League to bring the NFL Network and NFL RedZone to Time Warner cable customers.

Sports Business Daily reports the talks ended with a contentious meeting held last Friday at the cable company’s New York office.  Sources say the talks didn’t end with a dispute over the cost of the network, noted to be among the most expensive sports networks available.  That likely leaves streaming and other ancillary rights issues to be the latest reasons for the talks to end.  Time Warner has gotten aggressive in negotiations for the right to stream cable programming, and also time shift it for subscribers with its “start over” feature.

The NFL has been negotiating with the cable operator more more than seven years without success.