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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canadian cable, phone, and satellite providers have done a better job stymieing would-be “cord-cutters” than their counterparts further south in the United States.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s (CRTC) annual report on the country’s telecom companies shows all of them remain exceptionally profitable, keeping pay TV customers far more effectively than American providers. Total revenues climbed from $12.5 billion to $13.5 billion in just one year, as price hikes, Internet Overcharging schemes like usage-based billing, and lack of competition continue to takes its toll on Canadian wallets.

The biggest winners were the biggest telecom companies in Canada — Rogers Communications, Bell Canada (BCE), and Shaw Communications, which all saw profits soar 8.2% to $11 billion.  Costs increased about 10.7% in 2011, fueled by network upgrades and rampant hikes in programming costs — an interesting state of affairs considering Rogers and Bell own or control a substantial number of the programmers demanding higher payments.  Most of those increases were passed on to customers in the form of rate hikes.

Although Canadians are increasingly interested in streaming online video, virtually every major Internet Service Provider in the country has effectively prevented customers from dropping cable television service in favor of broadband-only access.  They manage it with usage caps and usage billing on their broadband products.  With streamed video accounting for a substantial drain on customers’ monthly usage allowances, Canadians are unlikely to cancel cable TV in favor of watching all of their favorite shows online.

In fact, the number of Canadian households that subscribed to a cable company’s basic television service actually increased by 2.8% in 2011 to reach 8.5 million.  Experts say the country’s transition to digital over the air television may account for some of that increase, but a few high broadband bills with overlimit fees for “excessive Internet use” can effectively drive online video fans back to traditional cable TV as well.

Satellite television in Canada remained flat,  with a virtually unchanged 2.9 million Canadians relying on Bell and Shaw satellite service for television entertainment.

But everyone is paying more to watch.

In 2011, cable companies paid $2.1 billion in wholesale fees to the pay and specialty services they distribute, an increase of 10.2% over the $1.9 billion paid the previous year. The fees paid by satellite companies rose by 2.8% in one year, going from $894.4 million to $919 million.

That leaves vertically and horizontally-integrated conglomerates like Bell in the perfect position to extract higher programming payments.  Those costs are passed down to Canadian consumers and blamed on “greedy programmers,” despite the fact those programmers are owned in part or outright by Bell.

A Rogers retail rental store

Rogers is also well-suited to remain a part of the Canadian entertainment experience.  The company owns cable systems, wireless phone networks, programmers, and even home video stores. However Stop the Cap! reader Alex notes Rogers has been closing a number of those video stores over the past few months.

“This gives customers one less choice for renting movies, basically forcing them to use Rogers On Demand instead,” writes Alex.

Rogers On Demand comes with a higher price, too.  In-store rentals from Rogers are priced at 2 for $9 or 3 for $15.  A recent look at Rogers’ video on demand website, Rogers Anyplace TV, shows most movie titles priced at $4.99 each.  With Rogers closing 40 percent of their retail rental outlets, movie fans have had fewer competitive choices for movie rentals.

One potential new contender coming to Canada – kiosk video rentals.  Although services like Redbox are now commonplace in the States, they are virtually unknown in the north.  Jim Gormley, former owner of Jumbo Video is back with Planet DVD.  With just 2% of Canadians renting movies from kiosks, Gormley believes there is plenty of room to grow, especially as Rogers scales back its video rental business.

Planet DVD has a pilot project running with supermarket chain Sobeys to place kiosks in front of nine store locations.  The first kiosk was erected in early March in front of a Sobeys store in Mississauga, Ont.

A new release at a Planet DVD kiosk is priced at $3 for a one-day rental.  That’s less than what most video stores charge, but more than double what Americans pay at a Redbox kiosk.

Cable operators will be challenged to find enough open video channels to support a gradual transition to IP-based video, which could mean an early end to analog cable television in large parts of the country.

The former chief technology officer of Charter Communications, Marwan Fawaz, noted cable operators will need at least 24-32 free analog channels to duplicate their digital lineup — considerably more than many operators have available on today’s crowded cable dial.

Fawaz

The transition to digital cable won’t be easy for some consumers, many who actively dislike set top boxes on every television and the endless rental fees that often accompany them.  Cable operators face more resistance from customers than their telephone and satellite competitors, who have always required equipment on every television in the home.  But with the demand for increased broadband speeds, new network-capable DVR boxes that can be accessed from other televisions in the home, and the never-ending addition of new HD channels, converting analog signals to digital is the most cost-effective way to free up space to handle today’s demands on existing cable systems.  The alternative would be expensive upgrades to increase available bandwidth — an investment unlikely to win favor on Wall Street or in company boardrooms.

Cable operators are taking different approaches to the challenge.  Comcast has been systematically reducing the number of analog signals on its cable systems, using that space for new digital signals, including HD broadcasts and faster broadband.  Time Warner Cable has deployed a transparent “on-demand” system for its lesser-watched digital channels that only transmit them into neighborhoods where viewers are watching them. Smaller operators are also moving to adopt nearly all-digital cable television lineups, especially on older systems that have already exhausted available space for new channels and services.

Fawaz says cable’s progression to IP-based delivery of cable channels is inevitable, a matter of “when” not “if,” according to an article in Light Reading:

For operators that don’t expect to have that much capacity available to them soon, he suggests that they could start off in smaller stages, perhaps beginning by moving Video-on-Demand services and some “niche” networks over to IP and supporting them with hybrid QAM/IP set-tops or gateways. Another transitional option, at least from an in-home multi-screen perspective, is to start using specialized transcoding that can convert QAM video to IP and pass those streams to tablets, PCs and other devices using the home’s Wi-Fi network.

Most cable operators are supplying customers with digital adapters that can accommodate digital signals on older, analog televisions, without a giant set top box taking up space.  To make the transition easier, operators typically provide up to 2-3 boxes for free for 1-2 years and then bill customers a nominal rental fee thereafter.

An increasing number of cable customers will become familiar with these “DTA” boxes in 2012.  Time Warner Cable, the nation’s second largest cable operator, will continue its progression to convert its cable operations to mostly-digital this year.  Time Warner’s customers in Maine were the first to experience the switch, with mixed results.  Fawaz expects some remnants of the analog lineup, as well as some limited support for QAM channels, will remain for the next 7-10 years.

When the nation’s largest phone and cable companies get together, it’s never good news for consumers.

Verizon has struck a backroom deal with a cartel of cable companies — including Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Cox Communications — to stop competing against one another and instead divvy up the spoils of the growing mobile market.  And they’re keeping mum on the details of this arrangement.

The cable industry wants to sell Verizon the mobile phone spectrum it originally considered using to give Verizon Wireless a little competition.  In return, Verizon Wireless is going to start selling you Comcast/Time Warner/Cox cable TV service.  It’s all great for them, but if you were waiting for Verizon FiOS or a better deal for your cell phone, these phone and cable companies want to make sure you’ll wait a long… LONG time.

They claim they are not getting together in an anti-competition pact.  They are just getting differently apart. It’s like divorcing someone by agreeing to move in with them.

It’s a bad marriage for consumers and now is the time for the Federal Communications Commission to deliver some parental supervision.

Stop the Cap! joins Free Press in calling on consumers to tell the FCC to expose Verizon’s backroom shenanigans.

Tell the Commission you aren’t happy with secret handshake deals that hand over the public airwaves to Verizon Wireless to consolidate its market concentration.

Even worse, you don’t want America’s largest competitor for big cable TV — telco-delivered broadband, TV, and phone service — eliminated so the phone companies can pitch you overpriced, non-competitive cable service from their new best friends.

What part of “monopoly cartel” doesn’t the FCC understand?  Tell them you want these deals stopped and you demand real competition, not more of the same.

If you are customer of Charter Cable, chances are you are paying a lot more than $60 a month for a complete package of cable television with a DVR box and 30Mbps broadband, price locked for two years.  But Charter is selling precisely that package to customers in Monticello, Minn.  Why do they get a deal you can’t have?  Because your town probably doesn’t have a community-owned broadband provider delivering competition.

Charter’s website offers new customers a six-month cable/broadband promotion for $64.98 a month, but that does not include a DVR box and delivers half the speed Charter pitches to the chosen few in Monticello.  After six months, the deal ends. A package including what Charter sells in Monticello for $60 a month costs more than twice as much elsewhere — $145 a month for customers in Rochester and Duluth.

"For the BEST prices in town, you must call your 'In-Field' representative," the flyer declares, including the name and number of a local Charter representative.

The cable operator is keeping the two-year special offer quiet as much as possible with the use of door flyers hand-delivered to potential customers. If Charter’s five million customers nationwide find out, they may wonder why they are paying dramatically more for the exact same service.

The city of Monticello already knows why.  The local community decided the incumbent providers — TDS Telecom and Charter Communications — were not giving the city the attention it deserved, so it built its own 21st century fiber to the home system to bring faster broadband to the region.  Now the incumbent commercial operators appear to be stopping at nothing to put FiberNet Monticello out of business.  Charter’s pricing takes fat profits from customers in nearby Minnesota cities and appears to cross-subsidize the heavily discounted service on offer in Monticello.  While that delivers short-term savings to customers in Monticello, other Charter customers are helping cross-subsidize those low rates on their own high cable bills.

If you are a Charter Cable customer, why can’t you have the same deal residents in Monticello are getting?  Why not call Charter at 1-888-438-2427 and ask them?