"Too rich for my blood."

Former Verizon FiOS customers now served by Frontier Communications in Oregon and Washington are receiving word of astonishing rate increases of as much as 46 percent from the phone company.  The massive rate increase is being blamed on “increasing programming costs” charged by the cable networks carried on a cable system that competes with Comcast, which charges far less for the same channels.

Frontier’s rate hikes are so dramatic — $30 a month for the popular standard 200-channel package, some customers are wondering whether the company is trying to sabotage their own fiber-to-the-home service.

“They sent us a rate increase letter stating our former standard package, priced at $65 a month, is now going up to a ridiculous $95 a month for basic cable,” says Tom, a regular Stop the Cap! reader. “That’s a rate increase only my health insurance company could love.”

New customers face the new rates immediately, but existing customers have until Feb. 18 before the new high price kicks in.  Many are preparing to move back to Comcast, which raised rates this year as well — but is now a relative bargain at $63 a month for a similar package.

“As much as I love FiOS, Frontier has managed to screw it up as badly as the rest of their services and now I am going back to Comcast,” Tom says. “You have to wonder if they are purposely incompetent or if it’s part of a larger plan to sabotage the Verizon FiOS network they inherited.  Either way, they’ve priced their service out of the market.”

When Tom called Frontier to complain, the company offered to rip out the advanced fiber network Verizon installed and stick a DirecTV satellite dish on his roof instead.

“Frontier is a real ‘Back to the Future’ kind of company — they just don’t get it,” Tom said.  “The operator actually told me she couldn’t understand why I would want to cancel service.”

Customers receiving new customer promotional discounts will get a real case of sticker shock when Verizon’s original promotional rates reset to Frontier’s new regular price.

“Washington County better beef up their hospitals because there are going to be a lot of heart attacks when that bill arrives,” Tom says.

The Oregonian newspaper reports customers are not the only ones to be shocked by Frontier’s enormous rate increase.  Regulators promised more competition and cheaper prices as part of Frontier’s purchase of Verizon landlines feel had as well.

“[Frontier’s rate hike] is essentially a white flag surrender and an exit from the head-to-head video competition,” lamented David Olson, director of the Mt. Hood Cable Regulatory Commission.

That’s a far cry from what Frontier Communications CEO Maggie Wilderotter told the newspaper in September when asked if the company would raise FiOS rates.

“That is not our plan. If I look across the board at our basic service pricing, I don’t think we’ve raised prices anywhere in the last four or five years,” she said.

The Oregonian quotes a Frontier representative who says the company’s relatively small customer base disqualifies them from volume discounts Verizon used to receive.

“Part of the challenge we have, compared to other providers, is that our footprint is so small,” said Frontier spokeswoman Stephanie Beasly. “They’re able to spread it out over a much larger customer footprint.”

That can’t be the whole story, said Fred Christ, policy and regulatory affairs manager for the Metropolitan Area Communications Commission, which regulates cable TV in Washington County.

“There’s more to it than programming costs. Anybody in the industry can pretty much figure that out. What more there is, we don’t know yet,” he said. “Unless programmers are trying to run Frontier out of business, why would they jack their rates that much?”

Smaller companies like Frontier generally do not try and buy programming on their own, but join group-purchasing plans like those offered by the National Cable Television Cooperative.  Municipal providers routinely purchase programming at substantial discounts.  It is not known if Frontier is a member, but they could be.

No rate increases are planned for broadband or telephone service.

Verizon FiOS pricing increased at less than half the rate Frontier will demand from subscribers in 2011. (Source: Metropolitan Area Communications Commission, Tualatin Valley, Ore.)

Last year's glossy mailer gave fair warning what subscribers could expect in 2010 were rate increases.

Time Warner Cable customers in several areas of the country are now receiving good tidings in their mailbox — the annual glossy mailer that portends the company’s annual “rate adjustments.”

Customers in areas from snowed-in western New York to fogged-in Los Angeles will find the company quick to congratulate themselves on their “achievements” in 2010 — achievements that someone has to pay for — you.

After you’ve finished reading all of the self-back-patting accolades, somewhere towards the bottom of the piece the company tries to break the bad news, telling you it must periodically “adjust prices.”  We know what that means and so do you.

The company’s new rate schedule for 2011 delivers price increases across the board, but the exact amounts and percentages depend on where you live.  For customers in western New York, expect around a 6 percent rate hike.  In southern California, rates for just about everything are increasing, some by a percentage considered high even for the cable industry.  The more services you bundle with the cable company, the less the total increase will bite your wallet.

Considering America’s inflation rate stands at less than 1 percent and will remain at that level through next year, a rate increase six times that amount is certain to start another round of package trimming and cord cutting from strapped subscribers.

“Everytime they increase their rates, I drop something to keep my bill manageable,” writes our reader David in Charlotte, N.C.  Rate increases in that state were announced in November.

“When I’m down to just standard cable and Internet, I’ll look to drop them,” he adds.

David says he used to have a fully-loaded package from Time Warner, taking every premium channel, Digital Phone, and Road Runner Turbo.  But not anymore.

“When they raised rates three years ago, we dropped several premium channels,” David said. “Two years ago we dropped the rest and some of their HD programming, and last year we chucked Digital Phone for our cell phone.”

What is going in 2011?  Road Runner Turbo.

“It’s a pointless product ever since they raised upload speeds for standard Road Runner customers.”

For customers in Rochester, the latest rate hike is the latest of several over the past year.  The company has been incrementally increasing prices on individual components of the cable package in an effort to drive more customers into bundled service packages.

In Los Angeles, it’s much the same.  Rate increases are on the way for DVR service and for set top boxes.  So are dramatic price hikes for virtually anything requiring an employee to come to your home. Want them to pick up or exchange equipment?  Pony up $29.99 (up 50 percent).  Need someone to install your phone or Internet?  That’s going up 65 percent to $32.99.

The company’s response to these increases?

The usual — programming cost increases.  The company also encourages customers to do installations themselves and drop off equipment at a local cable store to avoid the charges.

Columnists are using the occasion to scream once again for a-la-carte cable — allowing customers to pick and pay for only the channels they want to receive, always a Dead-on-Arrival idea for cable companies.

Tom Joyce from the Mount Airy News noticed as rates increase, the channels he wants to see either aren’t on the system, are being dropped, or are at risk of being dropped because of contract disputes:

What really irks cable television subscribers is that not only are we paying more, we are getting less for our money as well. It would be one thing to simply charge subscribers more for the same service, but what Time Warner seems to be doing is hiking prices while also diminishing the quality of its programming.

For example, C-SPAN2 recently was dropped from the system. C-SPAN2 is a great outlet for public-affairs programming and also focuses on books written on government, history and similar topics.

While some TV watchers might say good riddance to such a high-brow channel, I think it’s a shame viewers now have one less outlet that might actually broaden their intellectual horizons or help them become better-informed citizens.

Yet Time Warner’s cuts also could affect mainstream broadcast content as well. There have been announcements that Channel 48, a Triad TV station, is being dropped from the local cable system at the end of this month. I rely on Channel 48 for many entertainment shows, including late-night reruns of “The Office.” This trend isn’t new. It’s been occurring over the years, paralleling a scenario of constant price increases.

The cable package I receive once included the Fox Movie Channel, Encore Westerns and others that I found enjoyable, but which gradually fell by the wayside. Only one bona fide movie selection remains, Turner Classic Movies.

Channels that I now receive basically are a collection of commercial-laden garbage and cheap filler.

David Lazarus at the LA Times agrees:

“I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Cable and satellite bills are too high, and it’s nuts that people have to pay through the nose for channels they never watch,” Lazarus writes. “It’s time for cable and satellite companies to switch to a la carte programming so we can start paying for products we actually want, rather than ones that we’re forced to accept.”

Lazarus also noticed Time Warner Cable’s efforts to placate subscribers with freebies backfired again this year as well:

As it did last year, Time Warner is again trying to make its annual rate hike more palatable by giving customers coupons to watch premium movies for just 99 cents.

The catch is that you have to mail in the coupon with your bill to have it redeemed. Or you can mail it separately if you want to add 44 cents in postage to your 99-cent movie.

But what about all those customers who have gone paperless — as Time Warner prefers — with automatic bill payments or electronic cash transfers? Isn’t this unfair to them?

When I suggested last year that maybe the cable giant should include a digital code on its coupons so that customers could redeem them online, a company spokeswoman said this was a good idea and she’d take it up with her superiors.

I suggested the same this year to Gordon. He said it was a good idea and he’d take it up with his superiors.

Glenn Britt, Time Warner Cable’s CEO, says the cable company’s biggest challenge in 2011 is remaining “completely focused on the customer.”

Britt told Michael Grebb, writing for CableFAX, that America’s second largest cable company cannot succeed if it dictates terms to customers.

“We have to deliver a differentiated customer experience that’s linked to our brand—a brand that says ‘we give you more control in ways that are simple and easy for you, the customer,'” Britt said. “We’ve heard loud and clear from customers that they want flexibility in packaging, including the ability to buy smaller packages. We’re working hard to deliver what they’re asking for.”

Britt is referring to Time Warner’s new pared-down cable-TV tier, TV Essentials.  Currently undergoing a market trial in northeast Ohio and New York City, it deletes more expensive basic cable networks from the cable package to provide a discounted, smaller lineup to customers.

Britt’s remarks come more than a year after the cable company experimented with an Internet Overcharging scheme that would have restricted consumers’ use of Road Runner unless they were willing to pay triple the price — $150 a month — for unlimited use.  The company shelved the test after an outpouring of customer complaints and threatened congressional action.

Britt’s remarks would seem to indicate Time Warner is not going to antagonize its customers in the coming year, especially considering the economic challenges many face.  Time Warner lost more than 100,000 subscribers in the last quarter alone.

“Even if we weren’t in a bad economy, we’d still want to deliver customized products and experiences to specific customer segments, which is smart business in any environment,” Britt said. “And it just so happens our lower [revenue] customer segments are most affected by the economy and are the same customers who are really shouting about smaller packages. With respect to ‘higher-end fare,’ I would add that, even with the tough economy, we’re still seeing good demand from higher [revenue] customer segments.”

Britt added Time Warner plans to be more aggressive about its own TV Everywhere project in the coming year.  TV Everywhere delivers on-demand programming online for “authenticated” customers who also subscribe to a corresponding cable-TV package.  No cable-TV package means no access to that programming online.

“Our firm belief is that consumers want access to any content, anywhere, any time and from any device,” Britt said.

Britt signaled the cable company feels on-demand is only part of the online video equation.  Portability — the ability to access content on-the-go, is also a very high priority for Time Warner.  Britt encouraged cable programmers to get on board and participate in the TV Everywhere project to help grow awareness of the service for existing cable-TV subscribers.

Britt also telegraphed the company was moderating its tone over retransmission consent agreement battles with cable networks and broadcasters.  While previous statements from the cable operator indicated the company was prepared to “get tough” with programmers seeking dramatic price increases, Britt’s latest comments suggest the company recognized consumers do not want to be put in the middle of the disputes and the company was taking the matter to Washington lawmakers to adjudicate instead.

Time Warner faces a major showdown with Sinclair Broadcasting, owner of several network affiliate stations, which will come to a head on New Year’s Eve.

“We will continue to work hard to reach fair agreements, but we believe existing retransmission consent rules – set by the government almost 20 years ago – have not kept up with a changing marketplace,” Britt noted. “The rules are outdated, and they’re in urgent need of reform in order to avoid more public battles.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Britt Calls for Cable Content Dispute Resolution Process 11-23-10.flv[/flv]

Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt told Bloomberg News the company wants to reform the retransmission consent dispute process.  (3 minutes)

Comcast wants to be paid twice for carrying Netflix online video content to its customers: once from customers themselves and a second time from Level 3 Communications, Inc., the company providing much of Netflix’s streamed video traffic.

“On Nov. 19 Comcast informed Level 3 that, for the first time, it will demand a recurring fee from Level 3 to transmit Internet online movies and other content to Comcast’s customers who request such content,” said Level 3’s chief legal officer, Thomas Stortz, in a statement. “By taking this action, Comcast is effectively putting up a toll booth at the borders of its broadband Internet access network, enabling it to unilaterally decide how much to charge for content which competes with its own cable TV and Xfinity delivered content.”

The backbone and content distribution company accused Comcast of threatening the open Internet and of abusing its market position as America’s largest cable broadband provider.  Comcast disageed, calling Level 3’s position “duplicitous” and accused the company of sending far more traffic from its content partners than the cable giant sends in the other direction.

Joe Waz, senior vice president of External Affairs and Public Policy Counsel at Comcast posted a response on the company’s blog claiming Level 3 was trying to have it both ways, running a lucrative content delivery business for clients like Netflix while also acting as a major Internet backbone provider.  Waz claims Level 3 is purposely confusing the fair exchange of backbone traffic with the commercial content delivery business it also runs:

Comcast has long established and mutually acceptable commercial arrangements with Level 3′s Content Delivery Network (CDN) competitors in delivering the same types of traffic to our customers. Comcast offered Level 3 the same terms it offers to Level 3′s CDN competitors for the same traffic. But Level 3 is trying to gain an unfair business advantage over its CDN competitors by claiming it’s entitled to be treated differently and trying to force Comcast to give Level 3 unlimited and highly imbalanced traffic and shift all the cost onto Comcast and its customers.

To quantify this, what Level 3 wants is to pressure Comcast into accepting more than a twofold increase in the amount of traffic Level 3 delivers onto Comcast’s network — for free. In other words, Level 3 wants to compete with other CDNs, but pass all the costs of that business onto Comcast and Comcast’s customers, instead of Level 3 and its customers.

Level 3′s position is simply duplicitous. When another network provider tried to pass traffic onto Level 3 this way, Level 3 said this is not the way settlement-free peering works in the Internet world. When traffic is way out of balance, Level 3 said, it will insist on a commercially negotiated solution.

But Level 3 claims Comcast threatened to pull the plug if they didn’t agree to the cable company’s demands, which would have cut off Comcast customers from a wide range on content.  The company agreed to pay Comcast under protest, and took the issue public just as attention has become re-focused on Net Neutrality at the Federal Communications Commission.

The dispute increasingly resembles cable TV carriage fights where programmers threaten to yank programming if their terms are not met.  Had Comcast delivered on its alleged threat to cut ties to Level 3, widespread disruptions of content delivery could have been the result, starting with a blockade against Netflix streaming video.  That would leave Comcast broadband customers paying for a hobbled Internet experience, missing popular websites because of Comcast’s roadblocks wherever Level 3 traffic was involved.

It’s a classic case of a Net Neutrality violation, with money being the motivating factor.  Pro-consumer public policy groups immediately pounced on the news.

“Comcast’s request of payment in exchange for content transmission is yet another example of why citizens need strong, effective network neutrality rules that include a ban on such ‘paid prioritization’ practices,” said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior vice president and policy director of Media Access Project. “It is also yet another clear demonstration of why Comcast should not be permitted to acquire NBC Universal, given its clear tendency to exercise control in the video marketplace.”

“On its face, this is the sort of toll booth between residential subscribers and the content of their choice that a Net Neutrality rule is supposed to prohibit,” said Harold Feld, legal director of Public Knowledge. “In addition, this is exactly the sort of anticompetitive harm that opponents of Comcast’s merger with NBC-Universal have warned would happen — that Comcast would leverage its network to harm distribution of competitive video services, while raising prices on its own customers.”

Although Netflix and officials at the Federal Communications Commission both refused comment, analysts predict consumers will ultimately pay the price for Comcast’s newest fees in the form of higher prices for online content.  Comcast does not impose these fees on its own TV Everywhere online video service, Xfinity Fancast.  Waiving expensive content delivery fees for “preferred content partners” could leave independent competitors like Netflix vulnerable to the whims of the broadband providers charging extra to deliver traffic to paying customers.

The FCC is rumored to be considering enacting some broadband reforms before new Republican members of Congress take their seats in January.

(Thanks to several of our readers, including Terry and ‘PreventCaps’ for sending word.)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Comcast Internet Toll Booth 11-30-10.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News briefly covered the dispute in this morning’s Business Briefs segment.  (1 minute)

If you have nearly $200 a month burning a hole in your pocket that you’d be willing to give Time Warner Cable for a cable-TV, phone and broadband package, have we got a deal for you.

Time Warner Cable is completing a test of its Cadillac cable plan for ultra-premium customers in Charlotte, N.C.  Dubbed “Signature Home,” the plan targets the cable company’s biggest spenders with a deluxe package of cable television, phone, Road Runner Wideband high speed Internet, two premium whole-home DVR units, and a wireless home network.  Customers in Charlotte paid $179.95 a month for the service during the test.  One of the conclusions apparently reached — Time Warner was not charging enough.  As the service goes national, its price will increase by $10 a month for some, $20 for others, topping out just a nickel shy of $200 a month before taxes and fees.

For that price, customers get just about everything Time Warner Cable offers, except premium movie channels:

Time Warner Cable expects to unveil the service in other areas of the country in a matter of weeks.

CEO Glenn Britt told Bloomberg News the targeted packages of services are designed to retain different classes of customers.

“If this were a BMW this would be the 750 IL, with all the whiz-bang things,” said Britt. “It’s our package with everything we have to offer and a different service experience all wrapped up in one.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Signature Home Time Warner Cable East.flv[/flv]

Time Warner Cable produced a brief promotional video for Charlotte customers explaining the benefits of its new Signature Home service.  (2 minutes)