Last week’s shocking development that Cablevision, a major cable operator in greater New York City, New Jersey and Connecticut is not going to raise rates in 2012 is bad news for other cable operators itching to raise rates once again this year.

Cablevision’s decision was made as the company continues to battle Verizon FiOS, the phone company’s fiber-to-home-service across its service area.  Verizon has been playing hardball with Time Warner Cable, Comcast, and Cablevision in its metro New York service area, offering up to $500 in rebates to sign new customers.  That level of vicious competition has been great for consumers, but lousy for Wall Street.

Investors were not pleased with Cablevision’s pass on rate hikes and its intention to invest a lot more in system upgrades than originally planned.  Wall Street loves increased revenue and hates it when companies spend it on their customers.

With all of this competition breaking out, Comcast and Time Warner Cable may be more than a little uncomfortable sitting down at an antitrust hearing later this month to discuss their new agreement with Verizon to cross-market cable and mobile service.  In return for the cable industry signaling they will never compete with Verizon’s mobile phone offering, Verizon has generously purchased the cable industry’s leftover spectrum and agreed to pitch cable TV subscriptions to Verizon Wireless customers.  With this new “non-aggression treaty,” will there still be a need to offer $500 gift cards and cut-rate prices to attract new customers?  Consumer groups think not.

A greater percentage of Cablevision’s service area is served by Verizon’s fiber network than either Time Warner Cable or Comcast.  Competition is forcing Cablevision to rethink the usual cable industry plan for financial success — force channels customers don’t want and raise rates up to 5% a year to pay for the “increased costs of doing business.”  Consumers are fed up with $150 monthly cable bills and will take Verizon up on an offer than cuts rates $50 a month and hands over up to $500 just for saying “yes” to FiOS.

Readers: Please find our 2015 Guide to Getting a Better Deal from Time Warner Cable here. You will find the latest negotiating strategies and deal information in that updated article. 

Time Warner Cable just won’t let you say goodbye, if they can help it.

A year ago, your editor fought for a better deal from the cable company that has served him since the 1980s.  With a tough economy and downsizing, paying a cable bill that was approaching $175 a month in early 2011 for ‘all their best’ was simply no longer an option.  Time Warner Cable’s customer retentions office responded with a promotion that slashed the bill to just $88.44 for Turbo Internet, cable-TV, and unlimited “digital phone” service with nationwide calling.  Incidental charges included leasing a whole house DVR ($7.04), a second cable box ($6.84), $1 for “digital programming” and $0.34 for the remote control.

When the cable operator introduced DOCSIS 3 broadband speed upgrades, an additional $20 a month brought 30/5Mbps speeds.  The total — $123.66 (before taxes and fees).  That’s a whole lot less for a great deal more service.

When the promotion ended in February, the rate shot back up to $160, but $7.95 of that was for a year of Showtime at a special promotional price.  Showtime was destined for the cancel corner anyway (we didn’t watch more than two hours of anything on Showtime in the last year), but even without it, the rate increase was on the steep side.

So we complained.

Unlike last year, which resulted in considerable confusion and arguing back and forth with different representatives to find the best deal, this year we let Time Warner’s social media representatives do the hard work for us.  Within 24 hours, our rate for all of the same services, plus a special promotion that includes HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, and The Movie Channel at no additional charge, brought the bill down even lower than we managed last year: $102.33 a month for a year.  That includes the 30/5Mbps Road Runner Extreme, Whole House DVR, and one extra cable box.  It doesn’t include taxes and fees, which typically add another $6.50 to the bill.

The whole process was painless, and you can follow in our footsteps if you have a Twitter account:

Step One: Tweet Time Warner (Note the Twitter address has changed from @twcablehelp to @TWC_help):

The key phrase in whatever Tweet you send is to include: @TWC_help, which brings you to their social media customer service representatives.  I also “followed” @TWC_help so I could see how active they were.  During business hours, you should expect to see a reply like this within the hour:

For those new to Twitter, “DM” refers to a “direct message” — a private Tweet seen only by the intended recipient.  I finally found the menu option that allows me to send a “direct message” on Twitter’s page for Time Warner Cable:

Note the red box around the option on the top right.  By clicking that you will see a drop down menu that includes an option to “Direct Message” TWC_help.  You will want to include your Time Warner Cable account number (as seen on your bill) and include your contact phone number.

Within 24-48 hours, a senior retentions specialist should call you to negotiate a better offer for your service.  Make sure you answer those unfamiliar caller ID calls!  But before they call, visit Time Warner Cable’s website and note any currently running new customer promotions.  Also check to see if the competition is offering anything even lower.  Those prices are typically the starting point for your negotiations, and the company should have little trouble meeting them.  However, customers with a poor payment record or past due account may discover the company less willing to negotiate.  Bring account balances current before negotiating for a lower rate.

Some Time Warner Cable territories offer “price protection agreements” or term contracts that lock customers into 1-2 years of service.  Negotiating around these contracts can be difficult to impossible.

An alternative contact method is to direct e-mail Time Warner at: [email protected] (don’t forget the “.” in twcable.help).

The total time spent this year on finding a better deal that will save us $58 a month — $696 a year — about five minutes, far less than the time it took to write this article.  Give it a try and let us know in the comments what kind of deals you can negotiate.

The cable company best known for serving suburban New York City.

Cablevision Industries has cried “uncle” in light of relentlessly aggressive competition from Verizon Communications, which offers its fiber to the home FiOS service in much of the cable operator’s service area.

Cablevision’s 4th quarter and year-end financial results, reported earlier today, are underwhelming investors.  Cablevision executives warned the company will have lower cash flow in 2012 due to increased investments in set-top boxes, network upgrades, and more importantly — no planned subscriber rate increases this year.

Some highlights:

Video – Losing Customers Like Everyone Else: Cablevision lost 14,000 video customers in the last quarter, many to Verizon FiOS and ongoing cord-cutting.  Analysts expected just 9,000 defections.  Cablevision will soon launch both HBO and Max Go online video for their customers nationwide.  Additional on-demand video options, online and off, are also anticipated.

Broadband – Cablevision finally admitted its own network was responsible for last year’s faltering broadband speeds that delivered poor marks in ongoing FCC speed tests.  The company originally denied the speed test results were accurate.  Today CEO James Dolan told investors the company invested in its broadband network to improve speeds and service.  Cablevision feels strongly it must compete effectively with Verizon to survive.  The company added 20,000 high-speed data customers and 31,000 phone subscribers in the quarter.  The company is doing well allowing customers easy access to broadband speed upgrades.

Wi-Fi – Cablevision sees strong value in its wireless broadband network as customers increasingly take their content mobile and need connectivity to the web.

Upgrades – CEO Jim Dolan said 2012 will be “a year of investment” in Cablevision upgrades and improvements.  The company is even accelerating projects originally envisioned for 2013.  Cablevision will continue to expand its “next day” installation offer across the eastern United States by the end of the first quarter.

Promotions – The escalating war of promotions between Verizon and Cablevision are likely to cease as Cablevision yanks their most aggressive new customer offers.  Earlier this year, Verizon was pitching a two year triple play offer that included an incredible $500 prepaid card rebate as part of the promotion.  “I don’t think you’ll see those [low introductory rates from Cablevision] again ever,” said Dolan.

“The main theme that people should take away from the call today is that we continue to be focused on moving the business in a direction where we both retain existing subscribers and have attractive, economically sensible offers for new subscribers,” said Cablevision chief financial officer Gregg Seibert.

AT&T’s march towards monetizing data usage has just gotten a twist with a new idea from the company to develop “a toll-free wireless Internet” where app makers foot the bill for your data usage.

First appearing in a Wall Street Journal article, John Donovan, AT&T’s executive for network and technology, suggested the new “app maker pays”-option will ease consumers’ fears about using high bandwidth apps that eat into AT&T’s data allowances.

“A feature that we’re hoping to have out sometime next year is the equivalent of 800 numbers that would say, if you take this app, this app will come without any network usage,” Donovan said at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Spain. “It’d be like freight included.”

Critics of the idea pounced immediately, calling AT&T’s latest plan the realization of former CEO Ed Whitacre’s dream that content producers “can’t use [AT&T’s] pipes for free.”

Harold Feld, legal director at consumer group Public Knowledge thinks he’s got AT&T’s number:

Just to be clear, here is what AT&T Wireless is doing:

1. Create an artificial scarcity with an arbitrary bandwidth cap for its wireless services;

2. Charge users who exceed this arbitrary bandwidth cap;

3. Claim to do consumers a favor by letting the ap developer pay for exceeding the arbitrary bandwidth cap.

Which cuts to the heart of the problem in wireless, IMO. The argument in favor of a wireless capacity cap is, in a nutshell, “wireless is different from wireline because the physics imposes bandwidth limitations.” In the presence of these bandwidth limitations, we need a rationing scheme of some kind. Bandwidth caps are a neutral way of rationing and encourage app developers to write more efficient applications — thus improving the system overall.

The problem with this argument is it is impossible at present to determine just how true or false it actually is. I referred above to AT&T’s bandwidth cap as arbitrary. As far as I (or any outside observer) can tell, AT&T just selected a number and said “this is where we impose a cap.” You can buy a higher cap on a monthly basis, or can pay as you go above the cap in the form of overages.

AT&T has no worries about data tsunamis and "exafloods" when app makers or consumers are willing to pay more.

In fact, AT&T’s journey away from unlimited access to their wireless network is well underway.  Just two years ago, customers paid $30 a month for unlimited data on a smartphone.  Then AT&T ended “unlimited” access, imposing a 2GB usage cap on their most popular wireless data plan.  Now AT&T is looking to monetize its wireless traffic even further as customers grow more reticent about using high volume applications that could threaten one’s usage allowance.

Despite AT&T’s ongoing drumbeat America is in the midst of a wireless bandwidth crisis, the ‘national emergency’ is over as soon as someone — anyone other than AT&T — opens their wallet and agrees to pay more for data traffic.  Then the sky is the limit.

The logical inconsistencies of a company crying for more mobile spectrum concurrently envisioning new ways to monetize high volume wireless traffic (eg. large file downloads, online video, etc.) exposes the hollow center of  Internet Overcharging.  The “exaflood”/data tsunami only seems to threaten AT&T’s network when content producers and/or consumers are not paying extra for every kilobyte.

As Stop the Cap! has argued before, AT&T is increasingly  in the bandwidth shortage/rationing business.

The company underspent on its network, balked at the price tag to upgrade capacity (but had no trouble planning to pay substantially more to acquire T-Mobile), and now complains it has to charge higher prices because the federal government blocked its merger and the FCC won’t hand over additional spectrum.

There are two approaches to fat profits in the broadband business these days:

1. 

   A Proud Member of: Team Rationing for Profit

   Team Innovation: Believe in your product and nurture its growth with upgrades, innovation, and pricing that guarantees an enthusiastic and loyal customer base;

2. Team Rationing for Profit: Leverage your dominant market power by rationing your product, charging higher prices for less service.  Monetizing usage controls traffic growth, reducing the expense of upgrading your network. With limited competition, even alienated customers face few alternative choices and a steep early termination exit fee.

Based on statements from AT&T’s Donovan, AT&T is a firm believer in the latter.

“There’s a view of an entitlement that says that any impediment to riding over the top of our network is inherently wrong, is un-American,” Donovan said, adding AT&T needed to find creative ways to deal with and profit from surging mobile-data use.

Feld thinks it says something else.

“This new plan is unfortunate because it shows how fraudulent the AT&T data cap is, and calls into question the whole rationale of the data caps,” Feld said. “Apparently it has nothing to do with network management.  It’s a tool to get more revenue from developers and customers.”

Phillip "Keeping an Eye on Time Warner's Eye" Dampier

Today’s announcement by Time Warner Cable that it is reintroducing usage based billing, at least optionally for customers in southern Texas, is a concerning development that requires further examination and vigilance.  But before we delve into that, I’d like to thank the company for avoiding the kind of mandatory usage billing/cap system we’ve seen appearing at certain other providers.  We also welcome the company’s admission that they have earned enormous profits from unlimited consumption plans and consider that pricing part of the success story they’ve had selling Internet access.

Stop the Cap! has never opposed optional usage-based billing tiers for customers who feel their light usage justifies a service discount.  However, industry trends so far have made no provisions for truly unlimited usage plans that sit side by side tiered plans without quietly diluting the value of flat rate Internet with tricks and traps in the fine print.  We have serious concerns this “foot in the door” to Internet Overcharging could eventually become mandatory for all customers.  Perhaps Time Warner Cable will be different than all the rest.  We can only hope so.

Let’s break it down:

First, Time Warner Cable’s admission it blew it the first time it experimented with these pricing schemes is most welcome.  Being on the front lines of the battle against the company’s Internet Overcharging experiment in 2009 remains very-well-documented on this website.  We confronted arrogant local management that argued usage billing was “fair” and would barely affect any customer.  In fact, the original plan a later revision would have tripled flat rate Internet access to a ridiculous $150 a month.

The company’s 2009 “listening tour” was also a farce, with a number of e-mailed comments deleted unread (we know, because Time Warner’s comment system sent e-mail to customers telling them exactly that.)  Local media outlets, newspaper editorials, and customers made it quite clear: customers want their unlimited Internet access left alone.  They do not want to learn the mysteries of a gigabyte, they don’t want to watch a gauge to determine how much usage they have left, and they sure don’t want to pay any more for broadband service.

If Jeff Simmermon, Time Warner Cable’s director of digital communications, now represents the prevailing attitude about unlimited Internet access among Time Warner Cable’s executive management, that is a very welcome change indeed.  But we’re not completely convinced.  For nearly two years, Time Warner executives have talked favorably about usage-based billing as the “fairest way” to bill for Internet usage.  Besides Simmermon’s comments, we have seen nothing from CEO Glenn Britt or CFO Irene Esteves that indicates they have changed their original views on that.

Unfortunately, we’ve learned over the last three years today’s promises may not mean a lot a year from now.  We’ve watched too many companies introduce these pricing schemes and then gradually tighten the noose around their customers.  Once broadband usage is monetized, Wall Street looks to the practice of charging for usage as a revenue source, and they pressure companies to keep that money flowing.  What begins as an optional tiered plan can eventually become the only plan when flat rate broadband is “phased out.”

Canadians understand this is not unprecedented.  They’ve been down this broadband road before, and it is loaded with expensive potholes and broken promises to repair them.  Usage allowances have actually dropped at some Canadian providers.  The fixed maximum on overlimit fees has gradually been relaxed or removed altogether, exposing Canadian consumers to broadband bill shock.

Time Warner Cable customers are now paying upwards of $50 a month for broadband after consecutive annual rate increases.  That’s plenty, and usage should remain unlimited for that kind of money.

Still, Stop the Cap! has never been opposed to truly optional usage-based billing plans.  We’re just unconvinced companies will keep the wildly popular flat rate pricing if boatloads of additional revenue can be made dragging customers to tiered usage plans, particularly in the absence of aggressive competition.  Just ask AT&T.

Second, as we’ve seen on the wireless side, “unlimited Internet access” means one thing to consumers and all-too-often something very different to providers.  For example, companies have discovered they can claim to provide unlimited access but then de-prioritize flat rate traffic, or even worse, throttle speeds and give preferential treatment to usage-based billing traffic.  Time Warner Cable needs to commit that unlimited access means exactly that — no traffic prioritization, no speed throttles, and no sneaky fine print.

Third, we don’t expect Time Warner will get too many takers for their Broadband Essentials Internet program.  The discount, just $5 a month, is quite low for broadband service limited to 5GB per month.  Exceeding that limit is quite easy, and after just 5GB of “excess usage,” the discount is eaten away and the penalty rate of $1/GB kicks in.  That could ultimately risk up to $25 a month in extra charges.  I’m uncertain how many customers would want to risk exposing themselves to that for a modest discount.

While we are not issuing a Call to Action over these developments, we will be watching them very closely.  Time Warner Cable should make no mistake: if their usage billing plans begin to eat away at fairly priced unlimited access plans, we will once again picket the company and do whatever is necessary to bring political and consumer pressure to force them to rescind these kinds of pricing schemes yet again.