Pay $160 a month... or $89.99

Time Warner Cable attached their new rate schedule to my November cable bill which arrived in the mail last week.  It’s the second major rate increase in western New York this year, and it means customers who just want to watch standard basic cable television will now pay $80.50 a month to do so.  We’re a long, LONG way from the $20 cable TV package the industry used to advertise as “less expensive than a cup of coffee a day.”  This is Starbucks’ coffee pricing, with no end in sight.

Time Warner Cable’s Triple-Play package of phone, Internet, and television service will now run $160.49 a month here in Rochester.  It wasn’t too long ago that a bill that size was reserved for the gas and electric company, or perhaps for a used car payment.  That’s before taxes, franchise fees, and other pad-ons, too.  Need that extra set top box?  Add another $7 a month each with remote control.  Want to speed up your broadband?  $10 a month for that.  HBO?  Time Warner Cable’s premium channel-pricing completely ignores today’s economic and marketplace (Netflix/Redbox) realities.

The cable company does have competition in the television business. In the same day’s mail was the latest offer from DirecTV, which has nearly as many sneaky extra fees as local phone company Frontier Communications.  That $24.99 a month “amazing deal” starts to snowball as you build a package, and it also means a satellite dish on your roof, which some people just don’t want.

Assuming you stick with the cable company’s triple play package, the sobering truth is that doing business with Time Warner at their everyday-high-pricing will cost you at least $1,920 a year.  But you don’t always have to pay them the asking price.

So with rate increase notice in hand, what can you do?

1. Call them up and tell them the relationship is over unless changes are made.  Good things come to those who wait for the other side of the relationship to start sacrificing for a change.  You’ve coped with rate hikes for years and cable companies keep shoveling more channels you never watch and then raise rates because of “increased programming costs.” This time, let the cable company give a little.  Call and tell them you want to disconnect your service two weeks from today.  A retention specialist will attempt to negotiate with you (starting with efforts to pare down your package, leaving you still paying regular price for fewer services).  Be non-committal,  because better deals will start to arrive by phone as early as a few hours after telling them you’re leaving.  (But you have to answer those unfamiliar Caller-ID calls to hear about them.)  The worst that will happen is you don’t win a significantly better deal. You still have two weeks to rescind the cancel request with no interruption in service and at least get something for your efforts.  Consolation prizes to sweeten a mediocre retention deal: free sample of premium channels, a free Turbo-class upgrade for Road Runner, and/or a break on DVR service.

2. Compare prices.  If you live in an area with telephone company-delivered TV, offer to stay with the cable company if they will match the new customer offers you are probably already getting pelted with in your mailbox.  Most will.  There are customers who literally bounce back and forth between AT&T/Verizon and Comcast/Time Warner Cable year after year just to keep the $89-99 triple-play promotional price that effectively never expires.  Getting your existing provider to match it saves you and your provider the time and hassle of switching.

3. Demand a new customer price.  Do a Google search for “Time Warner Cable deals” (or for your respective cable company) and at least a dozen offers will appear, mostly from third-party, authorized resellers.  Double-play offers for broadband and cable-TV often range between $75-85.  A triple play offer which adds phone service is usually just a few dollars more.  Some resellers pitch combo offers that deliver a discounted rate and a substantial rebate ($150), like the one below:

Ask Time Warner to match the price of these offers (you likely won’t get the rebate, however).  They certainly can come close on retention deals — in fact they will go as low as $85 a month for an annual triple play deal in some areas.

Some customers deal with intransigent retention agents by canceling service and quickly signing up as a new customer soon after.  That is more of a hassle, and some areas require a waiting period before they’ll offer a new customer promotion again, but the usual trick around this is to sign up under a spouse’s name.

It pays to shop around and read the fine print carefully.

For example, in the deal above, I highlighted three important features — the $150 rebate, which is important for reasons I’ll explain in a moment, the free DVR service, and “standard installation.”  In some cases, promotional offers for new customers do not include free installation or equipment, so it is always important to ask exactly what is included.  The $150 rebate will help defray those expenses, but some competing deals omit the rebate and knock $10 off the $99 monthly price for the same bouquet of services and installation is free.

1. Drop services you don’t need.  Still paying for premium channels?  Why?  Also check your bill for extra mini-pay tiers for certain HD channels Time Warner Cable dropped a few years ago.  You may still be paying $5 a month or more for channels like HDNet Time Warner replaced with the hardly-comparable RFD-TV.  Some customers who signed up for a discounted promotional offer for Time Warner phone service are now paying upwards of $30 a month for the company’s regular-priced unlimited long distance plan.  Consider switching to the $20 “local calling only” plan.  You can make those long distance calls on your cell phone or Google Voice and save $120 a year.

Time Warner, like every other cable company, understands the word “cancel” very well.  The best way to put an end to endless rate increases is to refuse to pay them and being willing to cut the cord until they get the message.

Gone for new customers

AT&T has stopped allowing new customers to sign up for its “A-List” feature, which allowed AT&T Wireless customers on individual service plans to make unlimited calls to up to five mobile or landline numbers; Family Plan members were able to pre-select up to 10 numbers.  It’s particularly bad news for users of Google Voice, who added their Google-assigned phone number to their calling list to make unlimited Google Voice calls over their AT&T phones.

For now, existing A-List customers can keep the feature as long as they stick with the same rate plan, but AT&T warns it reserves the right to discontinue it at any time.

Engadget received a leaked memo regarding the change, which AT&T sprung on customers with no warning earlier today.

AT&T says A-List is a feature whose time has come and gone.  In its place, the company is allowing free mobile-to-mobile calling, according to an official company statement:

With automatic addition at no-cost of AT&T’s Mobile to Any Mobile offer for our wireless customers with an unlimited messaging plan, AT&T A-List is being discontinued for new users. Existing A-List users are not affected. We have seen a very enthusiastic response to the value of Mobile to Any Mobile which lets users with an unlimited messaging plan call any mobile number in America, regardless of the wireless provider.

While AT&T’s mobile calling feature is unique because it works with any mobile customer using any provider, the loss of A-List means numerous calls to landline numbers (including Google Voice numbers) could burn through your plan minutes much faster.  AT&T probably pays a higher connection fee to complete calls to landline numbers, especially in rural areas where connection charges are higher.

Ironically, competition from T-Mobile’s myFaves feature helped inspire AT&T to match the competition with the launch of A-List.  It is this kind of innovative, disruptive marketing that benefits every mobile customer, as competing carriers are forced to match features offered by other carriers.

In the last month, AT&T has been paring back customer-friendly value options such as its discounted, light user text plan.

Thanks to Stop the Cap! reader Scott, who notes: “Again, the merger isn’t even through or likely and AT&T is still slashing consumer friendly and money saving features put in place to fend off the competition.”

AT&T “streamlined” its text messaging plans over the weekend for new customers, eliminating a less-expensive $10/1000 text budget plan in favor of unlimited texting plans that cost much more.

That means new AT&T customers who want to text will pay dearly for the privilege:

• $0.20 per text message sent/received,
• $20.00 Unlimited texting (individual line)
• $30.00 Unlimited texting (family plan)

So much for asking customers to ‘pay for what they use.’  AT&T is moving towards unlimited texting — at a very high price — while moving away from unlimited data.

AT&T released a statement about the changes:

“We regularly evaluate our offers and are making some adjustments to our messaging lineup. Starting August 21, we’re streamlining our text messaging plans for new customers and will offer an unlimited plan for individuals for $20 per month and an unlimited plan for families of up to five lines for $30 per month. The vast majority of our messaging customers prefer unlimited plans and with text messaging growth stronger than ever, that number continues to climb among new customers. Existing customers don’t have to change any messaging plan they have today, even when changing handsets.”

Gizmodo points out AT&T is charging customers who don’t have a text plan 100,000 percent more than what they charge for online data:

Here’s how it breaks down:

AT&T charges $25 for 2 gigabytes of mobile data, which states how much they think their bits and bytes are worth. That comes out to 80 megabytes per dollar. 80 megabytes will get you 500,000 text messages—assuming you’re writing the largest possible message, which you’re often not (i.e. “Hey” “Nothing” “lol”).

Now divide that dollar by the 500,000 potential texts. That comes out to $0.000002 per text—two ten thousandths of a cent. A very, very, very small amount of money.

Now, let’s say you send 5,000 texts a month. That’s a large, though wholly realistic number. Multiply that by the above worthless cost per text, and you’ve got—hold onto your wallet!—$0.01. A penny for five thousand texts, according to how much AT&T says its data is worth in a data plan.

But outside of the data plan? Oh boy! Things get very different very fast. And by very different, I mean inordinately overpriced. Those same 5,000 texts, at a rate of $0.20 per message, will cost you $1,000. Not a penny—a grand. Two very different prices for literally the exact same thing.

For customers who only send and receive occasional text messages, losing the $10 option means most will either pay the heavily marked-up $0.20 a-la-carte price, or pay double and not worry about how many messages they send.

Ultimately, AT&T’s new prices may drive an increasing number of users to alternative ways of communicating with friends and family, especially as prices keep rising.  Some AT&T customers remain grandfathered on text plans that offer 200 messages for $5 a month.  But for customers like Ben Chinn of San Francisco, even $5 is asking a lot.

“With everything with the mobile carriers, I feel I’m getting nickeled and dimed,” Chinn told the Los Angeles Times. “I resent paying so much for text messaging, and I feel that it’s not a reasonable price to pay for something that costs the carriers next to nothing.”

Free Press Research Director S. Derek Turner says AT&T’s new prices foreshadow the kinds of higher prices all Americans will pay if the wireless industry continues its march towards consolidation.

“This move is simply another example of AT&T passing off a price increase for consumers as a benefit,” Turner said. “If this were a truly competitive market, AT&T would offer its customers more choice and value, and no carrier would get away with a 10-million-percent markup on its services. This should serve as a warning to the Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission — if AT&T is already able to unilaterally increase prices, allowing the company to eliminate low-cost competitor T-Mobile will only make things worse.”

The Times notes Juniper Research has predicted that global revenue for text messaging will peak this year and begin to drift down. And in a recent report, UBS Investment Research warned that “customers could elect not to pay for texting as smartphones and third-party applications become pervasive.”

Facebook has introduced Messenger, a free smartphone app that allows members to exchange text messages with friends, as well as anyone else who happens to have a cell phone.  Google Voice includes unlimited free texting, if those sending messages remember your Google Voice number.  Apple’s forthcoming iMessage will be pre-installed on most Apple devices, offering a ready-made opportunity to bypass high-priced text plans.  There are dozens of other apps that offload text traffic to your smartphone data plan, where the added traffic is so insignificant, it has largely no impact on even the lowest usage plans.

The preferred outcome of using any of these third-party apps is to cancel expensive texting plans from your phone carrier.  But there are obstacles:

1. Many friends may continue to text your primary cell phone number directly, incurring a-la-carte text messaging fees if you cancel your text plan;
2. Many require all of your contacts to run specific apps to exchange messages, which can quickly become a burden;
3. Apple’s iMessage assumes all of your friends are using Apple phones or devices.  Everyone else will have to hope for, find, and install another app to support the service.

The trade-off works for some, but not for others.

Hieu Do of St. Louis tells the Times he’s had to pay for individual text messages after dropping his text plan, but Google Voice has still helped him save money:

“At the beginning of every month I would lose a dollar here and there from people texting my old number, but it’s worth it more than paying $5 or $10 a month for a texting plan,” he said.

But Jim Jeffords, one of our readers, tried Google Voice for awhile and decided it was just too cumbersome for texting.

“I ended up getting text messages from a lot of business contacts that didn’t know about my Google Voice number, but had my cell phone number,” Jeffords says. “I was not about to throw a Google Voice number into the mix and come across as cheap and make them remember what number to text.”

Jeffords went back to a basic text plan with a few hundred messages a month included.

“It wasn’t worth the hassle to deal with,” he said.

Frontier Communications filed suit Tuesday against Google claiming the search giant stole its patent for giving users one phone number connecting their home, work and cell phones, the core feature of Google Voice.

Frontier, the independent phone company based in Stamford, Connecticut, claims it holds the patent for allowing a subscriber to “be reached on multiple telephone lines from a single dial-in number.”

“Google’s deliberate infringement of the patent has greatly and irreparably damaged Frontier,” the lawsuit charges.  Frontier is seeking unspecified damages and an injunction to stop the use of the technology.

The lawsuit distracted from Google’s announcement that Google Voice was out of beta and now available to anyone in the United States.  Google Voice lets users obtain a free phone number that will ring multiple telephones and screen calls.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

The one number follow-me feature is hardly new to either Google or Frontier.  Phone companies have offered similar features to businesses through telephone products like Centrex since the 1960s.

Frontier filed its lawsuit hours after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued Frontier’s requested patent.

“We believe these claims are entirely without merit, and we’ll defend against them vigorously,” said Google spokesman Andrew Pederson.

Frontier will likely face an uphill battle in its lawsuit, because the company’s patent request from 2007 comes two years after Google Voice’s predecessor, GrandCentral launched service in 2005.  Google acquired GrandCentral in 2007, rebranding it as Google Voice. GrandCentral offered the same “one number” feature Frontier is complaining about two years before the phone company applied for its patent.

Perhaps Frontier’s lawyers might acquaint themselves with the concepts of “prior art” and “first-to-invent.”