Mediacom is announcing broad price increases for many of its customers scheduled to take effect on Dec. 15.  Most cable-TV subscribers will pay $2-3 more a month for basic cable, an additional $2 a month for Cinemax and Showtime, and $2 extra a month for “Digital Plus” cable service.  To add insult, the paperless bill credit that used to knock $1 off your bill if you chose not to receive a mailed billing statement is also being eliminated.

Lee Grassley, Mediacom’s chief lobbyist, delivered the company line about the rate increase in letters mailed to subscribers.  In essence, he blamed everyone but Mediacom for the rate hikes, and in poetic language one normally doesn’t get from a cable company rate increase notification:

As our nation struggles to pull itself out of what has been called the Great Recession, we recognize that these are challenging times for the hardworking men and women living in the communities that we serve.

[…] Over the past few years, many broadcasters have used their monopoly powers to demand 100%, 200% and even 300% rate increases during contract negotiations.  This has driven up cable and satellite rates and forced American consumers to pay billions of dollars for “free” over-the-air television.

The problems with sports programming are equally alarming.  One look at the skyrocketing rights fees announced with recent deals and it is easy to see that the marketplace for live televised sports is out of control.

[…] Contrary to public perception, cable companies are reluctant to raise video prices because when we do, we lose subscribers.  Mediacom does not make money when we raise video rates, since we remit virtually every penny of the increase on to programmers.  In fact, over the last three years, our programming cost increases were more than double our video revenue increases.

Since the programming community has been unwilling to exercise even the slightest measure of self-restraint when it comes to reigning in their spending or increasing their price demands, Mediacom has taken the fight to Washington.

Mediacom as new-found-friend fighting for lower cable rates comes across as ironic, at best, to Stop the Cap! reader Noel, who lives in Mediacom’s Iowa footprint.

“This is the same cable company who pocketed rate increases annually for as long as I’ve been a subscriber, and if they can’t raise the price of the television service, they’ll just make it up on the broadband side,” Noel writes.  “They have their nerve complaining about monopolies.”

Noel points out the local station retransmission consent fees are a more recent phenomenon, and Mediacom rate increases in prior years were the same or higher.

“I think they are realizing there is an absolute maximum people in Iowa can afford for cable, and years of rate increases have allowed all of the players to assume they can slice a bigger piece from that pie for themselves, and we’re tapped out,” Noel adds.

Noel called Mediacom and threatened to cancel service and received a nice consolation price: customer retention pricing normally reserved for new customers.

“I have a year reprieve, but rest assured I will start dropping things after the deal expires at these prices.”

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KCCI Des Moines Mediacom Rate Increases 11-28-11.flv[/flv]

KCCI in Des Moines covers Mediacom’s rate increases and the reaction from local residents who will have to pay more for cable service.  (2 minutes)

Cable subscribers paying ever-increasing television bills for hundreds of channels they never watch may find some relief if Comcast decides its experiment in “a-la-carte” cable-TV is a success.

The company is testing a new way of selling service that delivers a basic package of channels for a lower price and then offers customers bouquets of add-on channels sold in “theme packs” for $10 apiece.

Comcast is testing what it calls MyTV Choice in parts of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont and Charleston, South Carolina, and plans to expand it to the Seattle area soon.

Here’s how MyTV Choice works:

Customers start with a basic package of channels that Comcast calls “Get Started” ($24.95) or “Get Started Plus,” which sells for $44.95 a month.

What differentiates the two options are the networks they contain.  Inexpensive cable networks turn up in Get Started — A&E, Discovery, C-SPAN, Animal Planet, Daystar, Food Network, home shopping, and The Weather Channel are among the 32 channels that accompanies a basic package of local channels.

Get Started Plus includes all of those networks plus sports — the budget-busting networks that help keep cable bills growing.  ESPN and other regional sports channels are included in the more expensive package.

Missing from the basic package of channels are kids shows, news, movies, and niche networks.  That’s where Comcast’s “Choice” packs come into play.  Customers can add a 19-channel News & Info pack, 31-channel Entertainment & Lifestyle pack, 16-channel Movie pack, and/or an 11-channel Kids pack for $10 each.

That’s where the “choice” ends.  Customers cannot skip the basic channel package to select only one of the theme packages, individual channels are not for sale, and anywhere outside of Charleston, customers also have to buy phone and Internet service from Comcast. HD also costs extra.

So much for a lower bill.

In fact, Comcast sells a digital cable package incorporating a full lineup of basic cable channels for just under $60.  If your family loves sports, has kids, and needs news channels, sticking with the digital cable package is actually cheaper than MyTV Choice.  That’s because the latter will require a $44.95 base package, plus three theme packs for an additional $30 a month.

Comcast denies their experimental a-la-carte package has anything to do with cord-cutting Internet viewers.

“It’s more or less responding to feedback from customers that they want more choice,” Comcast spokesman Bill Ferry told the Post & Courier.

While Ferry and others argue the pay-per-channel is not economically feasible, Christopher C. King, a telecom analyst for Stifel Nicolaus in Baltimore told the newspaper that is the trend.

“Certainly the industry’s moving more toward an a la carte model,” King said.

Theme-packs are not a new concept for some pay television viewers.  In the 1980s and 1990s, consumers owning large 6-to-12 foot satellite dishes routinely encountered the channel bouquet concept.  Customers would purchase a basic package and then select from a dozen or more mini-tiers, usually made up of networks owned by one company.  Want TBS and TNT?  Turner Broadcasting sold an add-on with those two channels.  Wanted a superstation package?  Channels uplinked by cable companies like TCI from Denver could be purchased as a small package.  So could stations like WSBK in Boston, WWOR and WPIX in New York, KTVT in Dallas and KTLA in Los Angeles.

Comcast has “simplified” things with a much smaller set of choices.  But that also dramatically limits any potential savings.

The concept of a-la-carte cable horrifies cable companies and their Wall Street shareholders, because a true “pay-per-channel” offer would dramatically cut the average revenue earned per subscriber if customers took a hatchet to the bloated channel packages most customers receive today.

Cable operators have resisted the concept because every channel would have to be encrypted to sell individually, billing would become more complicated, and the business model of niche-oriented networks supported by more popular fare would end.  That’s why programmers hate the idea as well.  While A&E, TNT, and CNN would have no trouble surviving, networks like Current TV, TV One, Hallmark, Cloo, and LOGO probably would not.

More importantly, many subscribers might find savings elusive from a-la-carte, because the most expensive cable programming networks also happen to be among the most popular.  ESPN and Fox News Channel, for example, have dramatically increased their rates to cable companies, who helpfully pass them along to you.  But if cable operators suddenly stripped those networks out of basic packages, while leaving the much cheaper networks together in broad-based theme packages like “lifestyle and entertainment,” subscribers may howl in protest or accuse the cable operator of playing politics.

It gets even harder when the cable companies selling the big packages of channels customers never watch also happen to own some of the networks found within those packages.  Comcast shareholders may not like the cable side of the business kicking lucrative NBC-owned and operated cable networks like The Weather Channel, USA, E!, Cloo, and other owned networks to a-la-carte Siberia.  Every cable subscriber pays for Cloo and E! today.  How many will choose to pay for those networks under an “a-la-carte” model is an open question.

Only two cable operators have expressed an interest in switching to a true, a-la-carte model to date — Suddenlink and Mediacom — both small, regional players that have no programming interests and lack sufficient buying power to score the kinds of discounts available to companies like Comcast and Time Warner Cable — discounts they can have if they agree to keep as many channels bundled in one digital cable package as possible.

Five years ago, municipal Wi-Fi projects were enjoying a small boom.  The concept of providing low-cost or free Internet access seemed like a winner because it could provide service to those who could not afford traditional broadband, would stimulate economic development downtown, and possibly attract business as shoppers stopped in cafes or stores to use their wireless devices.  In some communities, just the spectacle of a city-wide high technology wireless network delivered worthwhile bragging rights that adjacent communities didn’t have.

For most city or town officials pondering investment in a Wi-Fi network, the idea germinates from a perceived lack of service from private providers.  If private companies were delivering the service, few communities would spend the time, effort, and money duplicating it.

In the community of Marshalltown, public Wi-Fi in 2005 was a service only found in a small selection of stores and cafes in the central business district.  The Marshalltown Economic Development Impact Committee sought to change that, promoting a plan to construct a free-to-use Wi-Fi network covering a 20-block radius centered on the Marshall County Courthouse.  The community of 27,000 got a three month trial of the downtown Wi-Fi network in 1995, with the city and county sharing 50 percent of its cost, with the remaining 50 percent paid for by private donations.

Mediacom, the cable company serving Marshalltown, was incensed by the notion of a community-owned broadband provider delivering improved (and free) Internet access across the city.  Even worse in their eyes, local government officials were pondering creating a public broadband utility.

Marshalltown (Marshall County), Iowa

It wasn’t long before new, shadowy groups with names like “Project Taxpayer Protection” showed up in town attacking the concept of municipal Internet access.  After a blizzard of brochures and exaggerated claims about “government broadband,” the network became a point of controversy among the locals.

Only later would the community learn the group (whose status as a non-profit was later revoked by the Internet Revenue Service for failure to file timely reports on its funding and activities) was actually funded mostly by Mediacom itself, with the full support of the Iowa Cable Association.

The astroturf campaign against public involvement in Wi-Fi, which could threaten Mediacom’s broadband service profits, was effectively an investment against competition.  It was an effort that paid dividends by late 2005, when the city and Mediacom suddenly announced a new “public-private partnership” to administer and expand the Wi-Fi network.  There were a few important changes, however:

1. Mediacom’s concept of “free” was markedly different than the designers’ original vision.  The cable company had other ideas, placing restrictions on how much “free use” was allowed;
2. Customers who used the newly-announced “free service” got it at speeds not much better than dial-up and definitely slower than 3G;
3. Residential Mediacom broadband customers could get unlimited time on the formerly-free network, if they paid $19.95 a month for 256kbps access;
4. To make the network seem business-friendly, business customers were told they could get up to 10Mbps service for $59.95 a month.

The goal of the partnership, according to Mike Miller, chairman of the Marshalltown Economic Development Impact Committee, was to see low-cost broadband Internet access citywide by the end of 2006.

Oh, and Mediacom insisted on something else: no more talk of a city-created municipal telecommunications provider, at least for a year anyway.

“We commend you on the foresight and vision to do this,” Bill Peard, Mediacom’s government affairs manager, told city officials at the time the deal was announced.

Friends until the community-owned...

Once Mediacom got its hands on the formerly community-owned network, it was the beginning of the end.

Business customers could not get Mediacom to sell them access at the promised price because representatives could not find the offer.

It was much worse for residential users.

Free Wi-Fi access soon became limited to one hour a day, up to 10 hours per month for non-Mediacom customers.  After that, you paid if you wanted more.

City and company officials spent most of their time wrangling over the costs of the service and its future potential.  What city officials were not planning for was the network’s virtual demise at the hands of the cable company.

...free Wi-Fi network is at an end.

Today, free access is a distant memory, as Mediacom pulled the plug claiming there was “limited interest.”

Effectively, Mediacom’s idea of a public-private partnership was the systematic decommissioning of a community’s public Internet alternative, all to protect its own broadband business.

That’s a lesson of caution for any community seeking to team up with private broadband providers.  Marshalltown allowed that partnership to first and foremost serve Mediacom’s business interests, not the public.  Now that network is effectively gone and largely-forgotten.

That suits Mediacom just fine.

Mediacom, America’s eighth largest cable company, lost 20,000 video subscribers in the second quarter of 2011, joining a growing parade of cable companies reporting increased cord-cutting by customers who either cannot afford, or don’t need increasingly-costly cable TV service.

The cable operator, which largely serves small cities and suburban areas, has suffered from notoriously poor consumer ratings for several years, and some customers have apparently had enough.  Mediacom, which went private earlier this year, provided fewer details about its performance in its first quarter as a private company, but the information it did provide showed attempts to make up the losses with rate increases on remaining customers and increased revenue from phone and broadband sales, and Mediacom’s advertising business.

The company’s customers in its strongholds in the southeastern and midwestern United States have been impacted hard by declining property values and high unemployment.  Impacted consumers are paring back expenses, and while they are keeping phone and broadband service, cable TV is increasingly being dropped.

Earlier conference calls with Mediacom company officials note an increasing number of customers are only being rescued when the company discounts the cost of the service as a customer retention tool.  The company has been hard selling its “VIP Pak” — a triple play package of cable TV, phone, and Internet for $90 a month, but it comes with lots of fine print: mandating a 24-month contract, a required subscription to HBO, and gradually increased rates after the first year.  Mediacom’s bundled offers lock in customers with two year contracts, but don’t protect them from periodic rate increases, which are automatically applied as implemented.

Customers looking for standalone broadband or a “double-play” will also find high prices, two-year contracts and early termination fees in their future:

• Cable TV & Broadband: $79.90 for the first year, $99.90 for the second, with a $240 early termination fee
• Cable TV: $49.95 for the first year, $64.95 for the second, with a $240 early termination fee
• Broadband Only (12/1Mbps): $49.95 for the first year, $54.95 for the second, with a $240 early termination fee

The Federal Communications Commission today released MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA, the first nationwide performance study of residential wireline broadband service in the United States.  The study examined service offerings from 13 of the largest wireline broadband providers using automated, direct measurements of broadband performance delivered to the homes of thousands of volunteers during March 2011.

Among the key findings:

Providers are being more honest about their advertised speeds: Actual speeds are moving closer to the speeds promised by those providers.  Back in 2009, the FCC found a greater disparity between advertised and delivered speeds.  But the Commission also found that certain providers are more likely to deliver than others, and certain broadband technologies are simply more reliable and consistent.

Fiber-to-the-Home service was the runaway winner, consistently delivering even better speeds than advertised (114%).  Cable broadband delivered 93% of advertised speeds, while DSL only managed to deliver 82 percent of what providers promise.  Fiber broadband speeds are consistent, with just a 0.4 percent decline in speeds during peak usage periods.

Cable companies are still overselling their networks.  The FCC found during peak usage periods (7-11pm), 7.3 percent of cable-based services suffered from speed decreases — generally a sign a provider has piled too many customers onto an overburdened network.  One clear clue of overselling: the FCC found upload speeds largely unaffected.

DSL has capacity and speed issues.  DSL also experienced speed drops, with 5.5 percent of customers witnessing significant speed deterioration, which could come from an overshared D-SLAM, where multiple DSL customers connect with equipment that relays their traffic back to the central office, or from insufficient connectivity to the Internet backbone.

Some providers are much better than others.  The FCC found some remarkable variability in the performance of different ISPs.  Let’s break several down:

• Verizon’s FiOS was the clear winner among the major providers tested, winning top performance marks across the board.  Few providers came close;
• Comcast had the most consistently reliable speeds among cable broadband providers.  Cox beat them at times, but only during hours when few customers were using their network;
• AT&T U-verse was competitive with most cable broadband packages, but is already being outclassed by cable companies offering DOCSIS 3-based premium speed tiers;
• Cablevision has a seriously oversold broadband network.  Their results were disastrous, scoring the worst of all providers for consistent service during peak usage periods.  Their performance was simply unacceptable, incapable of delivering barely more than half of promised speeds during the 10pm-12am window.
• It was strictly middle-of-the-road performance for Time Warner Cable, Insight, and CenturyLink.  They aren’t bad, but they could be better.
• Mediacom continued its tradition of being a mediocre cable provider, delivering consistently below-average results for their customers during peak usage periods.  They are not performing necessary upgrades to keep up with user demand.
• Most major DSL providers — AT&T, Frontier, and Qwest — promise little and deliver as much.  Their ho-hum advertised speeds combined with unimpressive scores for time of day performance variability should make all of these the consumers’ last choice for broadband service if other options are available.

Some conclusions the FCC wants consumers to ponder:

1. For basic web-browsing and Voice-Over-IP, any provider should be adequate.  Shop on price. Consumers should not overspend for faster tiers of service they will simply not benefit from all that much.  Web pages loaded at similar speeds regardless of the speed tier chosen.
2. Video streaming benefits from consistent speeds and network reliability.  Fiber and cable broadband usually deliver faster speeds that can ensure reliable high quality video streaming.  DSL may or may not be able to keep up with our HD video future.
3. Temporary speed-boost technology provided by some cable operators is a useful gimmick.  It can help render web pages and complete small file downloads faster.  It can’t beat fiber’s consistently faster speeds, but can deliver a noticeable improvement over DSL.

More than 78,000 consumers volunteered to participate in the study and a total of approximately 9,000 consumers were selected as potential participants and were supplied with specially configured routers. The data in the report is based on a statistically selected subset of those consumers—approximately 6,800 individuals—and the measurements taken in their homes during March 2011. The participants in the volunteer consumer panel were recruited with the goal of covering ISPs within the U.S. across all broadband technologies, although only results from three major technologies—DSL, cable, and fiber-to-the-home—are reflected in the report.