Comcast subscribers in cities across the country are getting as hot as the summer as they learn the cable company is jacking up prices again — for many the second time in a year.  This time, the rate hikes are blamed on the cost to deliver an expanded lineup of HD channels, increased programming costs, and new cable modems.  Yet on the eve of the European Union approving a proposed Comcast-NBC Universal merger, many Comcast cable customers are beginning to wonder if all of these rate hikes are going to pay for that deal.

Here is a sampling of press reports from across the country on the latest round of increases:

San Francisco Chronicle: Comcast Corp. said it is raising rates for California cable and Internet customers by an average of 3.8 percent starting Aug. 1. The average video customer will see their monthly bill increase by $2.49 from $60.76 to $63.25 a month. Internet service will also increase for the first time in five years from $44.72 to $46.67 a month, a $1.95 increase. Andrew Johnson, regional vice president for Comcast California, said the increase is necessary to pay for more programming choices, new features, faster Internet speeds and improvements to customer service.  The last rate increase came October 15, 2009 when rates went up just over 1 percent.

The Record (Stockton, Calif.): For the second time in less than 10 months, Comcast Corp. customers in San Joaquin County face price increases for cable television service and, for the first time in five years a boost in charges for a cable Internet connection, the company announced recently. Customers in Stockton, Manteca, Lathrop and San Joaquin County served by Comcast will see an increase of nearly 4 percent in their cable bills beginning Sept. 1. Notices began going out to subscribers late last week. Other Northern California areas served by the cable giant will see prices change Aug. 1.

“They’ve got you tied in,” said Art Hickey of Stockton, who has five television sets in his home and subscribes to the highest tier of digital service. “They tease you with those six-month deals and 12-month deals and they don’t say what it’s going to be after that. People buy into it and then they’re just stuck with it,” he said.

So why not try another source of television?

“I haven’t compared, and I don’t want to because it’s a nuisance,” Hickey said.

The Spokesman-Review (Spokane, Wash.): Most of Spokane’s Comcast subscribers will see price increases in their Internet and video services effective in August, the cable company announced. Comcast’s last price increase went into effect October 2009. According to Comcast spokesman Walter Neary, most Spokane cable television subscribers will see an average monthly increase of about $3.21, or 4.9 percent. Customers who subscribe to Limited Basic, the least expensive package of Comcast TV channels, will have no increase in their monthly bill. Limited Basic includes all over-the-air local stations and the public, education and government channels.

Customers who pay for Comcast cable Internet will see two increases – a modem rental fee that will rise to $7 from $5 per month, and a $3 hike for monthly Web service. Subscribers who bundle Internet with either Comcast voice or TV service won’t pay the $3 hike, but will still see the modem fee increase, Neary said. Subscribers can eliminate the modem fee by buying their own modem. The Internet price hike reflects increased investment by Comcast in additional security services for subscribers and technology upgrades, Neary said. Another price increase, not reflected in Comcast’s stated 4.9 percent average monthly hike, is a $2 hike in the “HD technology fee.” TV subscribers who see HD Comcast channels will pay $8 per month for that technology fee, said Neary.

York Daily Record (York, Penn.): Comcast Cable is about three weeks away from putting into effect its second price increase in less than one year. On Aug. 1, the company will boost the average York County customer’s bill by roughly 3.5 percent, said Bob Grove , a spokesman for Comcast Cable’s Keystone Region. That increase is on top of a 1.9 percent price hike for the average Comcast customer that took effect Nov.1. The current rate increase is rooted in Comcast’s company-wide digital upgrade that calls for a jump in the number of high-definition channels to climb from 50 to 100, Grove said. Also, Comcast’s on-demand video menu will increase from 18,000 choices, 4,000 of which are HD, to 20,000 selections with 5,000 of those coming in as high-definition, he said.

“We’ve continually invested in next-generation technology to support new product features, more programming choices and improvements to customer service,” according to a statement released by Comcast concerning the increase. However, for those currently enrolled in a Comcast promotion, your bill will remain unchanged until that particular deal ends, Grove said. “Nearly half of all Comcast customers are on some kind of promotion,” he said.

Public Opinion (Chambersburg, Penn.): Many Comcast customers will see an increase in their monthly bills starting next month. The average customer bill in the Chambersburg area will increase by about 3.5 percent, according to a company spokesperson. The new rates take effect Aug. 1. A customer with standard cable or digital starter service will now pay $63.50 a month, or $3.50 more. Expanded basic, digital preferred, digital premier and total premium services are also increasing by $3.50 a month. Limited basic service, digital economy and family tier services are not affected. Economy, Performance and Blast! tiers of high-speed Internet will be increasing $2 a month. Monthly prices for the Ultra and Extreme 50 tiers will not change. Digital voice services will also cost $1.95 more a month.

Centre Daily Times (State College, Penn.): Comcast this week started sending out another round of mailings notifying customers of another change. But this time around the mailing isn’t warning of an impending digital conversion, or announcing the addition of more high definition television channels. This time around, it’s a notification of a rate increase. Effective Aug. 1, the average price for Comcast in the State College area will go up about 3.5 percent.

The company cited technology and infrastructure investments when contacted for comment. “These investments make it possible to deliver continued innovations, such as more HD and On Demand choices, converged services, faster Internet speeds, multi-platform content and new services consumers want and value,” said Bob Grove, director of public relations for the Keystone region of Comcast. Grove said the recent digital conversion by the company was one of the cost factors, as well as other programs that have included increasing Internet speeds for customers in the area. He noted that bills for customers whose service operates under one of the company’s promotions will not be affected until the promotion period expires.

While your cable and broadband bill increased in 2010, so did the net worth of some of Time Warner Cable’s top executives, compensated in part with shares of company stock.

Chairman, President & CEO Glenn Britt sold 50,000 shares of TWC stock on 02/26/2010 at the average price of $46.44 a share.  While he ponders whether or not to slap limits on your Road Runner broadband service, he can run his fingers through a cool $2,322,000 from this stock sale alone. If you want your child to score big time in investments in the future, then it might wise to look into information such as junior stocks and shares ISA.

Chief Operating Officer Landel C. Hobbs, the man that said Time Warner Cable needed the money earned from Internet Overcharging to afford costly network upgrades, did better than Britt last week when he sold 57,000 shares at an average price of $54.58 a share.  Perhaps chipping in some of that $3,111,160 in extra compensation would help things along.

It doesn’t just stop there:

• Senior EVP & CFO Robert D Marcus sold 28,504 shares of TWC stock on 05/27/2010 at the average price of $54.21 — $1,545,201.84
• TWC Ventures Carl Uj Rossetti sold 13,154 shares of TWC stock on 05/27/2010 at the average price of $54.40 — $715,577.60
• EVP & Chief Technology Officer Michael L Lajoie sold 9,169 shares of TWC stock on 05/03/2010 at the average price of $56.37 — $516,856.53
• EVP & Chief Strategy Officer Peter C Stern sold 3,676 shares of TWC stock on 04/26/2010 at the average price of $55 — $202,180
• EVP & Chief Strategy Officer Peter C Stern sold 1,483 shares of TWC stock on 04/05/2010 at the average price of $53.32 — $79,073.56
• EVP, General Counsel & Secretary Marc Lawrence-Apfelbaum sold 1,394 shares of TWC stock on 04/05/2010 at the average price of $53.32 — $74,328.08

In total, for just the months of April and May and the first week of June, seven executives have extracted more than $8.5 million dollars for themselves.

You got a rate increase to help make all that possible.

The U.S. Copyright Group sells its services: "Congratulations! By reviewing our site you have decided to take the first step down an efficient, no-hassle and no-cost path to recovering losses due to illegal downloading and stopping film piracy. With well over seventy combined years of legal and technical experience, the US Copyright Group will work for you at no cost." For those they accuse of piracy, a quick and easy $1,500 cash settlement will make the nightmare go away.

Stop the Cap! already deals with a variety of ISP-invented Internet Overcharging schemes, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t more profit-making schemes out there.  For 50,000 movie downloaders who grabbed copies of Steam Experiment, Uncross the Stars, Gray Man, Call of the Wild 3D, or Far Cry, chances are a letter like this sent to Verizon customers was in the mail a few weeks ago, warning your identity was about to be disclosed:

Dear Customer:

This is to notify you that Verizon has received a deposition subpoena requiring the production of records associated with the following IP address:

(xx.xx.xx.xxx)

Verizon has no information as to the purpose of the deposition subpoena or has the nature of the action or investigation being undertaken. Any questions you have should be directed to the party who issued the deposition subpoena.

Please be advised that, unless Verizon is served with a motion for a protective order or a motion to quash by 12:00pm on May 13, 2010, Verizon intends to produce the records by the date specified in the deposition subpoena. Motion papers can be served upon Verizon via fax number xxx-xxx-xxxx.

If you are a Time Warner Cable customer, chances are your letter never arrived.  That’s because the Internet Service Provider is fighting back against what it considers requests that have grown “out of control.”

A group of Washington, D.C. lawyers calling itself the U.S. Copyright Group has developed a profit-making business scheme seeking quick cash settlements from those accused of downloading copyrighted movies created by independent producers.  The group has filed thousands of requests for identities of those behind the IP addresses logged while downloading movies produced by its clients.  While this isn’t new — the record industry used to file lawsuits to discourage piracy — the U.S. Copyright Group is among the rare breed that treats the offense of copyright infringement as a for-profit business opportunity.

Only the Group’s methods may in fact cost every consumer, pirate or not, higher broadband bills as providers deal with tens of thousands of demands for identification.

Time Warner Cable is among the ISP’s that have had enough.

They’re upset after being included in the U.S. Copyright Group’s latest trawling effort against those who downloaded Uwe Boll’s Far Cry.  Critics say the only real crime was the movie itself.  But Time Warner Cable faces combing through 809 IP addresses identified as theirs in hopes of identifying the presumed-guilty offenders, who will later receive U.S. Copyright Group’s legal threats and offers for a settlement.  For a provider that says it receives only 567 IP identity requests a month, almost entirely from law enforcement officials, the prospect of dealing with 809 more over a single obscure movie is daunting.

Time Warner wants the requests quashed — telling the court if it has to reply to this volume of requests, it will not be able to fulfill urgent law enforcement requests that pertain to suicide threats, child abduction, and even terrorism.  Besides, at an average cost of $45 per request, someone will have to pay.  That someone is eventually you — all to fulfill the profit motivations of a group of DC lawyers.  Even worse, the group demanded compliance within 30 days, quite a demand for four full-time workers (and one temp) who make up the ISP’s Subpoena Compliance team.

For those receiving advance warning that their identity is about to be disclosed, the settlement offer package that is certain to follow weeks later leaves little doubt about what outcome the Group wants for these cases — a quick settlement and no time inside an actual courtroom.

Making your copyright infringement allegation go away with a $1,500 confidential settlement is as easy as writing your credit card number in the appropriate box. You can even earn reward points!

The group even offers an online, easy-to-complete PDF settlement form with spaces to enter your Visa, Mastercard, or Discover card number to pay the $1,500 settlement.  You don’t even have to admit you did anything wrong, as long as they get their money.  If you regret your decision later on, however, look out.  If you open your mouth in public or online to disparage the agreement or your participation in it, you automatically owe a $15,000 penalty (plus costs) for breaching confidentiality.  You also sign away your rights to challenge the group in court, even if it later turns out you were wrongly identified.

While the U.S. Copyright Group cashes settlement checks they only had to ask to receive, the group doesn’t seem to mind increasing everyone else’s costs.

Ars Technica notes Time Warner thinks the entire approach to these lawsuits may be invalid:

Filing lawsuits can be expensive; Most federal courts charge a $350 filing fee per case, along with a new set of paperwork. Each case also creates another docket to keep track of, making thousands of cases an administrative nightmare.

Instead of going this route, plaintiffs have gone the RIAA route, simply filing mass lawsuits against groups of “John Does,” in some cases by the thousands. But, says TWC, channeling its inner Ray Beckerman, “It is not evident from the complaint in this case that there is anything common to the 2,094 defendants that would justify joining them in a single litigation… Courts facing these identical circumstances have repeatedly held that a plaintiff may not join in a single action multiple defendants who have allegedly downloaded or facilitated the download of copyrighted material at different times and locations.

“Thus, if the plaintiff wants to sue these 2,094 defendants, it owes this court 2,094 separate filing fees, and it must file individual actions. Plaintiff then would be unable to combine together a single, massive discovery request with which to burden non-party ISPs such as TWC.”

Third, plaintiff lawyers keep expanding the scope of their subpoenas. The first complaint filed alleged 426 infringing IP addresses belonging to TWC subscribers. But when the company finally received a subpoena, it found requests for 809 IP addresses.

Taken together, said TWC, these “discovery abuses” mean that the judge should quash the subpoena. Alternately, the judge should limit the plaintiff to 28 TWC subpoenas each month.

Regardless of your views on piracy, compliance on the terms the U.S. Copyright Group demands raises the prospect of increased costs for providers like Time Warner Cable — the same increased costs used repeatedly as justification for rate increases.  Turning copyright compliance into a for-profit business may enrich a select group of DC lawyers, but ultimately every broadband customer could pay the price.

Phillip "The only New Deal my cable company brought to the table was a $150 monthly broadband bill for exactly the same level of service I had when paying $50" Dampier

Joe, a regular Stop the Cap! reader noticed the National Review this morning published another one of their “in the pocket of big telecom” editorials proclaiming Net Neutrality is “anti-consumer.”  Right into the first paragraph, it was clear the editors either fundamentally misunderstand the reality of today’s broadband industry or honestly didn’t care as long as it suited their business-friendly agenda.

Readers, you need not go along with the charade.  While the publishers of National Review can probably afford to buy their way around anything the phone and cable industry can dream up, you probably cannot.  What those opposed to Net Neutrality frame as “freedom from government intrusion” is in reality an attempt to keep your broadband provider from screwing around with your connection in hopes of charging you more for the same service you used to have.

Turn on your TV these days and within minutes you are likely to see several commercials from your local cable, satellite, or telecommunications company trying to convince you that their cable, DSL, or mobile broadband services are superior to those of their competitors. That’s because the market for broadband service is robustly competitive: If service providers didn’t advertise, they would lose business.

Actually, most of the advertising I see on my television comes from free ad inserts Time Warner Cable hands themselves during ad breaks on national cable channels.  My local phone company, Frontier Communications, hasn’t advertised on television for quite awhile.  The mobile broadband advertising I see fights over coverage and who has the coolest new device.  They aren’t advertising on price because they almost all charge exactly the same $60 for 5 GB of usage per month.

None of this represents “robust competition” when one of the players on the wired side is absent from the airwaves and the wireless folks have convenient cartel-like pricing for wireless broadband.

They would also lose business if they did something that made their customers unhappy, such as slowing or blocking the delivery of popular content over the Internet. Or they might gain customers if they created a model that, for a fee, guaranteed uninterrupted high-speed access to certain services, such as telemedicine, video conferencing, or some other use of the Internet we have yet to imagine. This competition directs broadband toward its most efficient uses. It is pro-consumer in that it allows for the proliferation of choices and pressures companies to offer a variety of pricing options.

Of course, the editors who wrote this did not have to fight back a 300 percent rate increase with an Internet Overcharging scheme that would have limited broadband access in at least five cities to start.  Let’s test their theory by asking a few questions.  First, did anyone ask for this kind of pricing to begin with?  Answer: No.  Second, did the plan make customers unhappy?  Answer: Emphatically yes.  Third, upon hearing from customers that they did not want this kind of pricing, did they discard the plan?  Answer: Not on your life.  Fourth, did it take two members of Congress to drive the company to finally pull back their plan?  Answer: You bet.

Now ask the same types of questions about slowing down your web connection to make room for the neighbor up the street willing to pay more to get more while you enjoy less for the same price you’ve always paid.

Lesson learned: when you effectively have a duopoly or monopoly in your market, you don’t have to listen to customers — they have to listen to you.  Indeed, even where competition exists, there is every indication the competitors would themselves increase prices or limit service to rake in additional revenue.  That happens routinely even in more competitive industries like the airlines — something you realize when you try and check bags and are asked for a credit card.  In Canadian broadband, foreshadowing a non-Net Neutral USA, when one player limits usage and throttles connections, the competitor more often than not joins in.

The other fallacy raised in this useless editorial is that Net Neutrality somehow bars companies from offering all of those wonderful innovative Internet applications.  It’s a common talking point straight out of the industry’s playbook.  Nothing precludes the broadband industry from expanding and improving their networks to offer all of these services.  Under Net Neutrality, they simply wouldn’t be allowed to do it on the backs of their other Internet customers, whose connections are automatically impeded to make room for that “innovation.”  The saddest part is that the only innovation at work here is price-gouging customers instead of upgrading networks.

It would be a huge mistake to impose by fiat a single business model on the carrier side of the Internet.

Tell that to AT&T and Verizon who have exactly the same pricing in their business model for mobile broadband service.  Is it a huge mistake for them?

Specifically, they want the government to prohibit broadband providers (such as Comcast) from discriminating against content providers (such as Google) by, for instance, charging them different rates for different levels of network service. They argue that, in the absence of such regulation, broadband providers can act as self-appointed censors, slowing down or blocking content they don’t like. Keep in mind that in no instance has this actually happened. So far, broadband providers have acted only to slow down noisome bandwidth hogs in order to manage traffic and ensure a high quality of service for the majority of their customers. Net-neutrality proponents counter that other customers — those unhappy about the slowdowns — lack meaningful options; that is, that the market for broadband service is not sufficiently competitive.

It is -shocking- the government would want to make sure broadband providers don’t block or discriminate against other people’s content.  We can’t have that!

The National Review needs to consider studying up on history.  The cable industry, for example, is notorious for blocking competitor access to its content.  To this day, the industry is fighting to keep the cable networks they own off competitors’ lineups.  The same company that provides your broadband service wants to make sure their telephone competitor cannot show a regional sports channel they own.  At least one broadband provider in the United States tried to block competing Voice Over IP phone companies from being used on their broadband service.  The same “blocking” mentality popped up in Canada where a broadband provider purposely blocked a website critical of that company.  Want access to cable programming online but don’t have a cable-TV package?  Good luck.  TV Everywhere projects are specifically designed to block non-cable TV customers from accessing that programming online.

National Review‘s afterthought admission that providers like Comcast were diddling with customers’ Internet speeds is waved away as somehow the fault of bandwidth piggies, another common meme in the talking points packet provided by the broadband industry.  Never mind the company had effectively spied on customers to determine what they were doing with their connections, that they first denied reports they were throttling, effectively throttled everyone — piggies or not — and then quickly stopped when the FCC protested.  If Comcast wasn’t doing anything wrong, why not inform customers first?  After all, the “majority of customers” would want throttling to preserve their “high quality of service,” right?

Of course they don’t, and when customers found out the company charging them good money to provide a service was also trying to systematically reduce its value with speed throttles, they howled in protest.  Who knows what online application would fall next to the throttle?

This would effectively mean applying to broadband providers the rules designed for landline telephone companies in the 1930s. We know Obama wants to emulate FDR, but this is getting ridiculous.

Oh now see how they tried to be funny with the slap against Obama and FDR?  The National Review would have been the magazine defending the railroad robber barons and utility trusts — unregulated monopolies — back during FDR’s day.  They’d be just as wrong then as they are now.  The only New Deal my cable company brought to the table was a $150 monthly broadband bill for exactly the same level of service I had when paying $50.

The current regulatory framework for broadband was constructed by Michael Powell’s Republican-majority FCC, classifying broadband as an “information service.”  It was bureaucratic incompetence because it relied on vaporware authority that a court found, to nobody’s surprise, didn’t exist.  The court does recognize the FCC’s authority to regulate “telecommunications services,” so by simply reclassifying broadband as such, the basic question of authority is solved.  The National Review pretends this will automatically mean 1930s-like regulations as applied to copper wire-phone companies, but that’s not true.  The National Review simply doesn’t want the FCC to have any authority in the first place.

But the FCC’s authority to reclassify broadband to suit its desires is also open to legal challenge. As a result, we are sure to hear louder calls for Congress to regulate the Internet or to grant the FCC the explicit authority to do so. These calls should be ignored. The Internet has thrived in the absence of homogenizing federal regulations, and this organic development should be allowed to continue so long as competition can act as a check on anti-consumer practices.

The calls to enshrine Net Neutrality, stop Internet Overcharging, and force open broadband markets and expand service all do not come in a vacuum.  They are ideas born from past provider abuses that have demanded consumer protections in response.  Who would have dreamed up Net Neutrality if AT&T’s Ed Whitacre didn’t insist Internet traffic could not use his pipes for free.  What about when the industry started toying with developing premium tiers of service that relied on slowing down the connections of their other paying customers.  Why worry about forcing markets open to additional competition?  Oh yeah, because of statements like those from Landel Hobbs (Time Warner Cable COO) who told investors Time Warner Cable could use its market position in broadband to jack up prices whenever they chose.  And they did.

The National Review‘s “hands off” attitude is the same one they’ve had towards banks, and now every American is paying for that mistake.  Let’s not repeat it.

Besides, as it stands these companies compete vigorously against one another in a way that is beneficial to consumers. If one of them makes an unpopular business decision, its customers can go elsewhere. If, however, an unelected FCC chairman dictates uniformity in the services these companies provide, then there is nowhere Americans can turn for innovations the government may have strangled in the cradle.

Where exactly do consumers in rural areas go for alternative broadband when their monopoly phone company provider limits their service or charges them confiscatory pricing?  Where do residents go when both providers limit service?

Consumers have far more power to deal with the “unelected FCC Chairman” than dealing with intransigent phone and cable companies.  Elections every few years have consequences.  There are no elections for Comcast, Verizon, Cox or AT&T.  They’re effectively Providers-for-Life in the communities they serve.

The National Review has little to fear from a broadband dark ages where innovation disappears.  Somehow, an industry that rakes in billions in revenue every year will manage to get by living under basic guidelines that require them to earn their money fairly and spend some of those profits to keep up with very profitable demand.  They’ll sue anyway, of course.  But that could buy us enough time to spur additional competitive choices in a duopolistic market for broadband, helping put to work those free market principles of fierce competition the National Review believes in.

[Article Correction 4/15/2010: The original piece laid blame for the classification of broadband as an “information service” on former FCC Chairman Kevin Martin.  In fact, the classification was made by former FCC Chairman Michael Powell, who served during the first term of the Bush Administration.  We regret the error.]

Time Warner Cable chief operating officer Landel Hobbs told investors at a recent conference Time Warner Cable can increase broadband prices whenever they want, and the company is following through with another $4 monthly rate increase for customers in select cities with standalone broadband service.

A Stop the Cap! reader in Lewisville, Texas shared the news straight from his mailbox:

We hope you are enjoying your Road Runner High Speed Online service with blazing-fast speeds from Time Warner Cable.  Effective with your April statement, your monthly rate for standalone Road Runner High Speed Online service will increase by $4.

Time Warner Cable offers to waive the increase if customers sign up for one of their bundled service packages.  For residents of Lewisville, northwest of Dallas, Time Warner suggests the Surf ‘N View Package with Digital Cable.  Signing up for that will increase your bill even further, but the company is offering a 12-month promotional rate to standalone service customers, charging $79.99 a month for both cable television and 7Mbps broadband service.

The rate increase is not limited to customers in Texas.  Customers in California are also being notified of upcoming rate increases.

Some half million Time Warner Cable customers in the Los Angeles area can expect rate increases averaging 4.5 percent.  Most of those customers are in the San Fernando Valley, according to a Time Warner Cable spokesman.

Los Angeles Times‘ columnist David Lazarus was unimpressed with yet another rate increase from the company.

There’s definitely an art to informing customers that you’re about to smack them upside the head.

About 500,000 Time Warner Cable customers in Southern California probably knew they were in for trouble when they received a letter the other day that began:

“At Time Warner Cable, we strive to bring you the best products and services available.”

Does a sentence like that ever signal anything except bad news?

Time Warner takes two full paragraphs to clear its corporate throat before it finally gets to the point:

“We are making some adjustments effective with your next billing statement. Certain services, packages and equipment prices will change.”

Even then, the company can’t quite bring itself to clearly state that prices are going up again. The letter refers only to “price adjustments,” and nowhere does it say that your cable bill is about to get more expensive.

You have to make your way to the back page of an enclosed pamphlet to finally learn that the cost of the typical cable package is rising by as much as $3.04 a month.

That’s a more than 4% increase, or nearly twice the inflation rate last year.