rosen@exit26.DEC (Barry Rosen) (01/03/86)
I am writing this because I: 1. am outraged at what I see happening 2. hope that someone else has had a similar experience and found a way to counter this. BACKROUND: About 2 years ago, the town in which I live signed an agreement with a cable company to give them the "franchise" to "wire" the town and offer cable TV service to the residents. [Since that time, the FCC has de-regulated cable TV and stated that cable television is not a monopoly and therefore there can be competition. This statement by itself raises a number of arguements which should be left for another discussion.] In the agreement, the cable company agreed to waive the connection fees for all subscribers until a certain date and to a set fee schedule for a 2 year period which would commence when the cable company had completed a number items (among these was wiring of the entire town and to install a public access station with equipment in the high school). The services offered to subscribers were a BASIC rate which ran about $ 4.50 per month and gave you access to all of the local stations including those of NH and RI (we're in MA) plus CNN Headline News and a few others. The SUPER CABLE rate (which required installation of a decoder was only about $ 7.50/mo and this added a number of other stations including MTV, ESPN, CNN, etc. You also needed to purchase this service if you intended to purchase any "pay" channels like HBO, Showtime, etc. Still, I thought that these rates were very reasonable and the quality of the reception was very good to excellent. THE PROBLEM: News has just "leaked" that a notice will be sent to all subscribers with the February invoices that there will be a rate change. The town heard of this and some selectmen are arguing that the 2 year rate moratorium is still not up and some are stating that the period has not even begun. The cable company's position is that they are now de-regulated and can charge what the market will bear and anyway, the 2 year period is up. This, by itself, would not greatly upset me in that the timing could probably be worked out by rational people. There are 2 things that are particularly disturbing to me: o ATTITUDE: The company states that since there is now competition, consumers can shop around if they do not like the rates which they are being charged. They cite the FCC deregulation order. I can not believe that either the cable company or the FCC can seriously believe that once a cable company has "wired" an area that another company will try to parallel wire it and compete. It seems to me that the labor rate and cost of materials continues to rise! o AMOUNT: The rates for the first two levels of service (don't include any pay channels) are going up 87%. Nice when you don't have any competition but the government says you can buy from anyone! This cable company is expected to do similar things in other towns in which they have had franchise rights. I also have to believe that cable companies (like others) talk with each other and that other companies have done similar things in other areas or will soon be doing so. I guess I naively expected the rates we were being charged to remain low and then gradually rise with other things in the economy or that there would be some sort of regulation to keep what IS A MONOPOLY from raising their rates an unreasonable amount. Perhaps the cable company does need that much of a raise to remain profitable. However it seems that there is no method (and maybe there should not be one) to determine or regulate (such a terrible word these days) how profitable (profit vs. ripoff) they should be. Has anyone out there in NETland encountered a similar situation? Am I looking at the situation too much as a consumer and not enough as the businessperson should? Have you any ideas on what can and should be done (assuming that I don't just want to drop the cable service which is needed in our area to get decent reception)? Barry (semi-retired activist)
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (01/05/86)
> The services offered to subscribers were a BASIC rate which ran > about $ 4.50 per month and gave you access to all of the local > stations including those of NH and RI (we're in MA) plus CNN Headline > News and a few others. The SUPER CABLE rate (which required > installation of a decoder was only about $ 7.50/mo and this added a > number of other stations including MTV, ESPN, CNN, etc. Consider yourself lucky to have had it cheap for a while. Here, your SUPER CABLE is the BASIC service and it costs $27.50/month! Even with the rate hike you'll still be getting it a lot cheaper than we do. I don't think you have anything to complain about. --Greg
brown@nicmad.UUCP (01/06/86)
Reference article <249@decwrl.DEC.COM> rosen@exit26.DEC (Barry Rosen) You are not going to like what I have to say. But you are just SOL!!! The FCC did indeed de-regulate the cable industry. Around here, our cable company had signed a contract with the city and are keeping it in good faith, at least they are so far. They could, take it to court and probably get it thrown out, sighting the FCC rules. They have raised rates according to the formula stipulated in the contract. Our rates are $10.95 a month for a 36 channel cable system. All channels are filled. Except for a couple of typewriter displays, all have something useful. We get these channels without needing a decoder box. Only the pay channels (about 7) need decoders. So, the price you have been getting is well below what it should be. The plant was very expensive to put in, especially since they decided upon tiering the system, ie, extra non-pay channels for extra dollars. The extra dollars doesn't really cover the costs of the equipment, nor the people to run it. You say you have a good system, ie, they haven't let it go to pot and still want more money. BTW, I don't remember you quoting any new rates. But, the worse of all evils is that they are not keeping any good faith with your city. You are going to have a hard time trying to get anything changed. I wish you luck. -- ihnp4------\ harvard-\ \ Mr. Video seismo!uwvax!nicmad!brown topaz-/ / decvax------/
paver@milano.UUCP (Bob Paver) (01/06/86)
In article <249@decwrl.DEC.COM> rosen@exit26.DEC (Barry Rosen) writes: > >THE PROBLEM: > > News has just "leaked" that a notice will be sent to all >subscribers with the February invoices that there will be a rate >change. The town heard of this and some selectmen are arguing that >the 2 year rate moratorium is still not up and some are stating that >the period has not even begun. The cable company's position is that >they are now de-regulated and can charge what the market will bear and >anyway, the 2 year period is up... > >o ATTITUDE: The company states that since there is now competition, > consumers can shop around if they do not like the rates which they > are being charged. They cite the FCC deregulation order... . . . > > Has anyone out there in NETland encountered a similar situation? Our local cable company has started exhibiting the same attitude although what they've done to date is relatively minor. They added a couple of channels on 1 Jan and took that opportunity to move CNN from channel 11 (basic service) to channel 23 (2nd tier). WTBS (Atlanta) moved from 23 to 11. The stated reason for doing this was to put the "information" channels close to one another. The cable commission (appointed by the City Council) and I think that it's a move to encourage people to have more than basic service. CNN is generally considered one of the better features of cable, at least in this part of the world. However, given the de-regulation, no one's optimistic about dealing with the cable company. I suspect we'll see more disregard for the original agreement made when the franchise was awarded. If my kids didn't like the Disney channel so much, I'd disconnect the whole thing. Reception is not a problem for us. By the way, one of the new channels they added is VH-1, music videos for the 30-50 crowd. The stuff they play makes me embarassed to be 36!
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (01/08/86)
> About 2 years ago, the town in which I live signed an agreement > with a cable company to give them the "franchise" to "wire" the town > and offer cable TV service to the residents. [Since that time, the > FCC has de-regulated cable TV and stated that cable television is not > a monopoly and therefore there can be competition... > o ATTITUDE: The company states that since there is now competition, > consumers can shop around if they do not like the rates which they > are being charged. They cite the FCC deregulation order... There's nothing I know of that you can do by yourself. But if you can convince the town government... all they have to do is threaten to cancel the franchise and turn it over to another cable company. The thought of having to close up after the expense of wiring the town ought to make the cable folks think twice. The "franchise" that the town grants is one of allowing the cable to be strung along municipal rights-of-way (utility poles, etc.) and to use the city's power of eminent domain to dig up your rose garden to lay underground cable. > I can > not believe that either the cable company or the FCC can seriously > believe that once a cable company has "wired" an area that another > company will try to parallel wire it and compete... But another cable company might be persuaded to enter a competitive bid for your local franchise. In your case, though, I doubt it because the rates are about 1/4 to 1/2 of the usual cable rates. I think you'd better resign yourself to the higher rates. -- Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {hardy,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!doug
carl@aoa.UUCP (Carl Witthoft) (01/09/86)
In article <249@decwrl.DEC.COM> rosen@exit26.DEC (Barry Rosen) writes: > >I am writing this because I: > >1. am outraged at what I see happening >2. hope that someone else has had a similar experience and found a way > to counter this. > About 2 years ago, the town in which I live signed an agreement >with a cable company to give them the "franchise" to "wire" the town >and offer cable TV service to the residents. [Since that time, the > The services offered to subscribers were a BASIC rate which ran >about $ 4.50 per month and gave you access to all of the local >stations including those of NH and RI (we're in MA) plus CNN Headline >THE PROBLEM: > > News has just "leaked" that a notice will be sent to all >subscribers with the February invoices that there will be a rate >change. The town heard of this and some selectmen are arguing that >the 2 year rate moratorium is still not up and some are stating that >the period has not even begun. The cable company's position is that Most cable companies are jerks. In my town (SToneham MA), I moved into a house that had cable and was live at that point. The subscription by the previous owner ran out and the cable company zoomed up the street and turned off the feed without even calling me. Now, were I to desire cable TV, (which I dont thank goodness) I would have to pay a connection fee. What a ripoff. Until I can pick exactly the channels I want, I'll stay away from CATV. WHy pay for channels I can get direct over the air? Darwin's Dad ( Carl Witthoft @ Adaptive Optics Associates) {decvax,linus,ihnp4,ima,wjh12,wanginst}!bbncca!aoa!carl {wjh12,mit-vax}!biomed!aoa!carl 54 CambridgePark Drive, Cambridge,MA 02140 617-864-0201x356 "Selmer MarkVI, Otto Link 5*, and VanDoren Java Cut."
andrew@hammer.UUCP (Andrew Klossner) (01/14/86)
[] "Most cable companies are jerks. In my town (SToneham MA), I moved into a house that had cable and was live at that point. The subscription by the previous owner ran out and the cable company zoomed up the street and turned off the feed without even calling me. Now, were I to desire cable TV, (which I dont thank goodness) I would have to pay a connection fee. What a ripoff." How could they call you? They don't know who you are and can't look up your phone number. The onus was on you to contact the cable company immediately if you wanted cable, and arrange to have the billing put in your name. This is no different from the way that other utilities work. -=- Andrew Klossner (decvax!tektronix!tekecs!andrew) [UUCP] (tekecs!andrew.tektronix@csnet-relay) [ARPA]
hosking@convexs.UUCP (01/24/86)
> How could they call you? They don't know who you are and can't look up > your phone number. > > The onus was on you to contact the cable company immediately if you > wanted cable, and arrange to have the billing put in your name. This > is no different from the way that other utilities work. I tried that the last time I moved. They refused to do things the "reasonable" way. Apparently they're sufficiently paranoid about tampering with their stuff that they use moving as a good excuse to check for illegal modifications to the cable system.