CUT-THE-CABLE.COM

October 11, 2010

Inherent Flaws in Cable TV Business Model

Filed under: Bully Tactics,CMCSK,In the News,Rants — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — admin @ 2:12 am
If you have been watching any television at all for the last few weeks, you have most likely been inundated by the media blitz spawned by the FOX NETWORKS GROUP.  They are raising awareness within the viewing public that DISH NETWORK has discontinued carrying some of their stations as of Oct 1, 2010 and will [...]

If you have been watching any television at all for the last few weeks, you have most likely been inundated by the media blitz spawned by the FOX NETWORKS GROUP.  They are raising awareness within the viewing public that DISH NETWORK has discontinued carrying some of their stations as of Oct 1, 2010 and will most likely drop the balance of the stations on Nov 1, 2010.  FOX has created a web site called GETWHATIPAIDFOR.COM in order to provide the public with details from their perspective regarding what the problems are and how the public can get involved.

This is not the first time this type of thing has happened nor will it be the last.  It is not a problem with FOX or DISH.  It is a problem with the Cable Television Business Model and it affects all of the cable services providers, the stations that are carried by those providers, but ultimately it is the consumer that pays the price in higher fees and programming disruptions.

It happened back in March ’09 when Comcast held Portland Basketball Fans hostage by raising the rates of games being broadcast to all carriers, and just days later when Comcast pulled MSNBC from the Portland lineup.  These are just a few examples, but as you can see it is nothing new and the occurrences are getting more frequent and having a larger impact on the general public.

The Federal Communications Commission is the regulating body for the television, telephone, radio, and other related industries.  They make and enforce the rules and are supposed to look after the public’s best interests.  If you have any problems with your cable or satellite company and can’t get any satisfaction, then these are the guys you need to go to.

Just a little over a year ago, we proposed our vision of how the cable TV industry SHOULD operate if the best interest of the public were of primary concern.  Let me reiterate the key points so that everyone {including our friends at the FCC} can comment:

  1. Cable/Satellite TV companies SHOULD NOT be providing content, or getting into the telephone business, or Internet business, or any other business.  If they do they are creating a conflict of interest and detracting resources from their primary product.  If they want to get into other things, than spin off a new company rather than have CATV subscribers finance your ventures and receive sub-standard services while doing so.
  2. If their mission can be narrowed down to nothing more than transporting 3rd party stations to households, then they can be treated the same as a public utility companies and regulated by those governing bodies.  Put metered usage in place and mandate an ‘a la carte’ option for customers.  This will stop the speculation regarding what a channels worth is in terms of viewership.
  3. Most importantly, CHANGE THE REVENUE STREAM.  The current business model has the consumer paying the cable company and the cable company paying the content providers and the advertisers paying the content providers.  This is insanity!  It is the reason for cable companies dropping channels that demand price increases, and the reason that there are so many GARBAGE CHANNELS in a typical lineup that never get watched.  Here are some simple changes that are in the best interest of the public:
  • Content providers should be paying the cable companies to carry them based upon bandwidth consumption…not the other way around.  Bandwidth is a commodity and rates should be on a flat schedule based on usage regardless of the perceived value of the content;
  • Commercial channels (ones that have revenue generating advertisements) should be provided free of charge to cable customer;
  • Premium channels (no advertisements) should be made available to cable customers on an ‘a la carte’ basis so that the market can determine what the true value is of any channel.

I can go on & on (and I will, I promise), but I think you get my drift.  In the mean time, let’s get back to the matter at hand.  I have extracted the Q&A section from the GETWHATIPAIDFOR.COM site so I can give you my standard ‘smart-ass’ diatribe.

[Supposed] FACTS ABOUT FOX’S NEGOTIATIONS WITH DISH

Myth: Fox is seeking a 50 percent increase in programming fees for FX, National Geographic Channel, and our 19 regional sports networks. [Keep in mind as you read on that these are all CABLE STATIONS mentioned here, not their broadcast channels that are available over the air.  FOX will be arguing the point for BROADCAST STATIONS later in an attempt to confuse the issues]

Fact: We are not seeking a 50 percent increase [great, so why not tell us what the actual increase is that you are seeking?  49.99% ???] for FX, National Geographic Channel, and our 19 regional sports networks. And we are not asking you for any more money. [Of course you're not...BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PUBLIC!!!  You must think we are all stupid if you are going to put a statement like that in there and think you wont get called out on it] We are simply asking DISH to compensate us fairly out of their massive profits for Fox’s entertainment and sports programming services they sell to their subscribers. [...and FOX will define what is 'fair', right?] We have made what we believe are fair and reasonable proposals to DISH – ones that are consistent with our agreements with the hundreds of other cable and satellite companies with whom DISH competes for your business. To date, DISH has not responded with a proposal that is reasonable by comparison to the hundreds of other deals we have in place for these same channels.  [And the bottom line is that the public ends up suffering]

Myth: If programmers did not ask for fair compensation for their television networks, consumers’ rates for cable and satellite services would be lower.

Fact: TV Providers have been raising rates on consumers for years and consumers have been paying for broadcast programming that is available free over the air. [That was when everything was analog and cable/satellite reception was better than over-the-air, but now that everything is DIGITAL more and more people have discovered that they get BETTER quality from FREE OVER-THE-AIR TV and have CUT-THE-CABLE] In good economic times, rates have gone up. In the recent recession, rates have still gone up. Even if Fox does not receive fair compensation for its content, it is entirely likely that your bill will still go up.  [But basically what you call a Myth is really TRUE because if cable companies didn't have to pay for programming, then there's no way that they could justify charging more than 20% of their current rates]

Myth: If TV Providers like DISH Network pay fair value for the programming provided by broadcasters and other content providers, it will “force” them to raise fees for consumers.

Fact: DISH Network is a successful, profitable business (thanks in part to the money they already charge subscribers for free, over-the-air broadcast programming). It can surely afford to fairly compensate broadcasters for that content without raising rates. Just how profitable is DISH Network?  [Once again the so-called Myth is a FACT because if ANY cost increases are not passed on to the consumers, then it necessarily has to come out of their profit margin.  The corporate executives responsible for that decision would have to answer to angry stockholders.  The only way around this BUSINESS FACT is Regulation]

DISH Network may advertise itself as a low price provider, but that still hasn’t stopped them from posting exceedingly high profits. As of August 2010, DISH Network is on pace to profit nearly $2 billion for the year or more than 40 percent more than they did in 2009. From January-June 2010, DISH Network generated more than $6 billion in revenue from subscribers and is on track to significantly improve on the $11.5 billion it earned from subscribers in 2009. In the second quarter of 2010, DISH Network received nearly 50 percent more in revenue from each subscriber than each such subscriber actually costs the operator. Overall in the most recent quarter, DISH Network posted a very healthy 25 percent profit margin.  [Unfortunately, FOX does not publish these same numbers for themselves to show us what 'reasonable' numbers look like in comparison.  If you think these DISH number look high, then have a look at these COMCAST Revenue and Profit figures!!!]

Myth: The compensation programmers like FOX are seeking is “exorbitant” and “unreasonable.” [ABSOLUTELY!  Why is FOX any different than ABC, NBC, and CBS who can transmit their programming to the public over the air.  You get advertising dollars too, don't you?]

Fact: The compensation FOX is seeking for the FOX stations is entirely reasonable. Based on the comparable cost of programming, the Fox stations could charge $4-5 per subscriber per month [Hold the phone!  Did I just read that correctly?  FOX thinks that the average household is willing to pay $4 to $5 per month for their programming?  Once again, what makes them think they are so much better than ABC, CBS, and NBC that I would be willing to pay $50 to $60 per year for their programs?  YOU GUYS ARE SMOKING CRACK!], but we are asking for just a fraction of that. ESPN receives $4-5 per subscriber [that's to F$%^&ing HIGH!] and TNT gets $1 per subscriber [and if you don't have a DVR to filter through all of their advertising then you are missing 1/2 of your life], but spends about 80% less on programming than FOX [Whos fault is it that you are spending that much on programming?]. And if one looks at the ratings [otherwise known as BOGUS JACKED UP NUMBERS] FOX and its stations get relative to cable networks, the value would actually be closer to $10 per subscriber. [Dude!  You have to back off of the CRACK...PRONTO!] Moreover, FOX attracts more viewers than the five most expensive cable networks combined (ESPN, TNT, USA, ESPN2 and NFL Net). The bottom line is that the Fox stations feature some of the nation’s most-watched programming with shows such as American Idol, House, Glee, and The Simpsons, as well as the most compelling sports on television with the National Football League, Major League Baseball, and NASCAR. The price FOX is asking for as compensation for all this value is extremely reasonable.[...NOT, and BTW neither are the others you are using for comparison.  Wait, just one question...if you get the increases you are asking for does that mean that you can afford to pay PAULA ABDUL to come back on American Idol?]

Myth: Broadcasters like FOX are already receiving fair compensation for their programming. [Wrong again CRACK-HEAD.  And if you think it is a myth then charge more for advertising instead of trying to charge cable/satellite companies (which you know full well will be passed on to the consumer if it happens).  You and all of the other stations that get money from the carriers have done nothing more than INFLATE THE MARKETPLACE]

Fact: The broadcast television business is suffering because broadcast networks are competing on an uneven playing field with cable networks. Cable networks have two streams of revenue: advertising and fees paid by distributors. Broadcasters like FOX have the single stream of advertising, and TV providers have been charging subscribers for free, over-the-air broadcast programming. [and only regulation will put an end to that, or customers getting wise to the fact that DIGITAL Over-The-Air TV is better than cable or satellite] This has allowed cable networks like ESPN to get a leg up to purchase the rights to content like Monday Night Football and The BCS Championship Series – which means that tens of millions of Americans who can’t afford or choose not to subscribe to cable or satellite miss this event programming. [But if regulations were put in place to prevent premium channels from taking advertising revenue, then the playing field would be even again] The future of free, over-the-air broadcast programming requires broadcasters to compete on a level playing field – which means getting fair compensation from companies like DISH Network. [If customers want your broadcast channels they will hook up an antenna to their TV.  Now LAY OFF THE CRACK, and get on board with our proposed changes that would level the playing field for all networks (broadcast & cable) AND substantially reduce prices for the consumers at the same time]

August 30, 2010

Comcast/NBCU Merger Under DOJ Microscope

Filed under: In the News — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — admin @ 6:21 pm
The Department of Justice is examining how the proposed $13.75 BILLION deal of Comcast acquiring NBC Universal from General Electric might adversely affect the blossoming Internet video market.  There are fears that the new Comcast could potentially stunt the Internet video industry’s growth.  The agency’s antitrust division is looking into whether or not Comcast could [...]

The Department of Justice is examining how the proposed $13.75 BILLION deal of Comcast acquiring NBC Universal from General Electric might adversely affect the blossoming Internet video market.  There are fears that the new Comcast could potentially stunt the Internet video industry’s growth.  The agency’s antitrust division is looking into whether or not Comcast could potentially control distribution rights to significant amounts of television programming on the Internet, which would effectively block potential competition.

Companies like Netflix and others are providing access to television programming and movies over the Internet which is encroaching on the traditional market of cable and satellite companies, which in turn are trying to fend off the competition by creating Internet-based distribution methods of their own.  Current regulations require cable companies that own content (like Comcast) to make that programming available on reasonable terms to rivals.

DISH and DirecTV have added their 2-cents into the discussion by requesting that those regulations be extended to any Comcast/NBCU content that’s delivered over the Net.  [Hmmm, do you think they fear that Comcast will be looking to make some content EXCLUSIVE to Internet distribution to bypass existing regulations?]

They are also looking closely at Comcast’s efforts to give its cable customers online access to some TV content that isn’t widely available online now, and how that might affect access to those programs by other Internet providers. That might result in fewer competitors over time so that consumers would end up paying more for video in general.  [LOL,,,if WALMART can do it and get away with it, why not COMCAST?]

“The success of the online-video-business model depends critically on access to online content, and strict conditions on the transaction would be necessary to thwart” any attempts by Comcast-NBCU to block access, Dish wrote in a complaint to the FCC detailing its support for broadening the existing regulations.

Comcast’s response to the complaint: “Online video is not a substitute” for multichannel video programming.  “In addition, several impediments – technological, pricing related, and rights related – make it highly unlikely that online video will become a substitute” for such service “in the foreseeable future.” [...so let us just SQUASH it before it does and we'll be doing you a favor too]

Although the transaction is expected to be approved late this year or early in 2011, the government does have some leverage and it could impose conditions particularly because of the FCCs involvement which has broader authority to act to stop anything that it deems to be against the public interest.Regardless of the outcome of this deal, the DOJ & FCC will most likely continue to investigate whether cable operators are acting to thwart emerging competition from the Web. If so, they could file a suit under the Sherman Antitrust Act for anti-competitive behavior.  [...in which case they will pay what seem to be a hefty fine but will only amount to a drop in the bucket compared to the stolen revenues and lost opportunity cost for Internet Video companies that could have been great if only they had a fighting chance]

May 12, 2010

Help Save the Internet from Comcast

Filed under: In the News — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , — admin @ 2:32 pm
The gauntlet has been thrown down and a show down is brewing. On April 6th, A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit unanimously tossed out the FCC’s August 2008 cease and desist order against Comcast, which had taken measures to stop their  ‘management’ of BitTorrent transfers. Because the FCC [...]

The gauntlet has been thrown down and a show down is brewing. On April 6th, A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit unanimously tossed out the FCC’s August 2008 cease and desist order against Comcast, which had taken measures to stop their  ‘management’ of BitTorrent transfers.

Because the FCC “has failed to tie its assertion” of regulatory authority to an actual law enacted by Congress, the agency does not have the power to regulate an Internet provider’s network management practices, wrote Judge David Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. [But Your Honor, isn't the whole concept of Network Management as it pertains to the Internet contrary to the fundamental tenets of Net Neutrality?]

So, what is this “Net Neutrality” that everyone is making such a fuss about?  Here’s a quick and dirty video to give you the run down.

So that sounds simple enough, right?  Well here’s the rest of the story…

The April 6th decision could doom the whole initiative to empower the FCC along these lines.  Comcast (and other ISPs for that matter) can now BLOCK ANY AND ALL WEB SITES without any fear of repercussions and could eliminate the agency’s ability to write new open- Internet rules.

Fortunately this is not the end.  The FCC may appeal the case, and may seriously consider placing Internet services into a stricter regulatory classification by moving Internet service under telephone rules which could happen with a simple simple majority vote within the agency. [To some this might seem like a step backward, but from a political standpoint, it may be a necessary evil to get the job done]

The large ISPs claim that such a reclassification of Internet service would have far-reaching and destructive consequences including years of investment-deterring uncertainty and litigation.  [Whatever!  The bottom line is that if we want The Internet to continue to be The Internet, then someone need to keep these big boys on a leash]

So what can you do you ask?  Go to “Save The Internet” which is sponsored by Free Press and sign the petition.  Let the FCC know that you are on their side.  Tell them that you want the regulations needed to insure that the Internet will not be turned into something else altogether.  Tell them you want regulated pricing for Internet services.  Let them know that we believe in the free market, but the large ISPs refuse to compete on price which creates an artificially inflated cost to the consumers.

Click here >>>> “Save The Internet”

[...and Thank You for your support]

March 9, 2010

U.S. considers some free wireless broadband service

Filed under: Insider Stuff — Tags: , , , , — admin @ 7:36 pm
Here’s a re-print from Yahoo News. WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. regulators may dedicate spectrum to free wireless Internet service for some Americans to increase affordable broadband service nationwide, the Federal Communications Commission said on Tuesday. The FCC provided few details about how it would carry out such a plan and who would qualify, but will [...]

Here’s a re-print from Yahoo News.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. regulators may dedicate spectrum to free wireless Internet service for some Americans to increase affordable broadband service nationwide, the Federal Communications Commission said on Tuesday.

The FCC provided few details about how it would carry out such a plan and who would qualify, but will make a recommendation under the National Broadband Plan set for release next week. The agency will determine details later.

One way of making broadband more affordable is to “consider use of spectrum for a free or a very low cost wireless broadband service,” the FCC said in a statement.

The FCC statement was released during a Digital Inclusion Summit aimed at connecting one-third of Americans without home broadband service.

The FCC also said there would also be a recommendation in the broadband blueprint to launch a Digital Literacy Corps of volunteers who would provide training to communities with low rates of adoption.

(Reporting by John Poirier; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn)

August 14, 2009

Comcast Fights FCC Net Neutrality Order

Filed under: In the News — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — admin @ 10:12 am
In spite of the public outlash and the resulting FCC order to discontinue throttling of peer-to-peer (P2P) traffic, Comcast feels that the FCC has over-stepped its authority and has filed an appeal to the ruling.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will be hearing the case and final briefs are due [...]

In spite of the public outlash and the resulting FCC order to discontinue throttling of peer-to-peer (P2P) traffic, Comcast feels that the FCC has over-stepped its authority and has filed an appeal to the ruling.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will be hearing the case and final briefs are due by Nov. 23, 2009.

In Comcast’s corner will be: (The Profiteers)

  •  The National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA)
  • NBC Universal
  • Qwest Communications International Inc

On the side of the FCC are: (The Public)

  • Vuze Inc.
  • Consumers Union of U.S. Inc.
  • Consumer Federation of America
  • Free Press
  • Public Knowledge
  • The Open Internet Coalition

Please contact any or all of these organizations standing on the side of the FCC and show your support.

August 3, 2009

Time for Some Hope & Change

Filed under: Rants — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — admin @ 2:42 pm
As this website continues to grow along with its following, I feel that it is time to expand and offer our own editorials.  Our readership has hit a threshold for us to begin to make a difference if we band together.  So if I may, let me start the ball rolling with my utopian vision of what [...]

As this website continues to grow along with its following, I feel that it is time to expand and offer our own editorials.  Our readership has hit a threshold for us to begin to make a difference if we band together.  So if I may, let me start the ball rolling with my utopian vision of what the cable industry SHOULD look like if the consumers best interest were of the primary concern.

Break the Business Units into Different Companies

Comcast and Time Warner both started as Cable TV companies.  Verizon and AT&T both began as essentially telephone companies.  Over time as the technology playing field evolved and these technologies converged, these companies are now all offering the same core services: CATV, Internet, and Telephone.  The one thing that all of these services have in common from the consumers standpoint is that little piece of coaxial cable that runs into their home.  If you look at that cable coming off of the telephone pole running in parallel with your power line, the common person has to ask the question: ”Why is it that the way I am treated as a POWER consumer is so different than the way I’m treated as a CABLE consumer?”  Believe it or not, the answer in my mind is a matter of mere politics.

Did you ever wonder how companies like AIG, GM, and other got so big that they were deemed “too big to be allowed to fail” by our own federal government?  It’s because these machines co-exist in a symbiotic relationship.  As long as the COMCASTs, AIGs, and GMs keep funneling huge sums of money in the forms of lobbying and political contributions (to both parties), there is no political incentive to break them down into manageable businesses.  And the only way that the cable industry can continue to afford to do this is if they continue to make obsene profits. 

If you recall during the Clinton years, Bill Gates and MICROSOFT did not pay the Clintons the “hommage” that they felt was due from such a wealthy company, and a 16-month epic anti-trust battle began with results being that Microsoft had deep enough pockets to outlast the Clinton reign.  The moral of that story is that the bigger a conglomerate gets, the harder it is for even the federal government to reign them in.  The fact of the matter is that these companies are setting policy, not your elected leaders.

My recommendation is that the federal governement update the FCC regulations to disallow CATV, Internet, and phone services to be offered by the same company.  The first thing that people will say is that you will then loose the economies of scale that come from packaging these services.  NONSENCE!  It wasn’t too long ago that through your local telephone provider you could select from any numbe of different long distance providers and still have that transparently incorporated into a single billing statement.  Therefore, there is absoluely no reason that the same consolidated services could not be offered to the consumers through a unified billing statment, for completely seperate companies.  The benefit to the consumer in doing this is that you will have choices for each component through your coax cable and not locked into a vertual monopoly, which then also contributes to the self-perpetuating machine.

Treat Cable Services as a Public Utility

The next step in my utopian vision is that cable services be treated in the same manner as any other public utility.  Let’s have a meter installed on the outside of the house.  It can be a SMART meter that doesn’t require someone to come out and read it once a month.  The technology is there for the information to be sent back to the cable company without having to send someone out.  Now, envision the option of paying for your CATV, Internet, and phone based on actual usage rather than a flat monthly fee!  That would completely change the landscape of how television content providers are compensated also.  If for example, HBO feels that their product is so superior to your local NBC affiliate, then let them get compensated based on actual viewership.  I guarentee that a lot of the old assumptions about the relative popularity of one station over another will be proven wrong.  I’m not saying that you have to do away completely with subscription pricing, but having a regulatory requirement in place that gives the consumers the option of metered usage can only benefit cable consumers as a whole.

Change the Revenue Stream

In the CATV world, the business model as it currently exists has the consumers paying the cable company for services, and the cable company paying the networks for content.  This model allows the various networks to raise their rates at will based on dubious ratings data, and the cost is then passed down to the consumers in the form of increased CATV rates.  I propose that this is OK for premium channels (ones that rely on content only without suplemental advertisements) which the consumer can select on an  “a la carte” basis, but that all other channels that carry ADVERTISEMENTS be carried by the cable companies on a purely speculative basis with 100% of their revenues coming from their advertisements.  These commercial station should pay the cable companies for the bandwidth capacity to deliver their signal to the consumers and not vice-versa

So there you have it folks, my ‘pie in the sky’ utopian vision.  Please pick it apart or add to it, and by all means send in your ideas.  Once we have enough of them we can put our heads together and start the petitioning process.  If you want to share without it being posted, just email me and we’ll discuss things off-line.

July 28, 2009

Comcast Hires More Lobbyists

Filed under: Insider Stuff — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — admin @ 11:56 am
They have hired Joe Trahern as Senior Director of Federal Government Affairs, and Rudy Brioché as Senior Director of External Affairs and Public Policy Counsel. Trahern will serve as one of Comcast’s senior lobbyists focused on Congress and the Administration (the palm greaser), and Brioché will focus on the development of the company’s public policy [...]

They have hired Joe Trahern as Senior Director of Federal Government Affairs, and Rudy Brioché as Senior Director of External Affairs and Public Policy Counsel. Trahern will serve as one of Comcast’s senior lobbyists focused on Congress and the Administration (the palm greaser), and Brioché will focus on the development of the company’s public policy positions and legislative analysis (identifying whos palms need to be greased).

(at least that's how we envision him/her until we get a picture)

(at least that's how we envision him/her until we get a picture)

Joe Trahern recently worked for General Motors (now there’s some credentials for ya! LOL). Prior to that, he was chief of staff to Doris Matsui (D-CA) and the late Robert Matsui (D-CA).  Before that, he worked for Tom Daschle (D-SD), Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Byron Dorgan (D-ND).  (lots of “D”s, no “R”s)

Rudy "Re-Run" Brioche from the FCC

Rudy "Re-Run" Brioche from the FCC

Rudy Brioché was with the FCC (hmmm, sounds like a natural FCC stepping stone.  I’m sure he knows plenty about greasing palms) and before that worked for Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ).  Earlier in his career, Brioché worked as Washington Bureau Counsel for the NAACP. (WAZZUP!!!)

They join an already extensive lobbying team.  The Government and External Affairs Team headed by EVP David L. Cohen, the Administration and Capitol Hill Lobbying Team is led by Melissa Maxfield, the Regulatory and State Government Affairs headed by Kathryn Zachem, and the Public Policy efforts headed by SVP Joseph W. Waz, Jr.

Comcast spent $2.8 million on lobbying during the first half of this year.  In 2008, the company spent a total of $12.5 million, placing it among the top spenders in the television, movies, and music industries.

So folks, here’s your hard earned dollars at work.  Not fixing pixelation issues, but FIXING POLITICIANS.  Anyone that still sends money to this mob has nobody to blame for the current state of affairs other than themselves.

July 24, 2009

Fallout from the Cable Wars in Philly

Filed under: Rants — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — admin @ 8:50 am
Jim Smith of Elkins Park,PA gives his opinions in the Philidelphia Daily News of the cable battles that are occuring in his area. IS IT MY imagination or is every other commercial on TV (or radio or in newsprint) sponsored by one of the dueling monopolies, FiOS or Comcast?  It’s hard to believe that they can [...]

Jim Smith of Elkins Park,PA gives his opinions in the Philidelphia Daily News of the cable battles that are occuring in his area.

IS IT MY imagination or is every other commercial on TV (or radio or in newsprint) sponsored by one of the dueling monopolies, FiOS or Comcast?  It’s hard to believe that they can afford that much advertising. Of course, if you have a near monopoly, you can bleed all the suckers you’ve already hooked.

The Federal Communications Commission goes ballistic over a small breast being exposed for four seconds from 75 yards away. But the agency does nothing about escalating cable/Internet/phone costs.  I’d love to see the paper trail showing the role of lobbyist money in the switch to digital TV. That was a giant stimulus package for Verizon and Comcast. And I’m totally sick of the FiOS cable guy, Ben Stein and Shaq.

Great rant Jim.  The truth of the matter is that the cable mafia would LOVE if the FCC stepped in and limited their advertising the same way they did with the tobacco companies back in the 60s.  It would keep the playing field level and the executives could pocket all of the money they would save on advertising.

Keep it real & DVR through their commercials.  They have no way to overcome that technology (-;

June 12, 2009

Class Action Lawsuit Against Comcast on the Horizon

Filed under: In the News — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — admin @ 8:58 am
Read all about it at CEDMagazine.com Another suit has been filed against Comcast over required set-top box leases.  Alabama resident Gloria Cordier and her attourney Stephen Mullins filed in Mobile’s federal court claiming that Comcast is violating the Sherman Antitrust Act by forcing customers to pay a monthly rental fee for a set-top box in order [...]

Read all about it at CEDMagazine.com

Another suit has been filed against Comcast over required set-top box leases.  Alabama resident Gloria Cordier and her attourney Stephen Mullins filed in Mobile’s federal court claiming that Comcast is violating the Sherman Antitrust Act by forcing customers to pay a monthly rental fee for a set-top box in order to watch premium channels.

This is the seconds suit of this type in less than one month.  The other was initiated by Gordon Ramey of West Virginia.  The individual filings could likely be consolidated into a single class action suit.

We salute Gordon, Gloria, and all of the brave man and women that choose to take action rather than passively allow Comcast to pick their pockets on a daily basis.  If these do turn into a class action, there will be an opportunity for lots more to join in on the fun. 

THE LAWYERS WILL WANT TO SETTLE to get a fat check while the members of the class each end up with a check for something like $2.17…NOTHING DOING!!!  We want COMCAST out of the Cable Box rental business, and preferably out of business all together.

June 11, 2009

Chattanooga Tolerates Comcast Rip-Offs

Filed under: Bully Tactics — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — admin @ 2:24 pm
Lady Walker of Signal Mountain writes this opinion piece in The Chattanoogan.com Latest update from Comcast. If you have cable, from today on you will only be able to access local channels—nothing more. From this point forward you must rent boxes from Comcast at $1.99 per box per month plus taxes. They will generously, out [...]

Lady Walker of Signal Mountain writes this opinion piece in The Chattanoogan.com

Latest update from Comcast. If you have cable, from today on you will only be able to access local channels—nothing more. From this point forward you must rent boxes from Comcast at $1.99 per box per month plus taxes. They will generously, out of the goodness of their hearts, (sarcasm intended) give 2 boxes per household at no cost. Not to mention that they have been moving all of their channels upwards in the higher numbers over the past months so that you must also purchase an additional digital service package.

When I called Comcast a couple of months ago, I was told not to worry, that as long as we had Comcast service, there would be no problem with our televisions (true, they just didn’t tell you that the price of playing poker is going up and that they are holding all of the aces). Now things have changed so that Comcast has deviated from the FCC plan for digital conversion, and this is their way of generating additional income from their subscribers. I was told today that this new plan will allow Comcast to provide faster internet signals and additional HD channels. When I asked when this would occur and at what additional costs I was told that information wasn’t available.
I also asked if things changed again and we would no longer need these additional boxes, would Comcast notify us. I was told yes that Comcast always notifies their customers of price decreases (true again, they NEVER decrease their prices and the customers NEVER get notified). I guess that’s why I never saw anything in the billing memos, because when was the last time Comcast lowered prices and still provided decent functioning services at a lower rate? (sorry, more sarcasm)

So, pay for your expanded cable service, pay for your additional boxes and pay more later for your internet and additional HD channels. Basically, we are being held for ransom by Comcast pirates. I really hope that EPB’s new fiber optic system can come through and give local consumers a choice for our television services.

Aren’t these Chattanoogans nice people?  They obviously understand that they are being BENT OVER by Comcast and their response is sarcasm, and MORE sarcasm (and then they apologize for it)!  Do you ever wonder why companies like Comcast choose these “nice” communities to pilot their new SCREW THE CUSTOMER campaigns?

HEY CHATTANOOGA…WAKE UP!!!  You have other options.  You can get free TV from your antenna (the picture quality is superior to Comcast on their best day), or just simply CUT-THE-CABLE.  At least go out and buy yourselves a jar of Vaseline…Geez.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress