The FCC is Using Streaming Services as an Excuse To Raise Cable Rates (theverge.com) 52
The rise of streaming services could give cable companies an excuse to raise rates under a Federal Communications Commission order handed down on October 25th. From a report: The order, which comes in response to a petition by Charter, finds that AT&T's TV Now streaming service qualifies as reasonable competition for conventional cable, opening the door to a massive deregulation in monopoly cable markets. Under the Cable Act of 1992, local regulators are permitted to regulate cable prices in markets with only one provider. The provision is meant to prevent cable companies from leveraging that monopoly power to set unfairly high rates. When a new cable company comes to town, providers can file a petition to have those regulations removed. Charter's case centered on a small group of territories in Massachusetts and Hawaii, but Charter's new competition wasn't coming from a competing cable TV service. Instead, Charter argued that AT&T's streaming service, combined with the company's existing broadband offering, made up a close enough substitute for cable TV that Charter no longer counted as a local monopoly. Despite opposition from both Massachusetts and Hawaii state governments, the FCC ultimately agreed, leaving Charter free to raise its cable rates.
Let me see if I have this right... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Let me see if I have this right... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
What many don't understand is that most are happy with their cable service and a little price increase isn't going to cause them to switch.
On the margin there are always some people who were just barely willing to pay the current rates. Raise the rates and they'll cancel. The availability of streaming services might also push them over the edge.
The people who figure out pricing spend a lot of time trying to figure out how many people on the margin and how price sensitive they are. It could be a small number or it could be large. You seem to be of the opinion it's small. I personally have no idea.
I've used Hulu Live, YouTube TV, and Sling. They
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Streaming isn't an option for everyone, despite the fact that some act like it is."
Pretty much every Cable TV subscription offers on-demand streaming. Has for about 15 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To be clear, when the average person uses the term "streaming" casually, they're referring to one of the online services that stream content, such as AT&T DirecTV Now, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, etc. What Khyber said is that cable TV providers have been providing streaming for 15 years, via on-demand. While the technology behind on-demand with a cable TV provider may be streaming, it is not what people refer to streaming as.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're delusional if you consider that streaming, within the context of this conversation. Even if the technology behind it is in fact streaming, it is not the service people are referring to when discussing streaming.
Really? I haven't used DirecTV or any traditional cable streaming offering so I don't know what they are really like.
When I say "streaming", what I mean is a service where I have a library of available videos which I can start, stop, rewind, fast forward, and pause at my whim. Generally the library is associated with an account, not a device, so I can watch the same library from any device I have available. Generally it's TCP/IP based although I think that's an implementation detail. I can pick what I want
Re: (Score:2)
Based on modern usage of the term streaming, most people use it to mean any internet based video service. Your two main paragraphs are pretty much
Re: (Score:2)
There are other considerations too. There are a LOT of older folks that aren't comfortable enough with technology to make the switch.
For sure. Those are the people very far from the margin. You'd have to jack up cable prices by a lot ($10,000 a month, anyone?) to make them think about switching. There are other people who would poke out their eyes rather than watch cable. You could make cable free and they wouldn't subscribe.
It's just an axiom of economics that if some people buy a product and others don't, there almost certainly are some people who are teetering on the edge, for whom the value of the product is almost exactly the same a
Fuck both of them and the other one (Score:1)
Re:Fuck both of them and the other one (Score:4, Insightful)
Charter's already getting over $100/mo from me for basic service and they want MORE? Fuck Charter...
You want to know how you can actually fuck Charter? Cancel and sign up for a pure streaming service. Other than that, they don't care what you think.
Re: (Score:2)
Charter's already getting over $100/mo from me for basic service and they want MORE? Fuck Charter...
You want to know how you can actually fuck Charter? Cancel and sign up for a pure streaming service. Other than that, they don't care what you think.
Done, literally today. I just cancelled my TV service and will save money by using Hulu's live tv package, which is one of the few standalone streaming services that carries my local sports channels. We're stuck with Spectrum internet here, but at least I'll be giving them less than half of what they were charging me.
Re: (Score:2)
Done, literally today. I just cancelled my TV service and will save money by using Hulu's live tv package, which is one of the few standalone streaming services that carries my local sports channels.
Well done, sir! Kick the arrogant bastards in the nuts. Show them who's boss (that is, you and I). And I say that without a trace of sarcasm or irony.
I think you'll enjoy your choice. I use Sling TV to watch hockey games and it beats the socks off watching a game live. Hockey is so fast I am constantly backing
Re: Fuck both of them and the other one (Score:1)
Re: Fuck both of them and the other one (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry, going to call BS on that. You can get basic cable for about $40 after all the fees and taxes. Maybe you meant combined internet AND TV drives your bill to $100, in which case you are getting Expanded Basic, not Basic, and almost certainly can qualify for a package deal for around $80. As for cable TV the reason I hate it is that aside from a few of the Premium networks, it's absolutely infested with ads. Lately it's getting close to 20 minutes per half hour episode.
I think the difference here is the terminology - what you call Expanded Basic is what most of us call "basic" - regular cable channels and broadcast networks, without any "premium" channels. "Basic" cable that consists of nothing more than broadcast channels is a huge waste of money for most people anyway, since we can buy an antenna one time and get the same exact thing for free moving forward. Anyway, Charter operates under the Spectrum name here (after buying Time Warner), and increased my "expanded basic" (whatever the bill calls it) and internet service from about $100 to over $150 in a year's time, which is ridiculous enough for me to tell them to shove it.
Re: (Score:2)
An antenna doesn't do dick for me because I live in the sticks.
But then, I can't get cable either, for the same reason.
Literally my only option is satellite. I used to have access from a WISP but I moved to someplace even more isolated. There's no cellular coverage here either.
The latency is punishing, so I'd be happy to pay a cable provider for internet access. But they didn't bother to lay out the last mile, so I can't do that.
Starlink can't come soon enough.
Re: (Score:3)
Charter's already getting over $100/mo from me for basic service and they want MORE? Fuck Charter and fuck the FCC! Also, since I haven't said this in a while: Fuck Apple!
One year ago, my Spectrum bill was about $100. Next month it will be over $150. Yes, an increase of over 50% in less than a year's time, through three separate steps. This is for average TV service (no premium channels), internet, and phone. I just called them tonight and cancelled everything except the internet service, since they have me over a barrel for that as the only provider here that can top 20 Mbps.
I can afford their prices, but the size of the jump is an eyebrow raiser, and they've used shady
Re: (Score:3)
I can afford their prices, but the size of the jump is an eyebrow raiser, and they've used shady tactics like adding "broadcast TV surcharges" (and increasing them!) so they can call those "fees" and claim they weren't a rate increase
When local broadcasters in different markets demand different carriage royalties, how is a nationwide cable TV operator supposed to advertise the price of its service without separating out a market-specific broadcast TV surcharge?
Re: (Score:2)
When local broadcasters in different markets demand different carriage royalties, how is a nationwide cable TV operator supposed to advertise the price of its service without separating out a market-specific broadcast TV surcharge?
Nice try. But national cable operators don't set their pricing nationally to begin with. It's always adjusted to the local market, based on a variety of factors. Anyone who's done customer service for a provider for multiple DMAs could tell you that. You used to see things like higher internet pricing in college towns, and HDTV service being more out in "the sticks" because of the differences in popularity of different types of services for people in different socioeconomic classes. With streaming being so
I may be missing something abiut rate increase (Score:2)
But why would they want to raise their rates due to streaming services offered by other companies?
If I owned a cable tv company A, and in the town I serve everyone was moving to internet based streaming TV I wouldn't want to raise my prices. Instead I'd check out what the prices were for the streaming services and try to win back customers by lowering my prices in comparison to the internet streaming services.
The way the article sounds is backwards.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because in a lot of places, the cable company is also the only broadband provider.
That's as may be. If there really is only one viable ISP, you might have a case for price regulation of broadband. In the mean time, I don't know about where you live but in San Jose, good internet is way cheaper than cable. If you've already got internet some other reason, the incremental cost of streaming is way less than cable.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because in a lot of places, the cable company is also the only broadband provider.
That's as may be. If there really is only one viable ISP, you might have a case for price regulation of broadband. In the mean time, I don't know about where you live but in San Jose, good internet is way cheaper than cable. If you've already got internet some other reason, the incremental cost of streaming is way less than cable.
I've got two choices in suburban NE Ohio, one of which is completely unacceptable and doesn't meet the definition of broadband: Spectrum cable at 100 Mbps, or AT&T service that is limited to a pathetic 18 Mbps or so. Both options are priced in the same ballpark, oddly enough. AT&T reportedly gave up on their original plan to build out their fiber network in communities like mine, after promising it "soon" for several years, and there is no competition otherwise. Now I wonder how we recover the subsi
Re: (Score:2)
...service that is limited to a pathetic 18 Mbps or so.
You saw the Louis CK rant about WiFi in airplanes, right? 20 years ago, our jaws would have dropped at the idea of 18 Mbps. I'm not sure what you're using your network for to make that seem pathetic but wow, you're downloading a lot more than I do. But given a 100 Mbps alternative at the same price, it doesn't sound like a compelling offer at all.
Now I wonder how we recover the subsidies/tax abatements/sweetheart monopoly deals that we granted AT&T for promising to extend modern service to all. (Spoiler: we don't, and the FCC can't be bothered with helping citizens.)
Sorry to hear it. That's why you round up the politicians ("Politics" is from the Greek "poly", meaning "many" and "tic" meaning "blood-sucking vermin") who vamped
Re: (Score:1)
In the mean time, I don't know about where you live but in San Jose, good internet is way cheaper than cable.
I live in neighborhood in central FL where Spectrum is the only wired broadband provider. AT&T stopped offering service here because something something, DSL, connections maxed out something, blah blah blah, AT&T sucks.
And of course, some moderator on crack decided to mod my post as "flamebait". Seriously, are a bunch of people going to come crawling out of the woodwork defending how cable companies are so awesome, and I'm such an awful person for talking smack about their monopolistic practices?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But why would they want to raise their rates due to streaming services offered by other companies?
It really is very simple: they keep losing customers, so to stay afloat they have to screw their remaining customers harder. Either they get a smaller pie, or we become bigger pieces of it. It's nice that we have some choices now for TV services, and a shame that so many of us have no real choice of internet providers.
It's Antitrust Regulations (Score:2)
There are laws limiting a monopoly provider's ability to set rates. They used the existence of streaming services their competitor,so they are not affected by those laws.
And they care about total profit, not customers. Better to make $130 each on a thousand customers than $50 each on two thousand.
You know I'm beginning to think these chaps (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
don't have my best interests as a consumer at heart.
Well, they do and they don't. I don't really expect anyone but me to have my best interests at heart. Perhaps my wife too but that's about it. What they have is their best interests at heart and that depends on me giving them money. And they know if they raise prices or cut quality too much, I'll stop doing that. The presence of viable alternatives makes me much less willing to let it ride.
...and calling 10 mbps "broadband" in 2019.
"Broadband" is kind of a vague term. I can stream video at 10 Mbps. It might not be the best possible but it's plenty
no problem (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, in most areas of the US the cable co's are also the only real choice in ISP. So either way, most of us are stuck with them.
More likely they'll just jack up the rates on broadband (and/or -- most likely AND tier/cripple what they offer now) to make up for the revenue lost from their cable tv business.
Comcast, Cox, Charter are not going anywhere, anytime soon.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless it's horrendously expensive, Starlink is going to come along and smack their peepee. The price is estimated to be $60 based on their filings, but I'm paying $100/mo now for Exede which has a full second of latency, so they can clearly attract a substantial customer base at a $100 price point...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in most areas of the US the cable co's are also the only real choice in ISP. So either way, most of us are stuck with them.
More likely they'll just jack up the rates on broadband (and/or -- most likely AND tier/cripple what they offer now) to make up for the revenue lost from their cable tv business.
Comcast, Cox, Charter are not going anywhere, anytime soon.
This.
Just look at Comcast's quarterly earnings report yesterday [barrons.com]. They added 379,000 new high-speed internet customers and lost 238,000 cable tv customers (more than the 203,00 that Wall Street analysts were expecting). But because broadband customers are more valuable than tv customers (better margins), they were able to grown broadband revenue by 9% year-over-year to $4.72 billion.
Comcast’s growing broadband-only subscriber base is a key part of many bullish analysts’ thesis on the stock. Profit margins are higher on customers on faster-speed and more expensive internet plans than TV, helping to more than offset cord-cutters who cancel in favor of streaming services like Netflix or AT&T’s HBO.
Make up your mind, FCC. (Score:1)
Cable TV rates or Internet rates (Score:3)
... because being a monopoly content provider and a monopoly ISP are two different things.
Excuses (Score:2)
The important thing, from their perspective, is that they raise cable rates.
Probably some day they will charge an extra creativity fee when it becomes harder to think up original pretexts for raising cable rates.
Excellent Idea: Great Way to Get More Cord Cutters (Score:2)
Hey more power to them, now the hold outs will drop cable, fantastic idea.
But they're not wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)
Internet access plus streaming services IS a reasonable substitute. I know that Slashdot is all "WAAAH I HATE FCC! AJIT BAD! CHARTER IS POOPY!" these days but it's a reasonable case for Charter to make under current law and it's reasonable for the FCC to agree. Also the headline for this story is clickbaity and disingenuous. Not that I expect better for Slashdot, but still. That is pretty bad.
So streaming counts as cable now? (Score:2)
Does that mean that streaming providers are going to have to follow all the other rules that regulate cable systems? No, I don't know what rules that might be, but if we're going to say AT&T Now counts as reasonable competition then there have to be other regulations that now apply to them.
Oh hey, I see further down the front page that's exactly what they're doing [slashdot.org].
It's WAY past time (Score:2)
to separate the pipe from content producers, content aggregators, and ''value added'' content packages. Allowing companies to include costs other than associated with maintaining and improving ''pipe'' services is no different than before we broke up AT&T. It has been an easy method for these providers to separate uninformed consumers but that time is now passed. It's as antiquated as POTS and the separation of digital services and ''voice'' services on a cell phone.
Our ''pipes'', whether they be carrie
Re: (Score:2)
correction..
'these providers to separate uninformed consumers'
to
'these providers to separate uninformed consumers from their cash'
Starlink, 1-web, etc (Score:2)
Key people (Score:1)
The FCC will continue to do evil as long as its headed by Ajit Pai.
He came from Verizon and it could be said he never left.