RCN - Getting away with Extortion!

JPL

Actually, it MAY be due to another FCC requirement. The FCC really messed this whole transition up, in my opinion. Here's the deal - I don't know if this applies to RCN, to be honest, but given their size, it may. Effective 7/1/07 a new FCC regulation went into effect requiring that all cable boxes have separable security. Meaning that the security mechanism for the box had to be separate from the box itself. The cable industry's answer to that requirement is the cable card. As a result, on that date, all cable boxes offered by these companies HAD to be able to accept a cable card.

Now, there were exceptions to this rule. Smaller cable companies that requested it, were granted a temporary waiver for those requirements. The waiver allowed these smaller companies the ability to defer this requirement on advanced devices (e.g. HD DVRs) for one year, and on other standard boxes (e.g SD STBs) for 2 years. However, this waiver came with its own set of strings. The FCC, for reasons I still can't fathom, required all such companies to do away with ALL analog channels by Feb. 2009. What the purpose is for such analog elimination is beyond me, but that's part of the deal. It's one of the reasons Verizon underwent the change that they did (getting rid of all their analogs - which only included locals). It could be that RCN was granted the same waiver, and therefore is also required to eliminate all analogs by this coming February.

If that's the case, then RCN is telling you the truth. They're required by the FCC to eliminate all their analogs by Feb. 2009. However, as others have stated - that's separate from the OTA NTSC cut-off, which also happens to be in Feb. 2009.

Also, RCN, I don't believe, can force you to get a box for local channels. If you have a TV with a QAM tuner, you should be able to get locals without the need for a box - I believe all cable companies are required to carry locals in the clear. If you don't have a QAM tuner, then yes, you'll need a box, even just to get locals.

Coaster

I am not one to typically defend RCN. Their off shore customer service is the WORST in the industry. As part of the digital conversion here in metro Boston, they REMOVED the 4 HD Net channels and demanded $9/mo to get them back, even though on a locked 2 year agreement. The Attorney General's office claims this is UNETHICAL, but not illegal and have had lots of complaints.
BUT
Local stations in SD are available on QAM. For how long?? Who knows.
CH 2 WGBH 25.2
CH 4 WBZ 25.4
CH 5 WCVB 25.5
CH25 FOX 25.6
CH 7 WHDH 25.7
CH 9 WENH 25.9
CH 56 CW 25.10
CH 38 25.11

As for mandatory boxes, the first NON HD digital box is FREE and each additional NON HD is $2.95/mo. With FIOS and Comcast both available and willing to match RCN, everyone needs to make their own decision. At the moment RCN has more HD stations for the near term. By the time my agreement is up goodbye RCN.

Shark2k

I don't know about where you are located, but in a good majority of FiOS' markets, they have 100+ (+ equates to maybe 2 or 3 more) HD channels. Unless you aren't in a market where FiOS isn't there yet, than from what it looks to me, RCN it wouldn't have more HD channels. Just saying.

Edit: NVM. Just looked and it seems like in your area you might have about the same amount of channels as the FiOS markets that have all the HD they offer. Just figured it out and according to the site you have 63 HD channels, so you would possibly gain more, but mine as well just finish out your contract so you don't have to worry about any early termination fees.

-Shark2k

zip2play

In short, the major cable companies operate as monopolies or ologopolies in every market in the United States. The Bush administration's FCC has seen to it that they are effectively COMPLETELY unregulated...just like hedge funds.

Cable companies can give every rationale why they want every home to have a box because it prevents their being pirated BUT that does not justify CHARGING a monthly rental ad-infinitum to all their customers. If they want a piracy lock than let THEM provide it. One can even see a rationale for requiring a box for programming over and above BASIC ($39.25 +tax) without a box.

I am in the metro NYC area and have a nice HD with a good QAM tuner and an analog set. I can guarantee that NOBODY in my city can get a decent picture out of Comcast ...whether local, analog, digital or TV without a box (and rental fee) on EVERY TV set. The only way to do without a box is to use an antenna for OTA broadcasting.
It's an extra $10 a box to get a digital output those BASIC channels!

Involving a New Jersey City Council in the matter is beyond preposterous. Any action with the State Board of Public Uitilities and the courts will involve a 3 year+ fight and gargantuan legal fees (Yep we've gone that route before.)

The cable companies can do EXACTLY as they please...and DO!

Until real action is taken on a federal level, this gouging will continue.

JPL

Um, you DO realize that the deal with the cable companies is negotiated by your LOCAL government, right? That includes things like pricing and the like. If you think this administration has been very pro-cable, just ask Comcast if they feel that way. The FCC has done quite a bit to push for consumers. The price of the cable box that you're decrying is one example. That FCC regulation (what?! that can't be right - the FCC actually ADDED a regulation! Yes, they added quite a few) dealing with requiring separable security is a step toward allowing you to buy a cable box off the shelf so you don't HAVE to lease it from the cable company. They did this with phones a couple decades ago too.

When I was a kid you had ONE choice if you wanted to get a new phone - you got it from the phone company. You leased each one, and you paid extra per line. Now that's not the case - you can go to your local electronics uber-store and pick up a phone with more features than you can imagine for a fraction of the price. They're trying to do the same with the cable box.

The FCC has also been pretty aggressive at enforcing sharing of channels by providers. CV tried to prevent Verizon from carrying MSG, and the FCC forced CV to comply (Verizon is taking CV back to the FCC over MSG HD). They're also pushing the cable companies to come up with a protocol that doesn't require the use of a cable box. You think the cable companies are creating Tru2Way out of the goodness of their own hearts? Um, no. The FCC has made it very clear 'either provide for this, or we'll do it for you.' The cable companies were very reluctant to move in that direction, but they realized that if they didn't the FCC would force the issue.

Finally, you've seen real moves toward closing the terrestrial loop-hole. I really wish they would have gone all the way with that, but the moves that they made took a real bite out of the big cable companies (including Comcast).

I'd love to see proof of this massive deregulation that you're griping about.

Edit - one final point - monopoly status by the cable companies is not something that's driven by the federal government. If you don't like it, then tell your LOCAL government to change it. To blame the administration because some local government maintains a monopoly over cable is silly. If you don't think there's been competition, then what the hell has FiOS and U-Verse been doing? Last I checked both are moving very steadily into traditional cable territory. I see LOTS of open cable competition - especially in NJ (NJ was one of the only states - hell I think they ARE the only state) to give Verizon a state-wide video franchise, to make competition much easier. That's why Verizon has been laying down fiber in NJ about as fast as it's being produced.

zip2play

The "deal" as you call it involved the City council saying YES to Comcast 20 years ago. THAT has been the extent of the dealing. Pricing never mentioned...400% increase over the years never negotiated.


Monopoly is of course NOT directed by the federal government, only CONTROL OF MONOPOLIES...unless you get an administration who believes that monopoly should NOT be controlled (counter even to the law.)

Competition with FIOS = OLIGOPOLY...as my original post mentioned. That involves price and service control between a very few providers and can be arranged over a 3 martini lunch.

Only the federal govenment can regulate utility companies the size of Comcast, Time Warner, and Verizon. Only the federal government can protect the public from monopolistic predators. It's been done in the past with a relatively hard nosed CABLE REGULATION law...it was eviscerated by non-enforcement by the FCC and FTC.

For that you'll have to read the newspapers for a while...or pay a cable bill.
Anyone who cannot see deregulation in the cable industry over the last 8 years would have trouble finding his feet.
There is NO control over the activities or pricing structures of the cable companies...I hope this is soon remedied before we see cable bills equal to our rent bills.

JPL

Um... I pointed you to a couple NEW regulations that the FCC has implemented over the last couple years. Please, enlighten me - which deregulation of the cable industry has happened in the last 8 years. Please provide some proof.

Second, you acknowledge that cable's franchise agreements are done at a local level - it's considered a utility, or has been until now, which is why many areas feel ok with allowing it monopoly protection. You want to wrest local control and give it to the federal government, and yet you're complaining about federal government inaction to date? The federal government has done such a 'bang up' job on this, and yet you want to give them MORE control? PLEASE explain that one to me...

BTW, there's another reason rates have been going up that have nothing to do with monopolistic controls. Before switching to DirecTV some 6 1/2 years ago, I had Comcast analog cable. Digital cable wasn't even available around here at that time. We got a whopping 70 channels. There was no HD... there were no DVRs... there was no VOD... hell there wasn't even digital music available.

FFWD 6 1/2 years - during that time I went first to DirecTV and then to FiOS. I now get somewhere in the neighborhood of 350 channels, and about 55 - 60 of those (these are ones that I get per my programming package) are in HD - with probably another 20 - 30 coming for us on Monday. Not only do I have a DVR, but I have a multi-room version. I have gobs of VOD... including HD VOD... I can stream digital music and pictures from my PC to my TV... I have access to nearly 100 digital music channels (both Music Choice and Urge)... I have an advanced on-screen guide, and Verizon is starting to roll out more services on-line (e.g. they just rolled out on-line DVR booking to this area)... you get the picture.

It's funny, we, as consumers, demand additional service and additional channels, and then we act shocked that prices have to go up. This isn't unique to cable. During the 80's consumers demanded additional features in cars. Well, the car companies complied... they gave consumers what they were demanding. And then consumers got angry when car price increases started outpacing inflation. These changes aren't free, and these companies are not charities. The amount you get for your money is way beyond what was even conceivable 5 - 6 years ago. To blame all these price increases on monopolistic practices is just silly.

Besides, in terms of competition, FiOS is just the latest in your neck of the woods. Last time I checked you also have DirecTV and Dish available as well. And internet services have been exploding (e.g. there's another IP service known as Sky Angel which used to be done via DBS but is now full IP, which you can sign up for). And not to mention OTA - with the advent of ATSC you have better/more OTA choices than ever.

Let's see - 15 years ago there were 2 options at best - OTA and cable. Today, where you live, I mentioned at least, what, 6 options? Yeah, it's a crime how competition has just been squelched in recent years...

JPL

One last point - not to get nitpicky, but your arguments aren't consistent. First you write this:

"The "deal" as you call it involved the City council saying YES to Comcast 20 years ago. THAT has been the extent of the dealing. Pricing never mentioned...400% increase over the years never negotiated"

But then you acknowledge that FiOS was given a franchise agreement. I hate to point this out, but both statements can't be true. Either the ONLY agreement made with regard to cable in your area is with Comcast 20 years ago, OR NJ allowed a video franchise with FiOS (which I'm PRETTY sure has happened more recently than 20 years ago...).

zip2play

But then you acknowledge that FiOS was given a franchise agreement.

zip2play

No I didn't. VERIZON as the inheritor of Bell Atlantic wires did not need any local franchise agreement to rewire for glass cable. The City Council had no say in the matter.


But not to be sidetracked by double talk about how WONDERFUL our cable companies are. THe fact remains that they are demanding AND GETTING a fee for a box to run every television set in the United States that is connected to cable...it is precisely like requiring an INTEL chip rental to connect to the internet.
That is the extortion that the original poster called them on and that is the action that I agree 100% IS extortion.

Getting 4,000,000 channels for $40,000 a month doesn't change that fact one iota...having analog, digital, or HD doesn't change the fact only obfuscate it.

And the only force that can stop this monopolistic practice, demanding unnecessary ancillary equipment rentals, on a nationwide basis is an action by the federal government and agencies whose heads are picked to carry out the will of Congress rather than thwart it, and establishment of tight regulations on the currently unregulated cable industry.

Cable company rates, being monopolies or oligopolies like power companies, should be regulated on a federal and state level. Cable company minimum levels of SERVICE should be stipulated as well.

JPL

What in the world are you talking about? How the hell does Verizon roll out cable tv without a franchise? They can't. Otherwise people in Philly, e.g., would already have it (the fiber has already been laid in much of the city). Until they get a franchise agreement they can't carry TV programming. NJ was one of the few, if not the only, states that granted Verizon a state-wide franchise agreement, so local franchises weren't necessary. In NYC Bloomberg made headlines because he decided to negotiate with Verizon in secret - he didn't let the burough presidents in on the deal until really late in the game. What was Bloomberg negotiating? How to get a third term? Uh, no... he was negotiating a video franchise.

For the record, laying the fiber doesn't require the franchise agreement - neither does turning on internet service. But turning on TV service DOES require it (e.g. we had FiOS internet service around here for 11 months before TV service became available). They can't turn on TV service without such an agreement. There's a township here in PA (in the Philly suburbs) that's an island of non-FiOS TV. That is, everyone around them has TV service through Verizon, but they don't. Why? Is it because they don't have the fiber in their township? Nope - they have the fiber... in fact they have internet service. So what's the deal? The deal is that the township won't give Verizon a franchise agreement.

And I'm still waiting on the proof of massive cable deregulation that's happened under the Bush administration...

bullsbears2011

wow

bullsbears2011

only posting here so i can post linnks in my new thread <sorry>

bullsbears2011

this should be number 5, I am sorry for flooding this discussion with this, but I really need to put links in my thread about which tv i should buy. SORRY

JPL

One more point - you keep talking about the nasty deregulation that's happened, right? Well, WHY is RCN moving everything to digital? Because the FCC is requiring them to... which means that they passed a NEW regulation to make that happen. Again, this isn't due to the cable companies run amok. This is due to a new regulation that was put in place by the FCC. Again, I have to ask - if the FCC is the driver behind this change, forcing smaller cable companies to go all digital, why the hell would you want the federal government to have MORE control over this?

Also you're wrong - not all cable service requires a cable box. If you want your locals only, you can get them without a cable box - you just need a TV with a QAM tuner. And pretty soon you won't even need that - when Tru2Way, or another similiar protocol (one of which Verizon is spearheading) comes into being.

One other option - get yourself a Tivo. You don't need a cable box then - true you'll need a cable card, but those are pretty darn cheap (I think comcast leases them for something like $1/month). As for encrypting all their channels, why the hell shouldn't they? Would I prefer it if they didn't? Sure. But it's not my business to run. Encryption allows them to eliminate piracy - it's their service that they're protecting. I'd do the same thing.