The Cable-Telecom Wars

Here in Libertyville Il. we have only ComCast the worst cable provider onthe planet, my second experience with this companythe prior being in So. Fla. for many years. AT&T was my phone provider but could not provide cable service so it was not economically smart to pay two different bills and at least $50/mo. extra to subscribe with two different companies. With the state of Ill.politics I can't believe that any change in franchise rules in local government favoring consumers are likely to be enacted.

I'm a service technician, with 28 1/2 yrs with ATT (SBC). I've seen numerous changes in the communication industries. Since devestiture with ATT in the early eighties, the baby Bell's has had to fight for their market share, with government restrictions, example the Communications Act of 1996. We have come a long way in 30 yrs from 4 & 8 party lines, to DSL & Celluar Phones & Text Messaging and Uverse Services. All these services required investments and hard work. A note: Some of the lost of Local Access lines is due to competition, but a lot is due to todays younger consumer homes using both DSL services and celluar service packaging in their homes dropping dialtone.

Like most consumers I don't know which way to go. Should I go with the Telcom (Verizon) bundle with its bad service and potential rate increases or with cable (Comcast) who have slowly decreased their content on basic service packages and don't have a competive (dsl) service. We get screwed either way most people just don't know it, because there are really no good choices. Nice smile EMAC!

And then there's Frontier, the telco that provides DSL in many mostly rural areas of more than 20 states. They popped a 5GB cap into their terms of use for erstwhile "unlimited access" DSL customers, on July 23. The policy was merely updated on the website, which is legal but to customers might seem a little sneaky. So why lay on a cap in that manner? To see what would happen if anyone noticed it one day? One may well wonder, but of course someone did notice. Anyway their phones have apparently lit up pretty good on this thing since the wait time for a service rep has gotten long. The prospect of going from no limit to 5GB a month is, well, breathtaking to anyone who ever rented a 3-hour movie and downloaded its 2GB heft onto a computer to view it. Do the math: rent 3 of those long features like Gandhi or Lawrence of Arabia or whatever in August and you're over the cap without having read your email or paid any online bills or checked to see if the Yanks are still breathing, and with a week or so to go before your quota refreshes. Try a bunch of more average 1.2GB movies and you could get four into a month if you also don't read websites with a lot of flash ads on them or have much email that month. Frontier has started saying well look, really it's a guideline for now, we are not enforcing it at the moment, and we might sell an overrun option later, just use the service the way you have been for now and don't worry. The policy does not say the cap is a guideline. The policy, which was revised on July 23 and still stands there with that date on it, says it is a cap. So of course some people are trying to opt out and get a waiver, or opt out and cancel without penalty for early termination. Frontier is trying to buck this by saying since they are not enforcing it yet, then there are really no new terms to be waived out of, eh, so no waiver. Plan B is opt out and cancel inside the 30-day window for doing that. Plan C is take a chance and stay in the contract and just wait for Frontier to say when a cap is a cap and no longer a guideline. Plan D is the one most Frontier DSL customers are probably still on at the moment: surf the net on their Frontier DSL in blissful ignorance of the waning days of their "unlimited" bandwidth usage. I wish I were still in Plan D myself. I'm sorry I bumped into the policy revision information. I'm not big on Plan C but I'm trying to take a few days of my remaining opt-out time to think this through. I like DSL and don't want to leave Frontier and I can live with some sort of cap (not 5GB for God's sake, I can pass that mark buying a season of TV shows I never saw when first aired). But I'm going to get some legal advice before I decide. Apparently Frontier now plans to issue some kind of letter to customers about the new cap in the September billings. September?? How about full page ads in local newspapers next week, with previews of the 2009 tier prices to try to regularize this chaotic "cap launch" while they still have anyone left to bill in September!?

I have some questions for you: 1. How much of the lag in adoption of broadband is due to decreased real wages, inflation, or loss of employment? 2. Why does our direct TV box, when we try to tune in a local sports event, bring up a message saying "Not available in your area"? I know it's not blocked, since I can still get all the local stations on another TV which isn't even connected to the dish system, but to an external antenna. Are they trying to keep us from seeing our local news? Your article doesn't even mention the local TV stations, who are among the bigger losers in all these telecom wars. The biggest loser is the general public. Local access is slowly dying. And HD? -- There is a great number of older viewers, that, at any reasonable viewing distance from the TV, can't see any difference between HD and NTSC, on similar sized screens. Why not get a big screen? Simple. Many of us in the retired population, are living on fixed incomes, have downsized our houses, and have very limited indoor real estate to devote to such large monsters. With the average population growing older every year--with diabetes (and retinal neuropathy) becoming more and more a problem--with the onset of cataracts affecting more and more of an aging population, how many big screen, HD televisions do they think we're going to buy? Wouldn't it be frightening to many, if they suddenly realised that HD may be something of a "nitch" product? I guess I'm making a case for saying that the FCC has seriously blundered in their quest to adopt new things, follow the latest technology, and create new markets and profits. At some point, we'll be unplugging the cable, and watching our old video on our antiquated TVs. I think the telecom/satelite/cable zybots we're allowing to form are in for a rude awakening.

Deregulation could have been the secondary title option for "Lord of the Flies"

It's rather fragile, that part of us which decides what to assign meaning to, how, why, how not, and why not. no ? yes ? Odd how you can ask no, OR yes and derive the same meaning in english I find this article a blowout - I think May 2000 would be better fitting - and it would be valid, if you recall - these very same issues have come across our plate before. If Comcast is to be in any sentence, the news of the day is that strange ruling from soon to be gone Kevin Martin (He'll be left out to dry, Bush won't be around to pardon or commute, no gag order here, Fox News will certainly be taking some serious damage trickle down from FCC rulings against Murdoch come 2009/2010), which acted pro-media interchange. Poor Kevin, I really don't think he knows or understands where he sold out. Then again, I recall some 80 year old guy on TV, months ago, had some underground 'room' for some girl for - god - how many years ? Atlanta area I think ? That guy just talked to the reporter as if he was doing her a favor. I wager Martin feels the same regarding the FCC, Murdocha and some girl named 'America' - last seen having the life blood sucked out on the commodities exchange. Oh well I hope you are reading some good books there Liz MacDonald.

Liz, this content doesn't add up to any excitement my perspective. Content however - media - over focussing on medium in the case of the eeeenternet ? Will far outweigh any landfall profits or investment returns in the long run of what probably benefits humanity, which is ? after all ? the carrot ? !

Speaking from personal experience, ATT and Verizon are the worst companies on the planet. If they would cut their extensive political contributions and spend more to upgrade their excuse for customer service everybody would be better off. Let us all hope for deregulation. Great article EMAC.

Liz rhis reminds me of a local media battle that happened here almost ten years ago. Well the long standing local cable Company Vicksburg Video faced a a dangerous new competitior. Now a firm out of Arkansas owns Vicksburg Video now. Yet the battle dinosaur cable Vicksburg Video faced was with satellite. All through out the Vicksburg market sat dishes large and small popped up. And the local cable company waged an advertising battle with Direct TV and Dish TV. Who lost in this battle? Real simple: Vicksburg Video. It lost out with the local customers for a number of reasons. VV had limited its cable channels. Direct TV and Dish had more choices. In fact the real switch happened when a new Fox station and NFL network came on online andn die hard Saint fans didn't want to miss out on thier favorite team. Now every neighborhood,surburia down here now has small digital dish with Direct TV or Dish TV with channel choices they can make. The reason Vicksburg Video lost the battle was they wage poor advertising campaign against satellite networks. They eventually caved in to the new technologies but now without losing a large customer base to Direct TV and other satellite dishes. Word is now AT&T wants to get the telecom biz downhere. Gradually Vickbsurg Video is becoming an antique of the past. Now Direct TV has waged a successful campaign agains cable with thier tv adds. Becouse they come and offer more choices.