CableCard Predatory Pricing - FCC Complaint

Nice letter.

 

You are crying about paying $1.95 for cable cards? Are you kidding me?
One thing you don't seem to understand is that Cable is a BUSINESS. They open their doors everyday to make money. I don't think $1.95 is a big deal at all when you opened your wallet and paid $300 for a dvr. You want digital services that the cable company has to regurlarly make deals with the programmers i.e. ESPN that raise their rates every year for the cable co to broadcast, but you don't want to pay a digital outlet fee. How else are they going to raise the money for constantly rising broadcast fees other than passing it on to the consumer. They aren't just going to take a loss, they are going to make the people who want the digital services to pay for it. As for the cards in the box, an HD DVR uses one M-stream card, not two S cards.

 

Then they should charge more for the actual service, not the device used to get the service.

I should be able to go out and buy a cablecard, just like I can go out and buy a phone. Being forced to rent the device from the same company that provides the service is just asking to be reamed. We learned this years ago with the phone company.

 

Well worded letter. The irony is that we are paying a fee for a security (decryption) device that benefits the service provider, and not the consumer.

 

No he is complaining about being charged more than $1.95. reread the first portion of his post.

no kidding.

actually we dont want to pay two digital outlet fees for one box.

If ESPN raises their rates, the cable company should raise the programing costs, not the hardware costs.

As I understand it the TiVoHD does support an M card. If cable companies have M-cards they should make them available to all not just in their own set top boxes.

 

The letter isn't about the $1.95, it's about companies trying to push cablecards out of the market by predatory tactics.

Excellent letter, great writing!

 

Very well written letter.

Maybe bunches of these letters will actually make a difference (also, pigs may fly).

 

What were the prices before the fcc ban went in to effect?

ajwees41

 

You should send a copy to your Congressman. In fact, we all should.

 

I believe WOW told me that they charge $3.xx per month for a second card. You get 1 with the service. Not Mcards Scards

 

Seems to me I've seen folks in this site mention (complain) about both card prices as well as installation fees.

Someone should scour the site and collect all that info.

With this letter, such data could be even more persuasive.

 

You have to consider that there is tremendous variation too, even though I'm stuck with Comcast, my first card is free, my 2nd is $2.50. In my region there are no 'outlet fees' and I had a whopping $15 installation fee, yes, they tried to charge me 2x the install fee for 2 cards until it was pointed out they were in the same device.

As much as I think cableco's are the scurge of the media world, and deserve either heavy regulation OR free market competition, there are regions where they do follow the rules, and are generally fair to cableCARD customers.

Diane

 

http://www.tvover.net/2007/05/16/Settop+Box+Costs+Stabilizing+Spending+To+Grow+With+Volume.aspx

IMS Research estimates that the average semiconductor bill of materials cost for set-top boxes dropped 37% from 2004 to 2006, going from $59 to $37. This precipitous drop was caused primarily by rapidly falling prices for MPEG-2 core decoders chips in preparation for the transition to MPEG-4 AVC (ITU-T H.264) – both in HD and SD segments. However, IMS Research is forecasting that due to a number of factors, this trend will change, and from 2007-2011 the overall average cost of a set-top box semiconductor BOM will stay near $41.

 

What's the estimate on the cost of the software inside the box, some of which have the unused ability to allow viewing from another STB on the premises (sort of like client server, not peer-peer like Tivo)? What's the monthly cost for software support?

 

In antitrust law, the term "predatory pricing" is usually understood as describing a situation in which a monopolist will charge below-cost prices to drive out competition, only to raise prices once the competition is gone. I think that you should maybe consider just complaining of their "anticompetitive pricing" and not use the term "predatory."

 

Don't forget the additional digital outlet fees. For my S3 (Brighthouse, Pinellas) it costs me $3.95x2 for the CableCARDs and then $0.95 for the "additional" digital outlet (which is the second CableCARD).

If I were to get a second S3, the two extra CableCARDs would really cost $4.90 each ($3.95 + 0.95 A/O). I don't think they do that for their own set-top boxes.

 

Actually, that sounds like exactly what the cable companies are doing. They are a monopoly (where else are you going to get cable cards), and you can easily say that they are pricing their alternative abnormally low (from the OP's example it certainly appears to be below cost) in an attempt to drive a competitor out of the market.

 

You're right -- I had thought the complaint was largely about the high cost of the cable cards, but now see that the complaint really is about the artificially low price of boxes in comparison.

 

Agree, nice letter and glad to see so many people doing something about the CableCard issues. I recommend people use http://www.planetfeedback.com to send in your letter and all will be tracked. Great, free, service!