Cable companies fined by FCC over switch to digital

[defendandprotect]

http://www.miamiherald.com/business/technology/story/863991.html

and, happily, my cable company -- Comcast-- was also fined . . .

They took C-span coverage of the Senate out of basic and moved it to a higher

tier to broadcast it in HD -- and that was almost two years ago!

The FCC said most of the cable companies it fined had provided incomplete or evasive answers, or even refused to answer some questions.

Some, such as Comcast, said it needed more time to comply with the inquiry and questioned the legitimacy of the FCC's inquiry.


http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20090121/BUSINESS/901210388/1036/NEWS07?Title=Comcast__other_cable_firms_fined_for_evasion


And what restoration will be made to the consumer?

[wildbilln864]

1. k&r and thank you. nt

[defendandprotect]

4. AG Martha Coakley/MA also after Comcast . . .

Comcast agrees to change digital transition ads

http://hawk.heraldinteractive.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1147271&format=comments


and note the comments below the article on Comcast's "predatory practices."

Comment to Boston Globe . . .

QUOTE :--

Thank god for Martha Coakley. Someone in authority in Massachusetts state government has finally had the guts and good legal sense to go after the predatory practices of Comcast. I agree, the AG should go after the company's billing practices next, and take a hard look at their service responsiveness, telephone customer service, etc., etc. I guess it was too much to hope that with a Democratic governor, we would have gotten state regulators that looked out for the consumer. The tip off that would not happen occurred when the Deval Patrick Inaugural Committee took at $50,000 "donation" from Comcast, and Comcast had the only seat on the Guv's Transition Committee from their industry. All of Comcast's competitors were not at the table. Don't expect Deval's "regulators" to bring these clowns to heel. 'go get 'em Martha.

[Eurobabe]

43. Comc-ASSED was also trying to disable serial ports in the NE

to FORCE consumers to use COMC-ASSED branded DVR. People on my TiVO forum were royally PISSED because their DVRs suddenly stopped working. A whole bunch of us complained and wrote and called the home office in Philly, and they reversed the decision. But the levels that this company will stoop to, in an effort to screw the consumer is appalling.

[hvn_nbr_2]

2. Restoration to the consumer?

If it's like most of the class action lawsuits, you'll get a coupon for $5 that is valid on a purchase of $1000 or more from the offending company between the dates of Oct. 13, 2022 and Feb 18, 2023. Provided that you buy it for the same address where you lived during 2007 and that you comply with the other fine print.

[defendandprotect]

5. Well, what about returning C-span coverage of Senate back to basic???

[RB TexLa]

9. The cable companies fund and own C-SPAN, they can put it on whatever package they wish.

C-Span does not broadcast in HD. Many cable providers have moved lower rated channels to "digital" packages which does not mean exclusively HD. The digital packages require a converter box in the home, this allows more information in on these packages. Channels in HD and non-HD channels that don't have the best of ratings and specialty channels as well as news and other information on demand, pay-per-view movies from the remote as well as the interactive guide are put on the "digital" package.

[defendandprotect]

14. Yes . . . corporations can always do "what they want" . . . until WE THE PEOPLE . . .

tell them "no" -- !!!

That's what we're fighting right now if you understand what's going on ---

Corporatism = fascism.

I did not invent the Comcast line . . . or what C-span told me . . .

the Comcast line is they moved it to a higher tier in order to broadcast it in HD.



But . . . let me ask you . . . what is it that you are watching?

[RB TexLa]

18. What is it that I am watching? What?

[defendandprotect]

20. What is it that you need better reception to watch?

[RB TexLa]

21. What are you talking about?

[Codeine]

23. He thinks that HD is unnecessary

and that we only want it to watch wrestling and "torture."

[Waiting For Everyman]

30. C-SPAN claims to be a "public service".

How does that fit with making it less accessible and more expensive?

[defendandprotect]

38. Additionally, some of the cable companies balk at having to use

a channel to run programming "in the public interest" ---

Comcast severely cut back on the time that the coverage of the Senate was run.

Tho, Suburban Cable before them also cut back but not as tremendously.

Of course, Comcast has now removed it, altogether -- !!

There isn't really any programming that we want from Comcast so moving to

a higher tier, at an increased expense, really isn't of interest to us.


And some cable companies are very accommodating -- in Boston, for instance!

[Eurobabe]

42. LMAO, I know your post

was serious, but for some reason your answer just cracked me up. The restrictions on settlements in these CL-ASS action lawsuits are a joke.

[Jkid]

3. C-SPAN in HD?

I thought C-SPAN still broadcast in 4:3 Standard Definition? do they really have a HD version?

[RB TexLa]

6. They don't.

[defendandprotect]

15. I'm just repeating to you what Comcast and C-span told me . . .

[Codeine]

24. You're misinformed.

Seems to be your lot in life.

[defendandprotect]

39. The facts are that we haven't had C-span coverage of the Senate . . .

in almost two years.

And, the FCC has fined the cable companies --

Your lot in life is to be on "ignore."

[slipslidingaway]

7. Good, Comcast removed the Senate channel from our

area as well, each TV needs their own separate digital box.

What happens in our government should be available to every citizen at no charge.

[RB TexLa]

8. You do know that the cable companies own and pay for c-span

[slipslidingaway]

10. That needs to change as part of the new transparent government

:)

[RB TexLa]

11. What does the government have to do with it? Other than allowing them to broadcast public sessions

of the Congress?

[slipslidingaway]

27. If there is a will to get the information out to the public I'm sure

the FCC can work with companies.

[defendandprotect]

16. Did you see the threads I posted about the FCC fining Comcast --???

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4905623&mesg_id=4905623

amd here . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4905623&mesg_id=4905720

[slipslidingaway]

29. Your links lead back to this thread...

:shrug:

[marybourg]

26. Too right! n/t

[SidDithers]

12. From the article you provided...

"It is not related to the national switch to digital broadcasting."

The issue is your cable company playing games, not the switch from analog to digital broadcasting.

Sid

[defendandprotect]

17. Exactly . .. as the article says ---!!

[onenote]

31. its not that cable companies are playing games, its that they are doing what they were urged to do:

shifting over to digital transmission technologies in order to free up bandwidth to provide more services -- more video, faster internet, improved voice service. The FCC has adopted a number of policies over the past few years encouraging this transition to digital, which is not required by law like the broadcast transition, but which goes hand in hand with it, since the hope is that high definition quality program will drive consumer interest in new digital-ready televisons and that is more likely to happen if consumers can get not only abc, nbc, fox and cbs in HD, but also Discovery, CNN, ESPN, etc. DirecTV has been all-digital from the get-go. Cable is simply playing catch up. However, a vindictive FCC chairman, ignoring his agency's own policies and the law, has decided to use a bogus demand for information as a way to punish cable companies that refused to bend to his will on other issues, including regulation of allegedly "indecent" programming. It is all a part of Martin's effort to endear himself to the religous right in the hopes that one day he might have a political career in North Carolina. Its interesting that Martin only would allow cable operators to get a waiver to continue to offer low cost converters to consumers if the operators would agree to convert to all-digital by Februar 2009 -- and then he turns around and attempts to penalize some of those operators for doing that transition in phases rather than as a flash cut that would be more diruptive.

[SidDithers]

32. Thanks for the explanation...

it helped me to understand why that type channel migration happens. But it still causes frustration in the consumer, when an often-watched channel moves from a basic analog package to a digital package. Happened to my parents with Rogers up here in Canada. They're big golf fans, who watch a lot of the Golf Channel, but Rogers removed it from the basic analog package. They had to upgrade to digital cable to continue to watch it. Wasn't a big deal for them, but I can understand how some subscribers would feel like they're being pissed upon by the megacorporation.

Sid

[onenote]

34. No question that it can be frustrating and no question that operators should be doing more

to smooth the transition. I have a client that is making the transition to all-digital. THey have been sending notices to every subscriber as part of the bill every month since last spring letting customers know that if they already have a digital box (which they may have gotten when the system was hybrid analog/digital) they'll be fine, but that if they have an analog cable ready set and no box, they will need to get either a new tv that is digital cable ready or lease a digital capable box from the cable operator. Even with months of notice, they know that there will be people upset and confused when it happens. But if service is to improve, things have to change.

[HughMoran]

13. Comcast manipulated me into getting a digital box for MSNBC!

I really don't like the way they manipulated me - I wish there was an a-la-carte menu as I watch the same few channels and almost nothing else.

[Kat45]

19. Comcast moved MSNBC to the digital tier. DIdn't give a reason.

That pisses me off because it means you can only get MSNBC if you have the more expensive digital tier, complete with the digital box that you also pay for. For quite some time, they've been quietly moving stations onto the digital tier, but this was probably the first one that I actually had been watching. If all the stations eventually switch to digital broadcasting only, nobody will even be able to pick up local stations 'free' from the airwaves with a little antenna. This switch to digital is to benefit the cable companies, not the consumer.

[defendandprotect]

22. Did you see my threads on the FCC fining cable companies + Comcast for this???

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

amd here . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Kat45]

33. Both urls are giving me a "not found" n/t

[defendandprotect]

40. Here's the article . . .

PHILADELPHIA -- The Federal Communications Commission is fining nine cable TV operators for attempting to thwart its investigation of a practice in which analog channels were transferred to a more expensive digital tier, leaving some customers without access.

In October, the FCC asked 13 cable operators to provide more information on their practice of migrating channels to digital. The agency was concerned that customers who subscribe to less expensive tiers of analog service, such as basic cable, will have access to fewer channels because some have been moved to the digital lineup, even as those subscribers' bills continued to rise.

Cable companies want to move analog channels to digital to free up bandwidth so they have more room to add high-definition channels and other content. It is not related to the national switch to digital broadcasting.

The FCC said most of the cable companies it fined had provided incomplete or evasive answers, or even refused to answer some questions.

http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20090121/BUSINESS/901210388/1036/NEWS07?Title=Comcast__other_cable_firms_fined_for_evasion

[Kat45]

56. Thanks. n/t

[onenote]

25. my newspaper dropped my favorite cartoon strip. I should be able to sue them

Or maybe not.

[defendandprotect]

37. Well. . . first, you're not a government agency -- the FCC is . . .

Second, they broke rules/regulations -- and have stonewalled

the agency --- and that's with the GOP still in control!!!

[onenote]

44. what rule did they break by moving channels?

And as for stonewalling, the information requests were arbitrary, overbroad and unreasonable. The requests were made on the thinnest of pretenses -- and in some cases on no pretense at all. For example, some of the demands for information stated that they were based on specific consumer complaints. But in a clear denial of due process, the fcc refused to provide any information as to where those complaints came from or what they actually complained about. I'm not talking about revealing the names of complainants -- just the cable system that serves them and a description of what they are complaining about.

Do you actually know anything about this dispute or the laws involved? Do you know that the law expressly allows cable systems to move channels from one tier to another? Did you know that the request for information from the FCC was engineered by a rw chairman who doesn't like the cable industry because it wouldn't play ball with him in his fundie supported effort to restrict "indecent" programming on cable?

Maybe you do know those things. Maybe you're the former chairman of the FCC himself, or a close friend. Or maybe you might try learning about the whole story on something before making up your mind about it.

[defendandprotect]

47. "Evasion" and "contempt" . . .

Despite your cable company sympathies, subscribers obviously have no control

over cable companies and are dependent upon consumer action by government agencies.

Further, it would seem that 600 complaints is a very small number considering the

loss of programming which has involved more than one such occurence.

Subscribers pay for basic cable services which includes a set list of programming --

as the programming has been removed ... subscribers costs have increased.

The reality is subscribers lost services while suffering increased costs.

This is yet another display of the arrogance of corporations and the need to restrict

them and reapply strong regulations to their everyday business. And yet another

example of the need for constant oversight of corporations.

[onenote]

53. If you're symapthetic to the abuse of the law by a cheney loving FCC chair

so be it.

My sympathies do rest elsewhere. THey rest with the idea that government should abide by the laws it makes and not ignore and abuse them. Congress passed a law more than 20 years ago giving cable operators the right to move channels from one level of service to another except in certain circumstances. The FCC ignored that law when it started its inquiry against the cable operators - a law that,by the way, probably is constitutionally mandated since cable operators, like newspaper publishers, are entitled to exercise editorial discretion in what programs they put on their systems and how they organize them. Moreover, again, if you had any interest in learning the facts, you'd know that in some instances, the channels that were "moved" from one package to another were simply changed from an analog format to a digital format. They weren't part of a separate package that you had to pay extra for. If you have a newer tv set with a digital tuner, you could get the channels without any additional expense. If you didn't, you would need to get a digital box from your cable operator for a monthly fee, or you could get the signals by buying a new television.

And to the extent anyone "lost" programming and had either an increased cost (or didn't get a reduction in cost), again, the law clearly specifies how and when cable rates are to be regulated. If the FCC or the government wants to change that law, they should follow the normal course -- hold hearings, start an industry wide inquiry. But targeting a handful of companies with a threat from the enforcement bureau that they turn over confidential information relating to practices that are fully legal today is typical bush-league bullshit and you should think twice before defending it.

[Left Coast2020]

35. MICHAEL COPPS IS THE ACTING FCC CHAIR

Perhaps there may be a chance he will review all this crap martin threw at us and over-turn it. Certainly a new commission is forming as we speak. The question is will they act on our behalf? I think if enough pressure is put on him from people all over, who knows what changes will happen. Remember, key word: change. Oh, and Mr. Copps has spoken out against Martin's corrupt policies. He's cool.

[onenote]

45. we should all hope so

Kevin Martin was an admirer of Dick Cheney (Martin's wife worked for Cheney and Martin himself got the FCC position largely as a reward for his work in Florida in 2000 on the vote recount). Martin had all of the respect for the rule of law as his model.

[yy4me]

46. They did the same to me here in an area north of Boston. The

result was that I dropped to the basic cable for about $7.00 a month. All I get is junk programming but if I drop it too, my Internet fee will go up. Can't win. MSNBC was not the only one they took away. Whatever the others were I don't remember.

There should be a national demand for a la carte programming. We are at the mercy of cable companies and their advertisers. Our offerings are so bad that I have the power bar that the TV, DVD/VCR plugged into switched to off. Has not been on in months. The only way I get MSNBC is to hope Blinko is broadcasting for the particular week, or watch KO the next night on his own site.

I was told by our local Comcast Liaison that the coverage offered was chosen based on demographics. I can tell you flat out that that is not the case in my town. We have 4 Spanish channels and no Spanish community. Home shopping and religion don't fly here, and we do not need 3 PBS stations. It goes without saying that Cable TV, as it is offered to us now is a waste of $$ if we cannot choose what we want to watch. I am told that if I go back to antenna with my analog TV's, I will get more of a variety.

Boy, it is tempting.

[defendandprotect]

48. Congress and our local town officials know what is going on . ..

and they've let them increase costs while limiting services.

We need to make a lot more noise about cable companies and the costs involved

vs services offered.

Only when cable subscribers get together to protest will we see any improvement in this.

I'm watching Jon Stewart -- some Olbermann --

C-Span USHR -- otherwise the TV would be gone.

My daughter is in Boston and used to have the least expensive service and they used to

include both C-span stations in that lineup.

Boston still plays more C-span -- 24 hours a day --

Comcast has always limited US Senate coverage.

Unite -- !!

[Kat45]

55. I'm also outside Boston; they must have done it everywhere here, maybe

all over the country (probably). Demographics, my butt! We have 3 Spanish channels here and no Spanish community. We also have the home shopping and several religious stations, not to mention too many sports channels. And I remember the time (not *that* long ago, when I got the Independent Film Channel as part of the standard cable package. Now, I think s couple of more layers have to be added before you can even get to that station.

[Statistical]

49. Why won't you?

The digital switch won't prevent you from being able to watch TV "over the air".

All you need is
a) Digital Converter Box connected to your current TV = $50
OR
b) Digital Tube TV w/ ASTC tuner (all TV since 2006) = $100-$150 for 24"
OR
c) HDTV.

A lot of people incorrectly think digital = HDTV so to receive digital you need a $500 HDTV.

[SharonAnn]

50. Around here we have lots of religious channels in the basic package and lots of

sports channels.

My husband and I practice our religion without television and neither of us is interested in sports.

We'd like to get rid of all the shopping channels, too.

And I hate that in America, the cable companies got legislation passed that prohibits tuner cards in TVs that would permit accessing channels over 99. i don't want a set top box in every room, especially with the new flat panel TVs that I want to hang on the wall. There's no place for a special converter box.

This could all be built in the TV. I'd like to pay for the channels I want, a cable to the house, then I'll take it from there.

The United States lags the world in Cable broadcasting, cell phone coverage and compatibility and speed, and broadband access and speed. And all of this lag is due to the "regulations" that the industries have persuaded Congress and the states to put in place. They just want a monoploly where they can do what they want abd charge what they want.

[onenote]

28. And here's a prediction: Chairman Copps, and the rest of the FCC will rollback these fines

Which, if you actually know the full story, are utterly unwarranted and part of the outgoing FCC chairman's vindictive and largely illegal attacks on the cable industry because they wouldn't yield to his demands that they kowtow to the religious right with respect to the issue of indecent programming.

The original demands for information were arbitrary and capricious, sought an extraordinary amount of information not relevant to any matter within the FCC's jurisdiction and did so on a completely unrealistic time frame. They also sought an extraordinary amount of confidential business sensitive information that by law does not have to be disclosed in the absence of a court order and then attempted to browbeat companies doing business with the cable operators into disclosing this information -- all largely in an effort to help out the big telcos that are trying to get into the video business.

Fortunately, the folks running the FCC now are grown ups and recognize an abuse of government power when they see it and they will, I predict, act to roll back these bogus fines.

[Godhumor]

36. Comcast moved CSPAN2 to the digital tier from limited basic. It was not moved to an HD tier.

CSPAN doesn't broadcast in HD. However, Comcast switched CSPAN2 to its digital tier in 2007; HD plays no part at all in your example. The decision to move CSPAN2 to a higher digital tier from the limited basic service lays entirely on the shoulders of Comcast and has nothing to do with the digital conversion rules--the company just figured it could make more offering the channel in a premium package.

[defendandprotect]

41. C-span coverage of the Senate was moved to a higher tier . . .

and after almost two years the FCC has fined them . . .

and that was a GOP appointee - Kevin Martin.

Yes . . . C-span Senate wasn't broadcast in High Definition --

Cable companies want to move analog channels to digital to free up bandwidth so they have more room to add high-definition channels and other content. It is not related to the national switch to digital broadcasting.

http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20090121/BUSINESS/901210388/1036/NEWS07?Title=Comcast__other_cable_firms_fined_for_evasion

EXCERPTS --

PHILADELPHIA -- The Federal Communications Commission is fining nine cable TV operators for attempting to thwart its investigation of a practice in which analog channels were transferred to a more expensive digital tier, leaving some customers without access.

"The cable operators' refusal to provide the commission full information has delayed our investigation and inhibited our ability to examine allegations" stemming from nearly 600 complaints, he told the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

In October, the FCC asked 13 cable operators to provide more information on their practice of migrating channels to digital. The agency was concerned that customers who subscribe to less expensive tiers of analog service, such as basic cable, will have access to fewer channels because some have been moved to the digital lineup, even as those subscribers' bills continued to rise.

The FCC said most of the cable companies it fined had provided incomplete or evasive answers, or even refused to answer some questions.

[Statistical]

52. Do you even read your own articles....

The cable companies were fined for two reasons
1) When they removed channels from analog lineup they didn't reduce prices.
2) The FCC felt the lineup changes were done in a manner that was confusing to the consumer and without notice.

NOTHING in the Article or FCC decision says that Cable Companies HAVE TO KEEP ANY CHANNEL ON ANALOG TIER.

Guess what? The entire Analog tier is going away.
Analog = extremely wasteful.

More and more and more channels will be moved digitally and to receive a digital channel you need a set top box.

Some cable companies have already gone COMPLETELY DIGITAL. That is 0 channels broadcast by analog.

One analog channel uses up the same bandwidth as:
2 HD Digital Channels
OR
6 SD Digital Channels

So by moving CSPAN to digital the cable companies were able to upgrade ANOTHER channel to HDTV and ADD 3-4 NEW channels.

All that content just by moving one channel to digital.

The FCC isn't going to stop that.

[onenote]

54. even if the fcc wanted to stop it, they can't legally

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/jan/21/tampa-yields-court-ruling-public-access-channels/

[Statistical]

51. Don't bother....

The OP "knows" that Digital = HD as nobody will convince the OP otherwise.
The OP also "knows" that the OTA deadline is what "forced" Comcast to switch CSPAN to HD.

You are correct of course but in this and about 4 other similar threads the OP is convinced of stuff that doesn't exist and no facts are going to change that.