Got this e-mail from Senator Barbara Boxer. When I had Comcast @ Home I had to pay $10 extra a month because I didn't have cable TV as well:
Dear Friend:
I wanted to let you know about a letter I recently sent to
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Michael
Powell. Increasingly, cable companies are raising rates for
broadband service for customers who do not sign up for both
broadband and cable television service. I have asked the FCC
to investigate whether some cable companies are bundling
broadband and cable service in a way that punishes consumers
for not having both services.
It appears that companies are using their leverage as the only
provider of broadband Internet access to force customers to buy
cable television service in order to avoid a rate increase. In
some cases, the increase is as much as 33 percent. There are
also concerns that phone companies may be using similar pricing
schemes on their DSL broadband services to discourage customers
from signing up for competing local voice service carriers.
In my letter, I have called on Chairman Powell and the FCC to
protect consumers from these monopolistic practices. If you
are interested in the details of my letter, please let me know
by replying to this email with "FCC letter" in the subject
line. If you have questions or comments, I invite you to email
me through my website by using this link:
http://boxer.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm
Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator
-------------------------------
UPDATE--- Actual letter from Barbara Boxer to the FCC Chairman:
The Honorable Michael Powell
Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I have received communications from a number of constituents
regarding monopolistic broadband practices. An article that
appeared recently in the Marin Independent Journal titled
"Comcast move irks patrons" describes the problem well. The
paper reports that Comcast is raising broadband cable rates
from $43 to $57 for those customers who do not sign up for both
Comcast broadband service and Comcast cable tv service.
I believe that the FCC should investigate whether this is an
unlawful tying arrangement. It appears that Comcast is using
its leverage as the only provider of broadband Internet access
in Marin to force customers to buy cable television service in
order to avoid a 33% rate increase. Leveraging a cable modem
monopoly in multiple markets could constitute a troubling
threat to the burgeoning competition for cable TV service from
satellite providers. There are also concerns that incumbent
phone companies are using similar pricing schemes on their DSL
broadband services to discourage their customers from signing
up for competing local voice service carriers.
Comcast does not justify the rate increase as based on
increased costs, but rather it acknowledges that the rate
increase is essentially a penalty designed to get customers to
take cable TV service. In a truly competitive market, firms
cannot get away with imposing penalties on customers who do not
buy that firm's full product line.
The article points to two California residents who want to
receive their video service through satellite and their
broadband service through Comcast. They feel that they should
not have to pay extra for cable broadband in order to exercise
their right as consumers to choose a Comcast competitor for
their television video service. I agree with them and would
like to know where you and your fellow Commissioners stand.
You have voted against regulating broadband for the benefit of
consumers. You have also testified on various occasions that
the modern communications infrastructure would be best
self-regulated through free-market "intermodal competition" -
competition between cable, phone, satellite, and wireless
broadband providers. I agree that intermodal competition would
improve conditions for consumers, but it is not yet a reality
in my state.
A recent report by the California Public Utilities Commission
shows that 18% of California cities only have cable modem
service, while 34% only have DSL service. That means that more
than half of California cities are at the mercy of broadband
providers who are the only service provider in those cities and
can use that market position to force other services on
consumers or price gouge. I will work with you to encourage
the deployment of more broadband delivery services such as
wi-fi, 3G cellular services, and satellite. But until
intermodal competition is a reality in every city in
California, I expect you and state regulators to protect
consumers from broadband monopolists.
I hope we can work together to ensure that broadband providers
treat consumers fairly. Thank you for your attention to this
important issue.
Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator
Cc: Commissioners Abernathy, Copps, Adelstein, and Martin
Dear Friend:
I wanted to let you know about a letter I recently sent to
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Michael
Powell. Increasingly, cable companies are raising rates for
broadband service for customers who do not sign up for both
broadband and cable television service. I have asked the FCC
to investigate whether some cable companies are bundling
broadband and cable service in a way that punishes consumers
for not having both services.
It appears that companies are using their leverage as the only
provider of broadband Internet access to force customers to buy
cable television service in order to avoid a rate increase. In
some cases, the increase is as much as 33 percent. There are
also concerns that phone companies may be using similar pricing
schemes on their DSL broadband services to discourage customers
from signing up for competing local voice service carriers.
In my letter, I have called on Chairman Powell and the FCC to
protect consumers from these monopolistic practices. If you
are interested in the details of my letter, please let me know
by replying to this email with "FCC letter" in the subject
line. If you have questions or comments, I invite you to email
me through my website by using this link:
http://boxer.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm
Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator
-------------------------------
UPDATE--- Actual letter from Barbara Boxer to the FCC Chairman:
The Honorable Michael Powell
Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I have received communications from a number of constituents
regarding monopolistic broadband practices. An article that
appeared recently in the Marin Independent Journal titled
"Comcast move irks patrons" describes the problem well. The
paper reports that Comcast is raising broadband cable rates
from $43 to $57 for those customers who do not sign up for both
Comcast broadband service and Comcast cable tv service.
I believe that the FCC should investigate whether this is an
unlawful tying arrangement. It appears that Comcast is using
its leverage as the only provider of broadband Internet access
in Marin to force customers to buy cable television service in
order to avoid a 33% rate increase. Leveraging a cable modem
monopoly in multiple markets could constitute a troubling
threat to the burgeoning competition for cable TV service from
satellite providers. There are also concerns that incumbent
phone companies are using similar pricing schemes on their DSL
broadband services to discourage their customers from signing
up for competing local voice service carriers.
Comcast does not justify the rate increase as based on
increased costs, but rather it acknowledges that the rate
increase is essentially a penalty designed to get customers to
take cable TV service. In a truly competitive market, firms
cannot get away with imposing penalties on customers who do not
buy that firm's full product line.
The article points to two California residents who want to
receive their video service through satellite and their
broadband service through Comcast. They feel that they should
not have to pay extra for cable broadband in order to exercise
their right as consumers to choose a Comcast competitor for
their television video service. I agree with them and would
like to know where you and your fellow Commissioners stand.
You have voted against regulating broadband for the benefit of
consumers. You have also testified on various occasions that
the modern communications infrastructure would be best
self-regulated through free-market "intermodal competition" -
competition between cable, phone, satellite, and wireless
broadband providers. I agree that intermodal competition would
improve conditions for consumers, but it is not yet a reality
in my state.
A recent report by the California Public Utilities Commission
shows that 18% of California cities only have cable modem
service, while 34% only have DSL service. That means that more
than half of California cities are at the mercy of broadband
providers who are the only service provider in those cities and
can use that market position to force other services on
consumers or price gouge. I will work with you to encourage
the deployment of more broadband delivery services such as
wi-fi, 3G cellular services, and satellite. But until
intermodal competition is a reality in every city in
California, I expect you and state regulators to protect
consumers from broadband monopolists.
I hope we can work together to ensure that broadband providers
treat consumers fairly. Thank you for your attention to this
important issue.
Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator
Cc: Commissioners Abernathy, Copps, Adelstein, and Martin
Facebook
Twitter