# Cox Doubling Cablecard Fee!



## djones18 (Jan 6, 2006)

Thought this deserved its own thread:

Cox, Fairfax, Virginia, announced that beginning October 1st, it is raising the cost of a single cablecard from $1.99 to $4.50. In an across the board price increase, this is the single highest increment for a piece of equipment and the highest percentage increase for any of their services and equipment.

*Quote from Cox:* "Due to the continuing dramatic rise of programming expenses, particularly sports programming, Cox will adjust a portion of rates associated with video and some equipment..."

This cablecard increase can be interpreted many ways. It may seem obvious, but in my view Cox clearly wants to discourage present/future Cox HD/DVR renters from jumping ship to TIVO and is capitalizing on a captive TIVO audience. BTW, the price to rent a Cox HD/DVR is increasing just $.60. I summarize the cost increase below:

Payment to Cox today for each TIVO HD or Series 3: $16.99
(2 digital gateway fees + 2 Cablecards)

Payment to Cox 1 October:  $21.59

Is Cox trying to suppress the competition by price hiking the one item they control which every TIVO HD/Series 3 owner must have to receive cable? Can other big CableCo's be far behind? Are they already there?


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

Even your current $16.99/month seems too high. As a comparison for Cox Orange County, CA:
2x $1.99 CC rental
2x $1.49 additional digital outlet fee (for 1st Tivo only 1 additional digital outlet fee applies)
=> $6.96/month per Tivo on top of the regular digital cable fees.
No notice of CC price increases here AFAIK and the price structure did just change a couple of months ago but mostly the hardware rental fees went untouched.

I'm not sure why you are paying "digital gateway" fees - that's what really seems to be jacking up the price.


----------



## PRMan (Jul 26, 2000)

Complain to your city council.

Or better, offer to hook up TiVos for all your city council members.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

You should complain to the FCC. They're unfairly penalizing cable card users. Given that every STB deployed must now use cable cards there's no justification for raising fees for CC more than for their own equipment.


----------



## oldnacl (Mar 23, 2007)

Comcast pulled the same trick here in S FL on July 1. CCs went from $5.50/pair to $16.90 with the addition of a $6.95 "HD service charge" for each card. They got me. I returned the TiVo and rented their STB for $11.95. Aren't monopolies fun? And yes, I should complain to the FCC, the Feds, the guv but I don't have the time, and frankly, some days it just doesn't seem worthwhile to bark and chew on the chain link fence.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

djones18 said:


> *Quote from Cox:* "Due to the continuing dramatic rise of programming expenses, particularly sports programming, Cox will adjust a portion of rates associated with video and some equipment..."


So if the programming expenses are going up why don't they raise the programming rates? What's the point of separating equipment and programming fees?

Why don't they just give away the programming for free and charge $60 for each equipment?


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

djones18 said:


> Is Cox trying to suppress the competition by price hiking the one item they control which every TIVO HD/Series 3 owner must have to receive cable?


No way! Don't you know there is competition from satellite!? There is no monopoly! S3 users can simply change the box to a satellite HD box!

How dare you even suggest that the cable company is acting unfairly, when they struggle to barely get by??

Yes, this was sarcasm, but I'm waiting for bicker to chime in with something similar.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

oldnacl said:


> Comcast pulled the same trick here in S FL on July 1. CCs went from $5.50/pair to $16.90 with the addition of a $6.95 "HD service charge" for each card. They got me. I returned the TiVo and rented their STB for $11.95. Aren't monopolies fun? And yes, I should complain to the FCC, the Feds, the guv but I don't have the time, and frankly, some days it just doesn't seem worthwhile to bark and chew on the chain link fence.


If everyone thought that, nothing would happen. 

Link to complain to the FCC is in my .sig. Everyone affected take 2 minutes out of your busy day and fill out the form. 

I'd be pissed if Comcast did that around here - it's a good thing FIOS is right around the corner.


----------



## yunlin12 (Mar 15, 2003)

I sent the following to [email protected]

To whom this may concern,

My name is XXXXXX. I am a resident at XXXXXXXXXX, San Jose,
California. I'm current subscribing to Camcast cable here, under their
digital plus plan. I have a Tivo Series 3 DVR, which requires 2 single
stream cable cards to receive digital cable signal.

In January this year (2007), Comcast introduced a new charge on the
bill specifically for the dual cable cards in Tivo S3, for $1.50 per
month, called "Dual C-card Dig access". In June, Comcast raised the
price again. The dual cable cards charge were raised to $1.79 per
month. In addition, Comcast also started charging $7 per month for
"High Definition TV". This charge used to be called "HDTV Equipment"
in Comcast's January 2007 pricing plan.

When I asked Comcast about this additional $7 charge per month,
initially they claimed that this charge was for HDTV equipment, as in
their January 07 pricing. When I stressed that the only equipment I
get from Comcast are the 2 cable cards, and they are needed for
digital TV, and should not be counted as HDTV equipment, Comcast
changed their explanation, and said that the charge is for HDTV
service, and not for equipment. I then requested to not receive
Comcast's HDTV cable channels, because I have the option to use over
the air antenna to receive local HDTV channels, and I was told that
this HDTV charge is tied together to the dual cable card charge, and
there is no way to remove it. I feel that this is unfair pricing by
Comcast. They are forcing me to pay for a charge that I should have
the right to not pay, for a service I do not need. I also feel that
Comcast is targeting cable card users specifically in this case.

I have called Comcast twice on this, both time being put on hold
numerous times while their customer representatives requested
clarifications from their managers, and was told the same thing each
time. Therefore I do not believe this is any accident on Comcast's
part, but rather a planned effort to price gauge cable card
subscribers.

Since I have invested in Tivo hardware which requires cable cards to
be fully functional, I have given up some of my rights as a consumer
to choose TV service providers, in the hope that my local cable
company (Comcast) would provide a fair service at a fair price, and I
must say I am very disappointed. Since there does not appear to be any
other viable cable competition to Comcast in my area, I'm writing to
you, hoping that FCC is aware of, and can put a stop to these unfair
pricing practices by Comcast towards cable card users.

Sincerely yours,

Name


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

On July 1, the cable companies were required to use cablecards for their STBs, so perhaps a shortage of supply has caused their cost to go up. Cox and Verizon may have an been granted an extension on the requirement.

Has anyone seen any cablecard-eqpipped STBs supplied by other major cable companies?


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

yunlin12 said:


> I sent the following to [email protected]
> 
> ...
> time. Therefore I do not believe this is any accident on Comcast's
> ...


So they are trying to see how much the market will bear?


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

vman41 said:


> On July 1, the cable companies were required to use cablecards for their STBs, so perhaps a shortage of supply has caused their cost to go up. Cox and Verizon may have an been granted an extension on the requirement.
> 
> Has anyone seen any cablecard-eqpipped STBs supplied by other major cable companies?


 Cox in several areas including mine is already deploying Moto DCH boxes with M-card as "separable security". I use quotes because they deploy the box with the M-card pre-configured and screwed into the back of the unit. So no waiver for them.


----------



## mike_camden (Dec 11, 2006)

moyekj said:


> Cox in several areas including mine is already deploying Moto DCH boxes with M-card as "separable security". I use quotes because they deploy the box with the M-card pre-configured and screwed into the back of the unit. So no waiver for them.


Same here with Comcast. The last cable card "expert" Comcast sent to me told me his only experience with cable ards was installing a couple of these new Moto boxes with cable cards installled. He said that the install for a tech is the exact same for these as the normal Moto box w/out cable card because all of the cable card work is done before Comcast Pittsburgh gets the box.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

yunlin12 said:


> I sent the following to [email protected]


In future rants with the FCC you may want to add that:

1) if you choose to use cable company equipment, you have the option of not paying for HDTV service/equipment
2) the cable company equipment, as of July 1st, also uses the same CableCARD that is required by your TiVo, yet those users have the option of not paying for HDTV service/equipment if they don't need it

This is clearly predatory pricing when using 3rd-party equipment because the same CableCARD, when installed in cable company equipment, has lower-priced billing options.


----------



## yunlin12 (Mar 15, 2003)

Thanks, I got a reply email from FCC with a case number, I'll add to that.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

yunlin12 said:


> Thanks, I got a reply email from FCC with a case number, I'll add to that.


That's actually pretty cool! Keep us updated if the FCC actually does anything.


----------



## djones18 (Jan 6, 2006)

As the OP of this thread, I intend to complain loudly to the Fairfax Government Council and file a complaint with the FCC. 

Called Cox customer service, talked to a manager, and he indicated the price increase was reasonable and attributable to the increasing costs associated with cablecards and programming. I asked why they just didn't raise the cost of programming at a higher rate and he indicated this would be unfair to customers. When I indicated the huge increase in cablecard costs was unfair to TIVO customers he indicated they made up a much smaller customer base for Cox and therefore fewer customers would be affected. I got an answer, an insufficient answer.

This is clearly predatory pricing and an attempt use their monopoly (as the single source) on cablecards to reduce consumer choice...making TIVO users pay a higher price for HD/DVR capability. Good point made above that all new cable boxes now must use cablecards so why aren't rental prices for these going up over 100%. 

I presume there is no ceiling on what the Cableco's can charge for cablecards and they will continue to price these upward forcing a hard choice for potential TIVO users.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

Wow, this stinks...

I purchased my cableCARDs outright from Service Electric so I pay only for programming. Hopefully they'll not find any way to stick it to me.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Raj said:


> Wow, this stinks...
> 
> I purchased my cableCARDs outright from Service Electric so I pay only for programming. Hopefully they'll not find any way to stick it to me.


I'm amazed you were allowed to do that. I thought that the cable companies controlled which cable cards could access their system specifically to avoid "hacked" cable cards from being introduced into their system.


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

Raj said:


> Wow, this stinks...
> 
> I purchased my cableCARDs outright from Service Electric so I pay only for programming. Hopefully they'll not find any way to stick it to me.


Oooooo - I hadn't even thought about this possibility. How much did you pay for your CableCards? It's very tempting to purchase my own Motorola cards, to avoid the problems that many are having with the SA cards that Time-Warner appears to be using.


----------



## TiVotion (Dec 6, 2002)

They should be ashamed. What a bunch of Cox.

(Come on, it took someone this long to say that?)


----------



## Rucker (Sep 21, 2006)

AJRitz said:


> Oooooo - I hadn't even thought about this possibility. How much did you pay for your CableCards? It's very tempting to purchase my own Motorola cards, to avoid the problems that many are having with the SA cards that Time-Warner appears to be using.


Service Electric is a small company (or set of companies?) that services parts of PA and NJ. Bit of trivia: the founder, John Walson is credited with starting the first cable tv system in 1948.

Being small, they may not be required to provide cable cards. I bet they charge $125+ each.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

vman41 said:


> So they are trying to see how much the market will bear?


Yep.

Or simply trying to recoup the extra load that Tivo users put on their technical support center. Those other posts have people who have had multiple truck rolls and/or multiple calls to tech. support. That can't be cheap to support. Rather than charging everybody else, why not charge the people who are actually causing the increased load?

Or maybe, as the cable cos. have said, the price of the box will increase since they now must have CableCards. So $2.50 of that increase is in the card itself and $0.60 is the cost to upgrade the box. Does anyone know if all the new boxes they lease will also contain this increased fee? They all have CableCards in them. If they don't, I'd complain about that -- that's unfair.

Or, as someone else has suggested, maybe demand has shot up and supply is limited. That should not be the case as the increase was anticipated. But since there are only two suppliers, it could be.

Or perhaps they are out to get those evil Tivo owners. I'm not sure why they would alienate their own customers -- maybe they are taking a page out of the RIAA's playbook.

Or maybe it's a combination of all of these things. I believe the cost of renting a CableCard is supposed to be "reasonable" according to the FCC. So ask the FCC if your price is reasonable.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

BobCamp1 said:


> Rather than charging everybody else, why not charge the people who are actually causing the increased load?


Uh... that would be themselves. THEY are the incompetent ones, THEY are the ones who refuse to just mail out cards or let cards be picked up for self-install.

And then they have the gall to charge extra for their own incompetence!

But they are NOT a monopoly, so I guess it's OK.


----------



## TerpBE (Jan 23, 2003)

yunlin12 said:


> I sent the following to [email protected]
> 
> To whom this may concern,


I had a similar pricing problem with Comcast, and I found an FCC paper that specified how much the companies were charging. I emailed the woman at the FCC who wrote it, and explained that Comcast was overcharging their customers.

I also happened to Cc: several Comcast VPs on the email. 56 minutes later I got a call from somebody at Comcast corporate who straightened everything out. 

For contact information on someone who can fix things if you're being overcharged, see THIS POST


----------



## StuffOfInterest (Jul 18, 2007)

djones18 said:


> *Quote from Cox:* "Due to the continuing dramatic rise of programming expenses, particularly sports programming, Cox will adjust a portion of rates associated with video and some equipment..."


Do you have a link for this announcement anywhere? Nothing is listed in their current pricing guide ( http://www.cox.com/fairfax/cable/rates.asp ). I'd like to cite it in a complaint to the FCC. I'm about ready to make a two point complaint. This first issue is over Cox not allowing self installs. They allow it for set-top boxes, so there is no reason they shouldn't allow it for cablecards. The second issue will be on this unfair pricing.

It is obvious that Cox (and other providers) are trying to scare people away from cablecards. With many new televisions coming with cablecard slots, there are a lot of people besides TiVo users being affected. An example for me is that I'd like to put a smallish (OK, 32" may not be that small) TV on the wall in my kitchen. The electrical and cable connections will be plumbed through the wall so no wires are exposed. Where the heck would I put Cox's cable box, in the refrigerator?

The FCC is going to have to clamp down on these companies or they will just come up with more excuses and methods to retard growth of a very logical technology.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

what exactly are the line items involved?

I'm fairly certain that the FCC warned cable NOT to charge over 2 dollars per card for the equipment rental. I dont belive they made a regulation but I seem to recall a threat that the FCC thought 2 bucks was reasonable and charging more would instigate an investigation and likely a regulation about pricing. So if they are indeed going to charge 4+ bucks for the card rental then I think the FCC will be all over them.

that said- the programming fees that get tacked ON to the cablecard rental fee are pretty much what the market will bear. So the total cost for the cablecard device can be much more than 2 dollars even with the actual rental limited to 2 bucks or less.

ALso there are the "additional outlet fees" which again I think are quasi regulated - as in they can't make a large profit off them but the expenses related to additional outlet can be widely interpreted (clearly 20 feed of rg6 and a 3 dollar splitter do not account for even a 2 dollar a month additonal outlet fee- so cable is including some other parts of their infrastructure there- and that's a whole 'nother argument....)


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

StuffOfInterest said:


> Do you have a link for this announcement anywhere?


http://www.cox.com/fairfax/rate_Oct_2007.asp


----------



## SugarBowl (Jan 5, 2007)

Everyone had to have seen this coming. And it will only get worse. We still have to rent a device from the cable company, so how is anything improved?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

dt_dc said:


> http://www.cox.com/fairfax/rate_Oct_2007.asp


dt_dc since you seem to be all knowing abotu CC's-

do you know the basis of the $2 ceiling that has exisited up till this point? I can't find it anyplace But I thought some time ago a read abotu the FCC threatening as above? AM I imagining reading that?


----------



## SugarBowl (Jan 5, 2007)

dt_dc said:


> http://www.cox.com/fairfax/rate_Oct_2007.asp


hehe.. they even give you that extra jab at the bottom in case you missed the line item.

I guess if this is an MCARD rate, and you can now only rent 1 card instead of 2, it's a wash.. But prices will go up again..


----------



## StuffOfInterest (Jul 18, 2007)

dt_dc said:


> http://www.cox.com/fairfax/rate_Oct_2007.asp


Thanks! That's just what I need. I'm surprised they didn't go ahead and price the cable card at more than a HD box just to dispell any doubt of their intentions.

I'd really encourage anyone else here in Fairfax County to write the FCC on this.


----------



## Droobiemus (Sep 30, 2004)

I really hate Cox. As soon as FIOS is available in my area, I'm switching.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

Something to keep in mind for those looking to the Fairfax County cable franchise authority or FCC (for pricing regulations / controls for Cox Fairfax) ...

Cox Fairfax petitioned for a finding of effecitve competition from the FCC. This was granted earlier this year (March):
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-944A1.pdf

This finding of effective competition revokes the authority of Fairfax County to regulate rates for Cox, and exempts Cox from most (if not all) FCC rate regulation (including tier buy-through prohibitions, uniform pricing regulations, etc _Edit: in Fairfax_).

This is not meant to _discourage_ people from complaining to the franchise authority (or FCC) ... it's just intended as informational (ie, don't be too surprised if the franchise authority tells you they can't regulate rates). BTW, I have also found Fairfax's cable regulatory board to be reasonably responsive and even pro-active ... once you get past that 'first level' complaint response.

In other news ... cable companies keep applying for rate relief / findings of effective competition from the FCC ... including Comcast's recent application(s) covering approx. 150 communities (largest batch of petitions I've seen to date):
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6466013.html
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/openAttachment.do?link=DOC-275763A1.pdf


----------



## StuffOfInterest (Jul 18, 2007)

Droobiemus said:


> I really hate Cox. As soon as FIOS is available in my area, I'm switching.


FIOS is in my area (my next door neighbor has it). I've avoided them to date because I'm really unhappy the way Verizon is going after Vonage. Still, cost has to rule. At the point of where I'm ready to put a new TV in the house (with cablecard enabled TiVo HD) I'm going to have to run the pricing head to head for both Cox and Verizon to see who comes out better.

You would think with real cometition that Cox would be paying more attention now. Guess they are slow to realize the market is changing.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

dt_dc said:


> BTW, I have also found Fairfax's cable regulatory board to be reasonably responsive and even pro-active ...


As an example, every year, the FCC requests comments on the status of MVPD competition. Included in Fairfax County's most recent reply ...


> http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/cable/...n NOI Comments 2006 (Without attachments).pdf
> 
> Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
> 
> ...


While Fairfax County may not be able to regulate Cox's rates ... they have advocated for "the Commission to more aggressively exercise its regulatory authority in regard to resolving issues relating to consumer equipment, navigation devices, CableCARDS, and technical standards".


----------



## wtkflhn (May 12, 2006)

vman41 said:


> On July 1, the cable companies were required to use cablecards for their STBs, so perhaps a shortage of supply has caused their cost to go up. Cox and Verizon may have an been granted an extension on the requirement.
> 
> Has anyone seen any cablecard-eqpipped STBs supplied by other major cable companies?


 When HD first came out in 2003. Cox required us to BUY the HD cable box. A Motorola 6312, I think. It is not a DVR, just a box that gets analog and digital ch's, and or course, HD. It has a slot on the front for a cable card of some type. But they have never used it. I do have to pay for "digital outlet" fee of $6.99.
But the programing is free. I don't have pay tv or the digital packages. But they do give me the basic and extended basic digital channels without charge. I have access to Music choice channels and VOD.

Don H.


----------



## FranX39J (Jan 14, 2005)

Service Electric is a small company (or set of companies?) that services parts of PA and NJ. Bit of trivia: the founder, John Walson] is credited with starting the first cable tv system in 1948.

Being small, they may not be required to provide cable cards. I bet they charge $125+ each.[/QUOTE]

As someone who is forced to endure the horrible service of Service Electric in eastern PA, I can assure you that they haven't updated their equipment since 1948!


----------



## humperdinck (Apr 19, 2005)

Cocks.


----------



## lombard (Dec 6, 2001)

AJRitz said:


> Oooooo - I hadn't even thought about this possibility. How much did you pay for your CableCards? It's very tempting to purchase my own Motorola cards, to avoid the problems that many are having with the SA cards that Time-Warner appears to be using.


A bit of a thread fart, perhaps, but no one else has addressed this. Buying any cable cards would be a waste of your money. T-W wouldn't authorize any cards not rented from them, and even if they did, moto cards wouldn't work for you since T-W seems to have S-A head works.

If it makes you feel any better, I'm now with my second cable company on my S3 that uses S-A cards. Never had a problem with them.


----------



## djones18 (Jan 6, 2006)

As the OP for this thread, I appreciate the messages which will help me navigate the maze of bureaucracy to complain to the right people. I'd request more specific details on exactly what agencies in Fairfax County and which part of the FCC I need to contact. 

I'd recommend all cablecard users who are being affected by this non-proportional price increase complain loudly.


Cheers.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

MickeS said:


> Uh... that would be themselves. THEY are the incompetent ones, THEY are the ones who refuse to just mail out cards or let cards be picked up for self-install.
> 
> And then they have the gall to charge extra for their own incompetence!
> 
> But they are NOT a monopoly, so I guess it's OK.


Well, it's a new technology. Remember when you had to unplug USB 1.0 speakers (and some mice) before you booted your PC? Any new technology, especially where interfacing between different companies is involved, is initally going to have hiccups. If the hiccups are turning out to be a bigger problem than you originally thought, shouldn't you be allowed to charge more for support?

And during this period of hiccups, are you going to let people who had problems setting the clocks on their VCRs install the new equipment? I agree with you that the techs. aren't much better -- they should have been trained. There are only a few CableCard devices out there. It wouldn't kill the cable company to buy one or two and get trained on them.

My point was that people said "the only reason they are increasing the rates is to squash Tivo". I came up with several other plausible reasons.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

djones18 said:


> As the OP for this thread, I appreciate the messages which will help me navigate the maze of bureaucracy to complain to the right people. I'd request more specific details on exactly what agencies in Fairfax County and which part of the FCC I need to contact.
> 
> I'd recommend all cablecard users who are being affected by this non-proportional price increase complain loudly.


The _first_ thing to do is to complain to Cox. This doesn't mean calling customer service ... getting some mumbled response about "well ... rates go up" and hanging up.

You want a written response. Jot down the names / dates / responses of anyone you talk to on the phone too. That'll come in handy too. But ... you want a _written_ response from Cox.

From the Fairfax County Code of Regulations:

http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/cable/regulation/ordinance/chapter9-1.pdf


> Fairfax County Code Chapter 9.1 (Communications)
> AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 9 OF THE FAIRFAX COUNTY CODE RELATING TO CABLE TELEVISION
> 
> Section 9.1-7-6. Customer service standards and consumer protection.
> ...





djones18 said:


> Called Cox customer service, talked to a manager, and he indicated the price increase was reasonable and attributable to the increasing costs associated with cablecards and programming. I asked why they just didn't raise the cost of programming at a higher rate and he indicated this would be unfair to customers. When I indicated the huge increase in cablecard costs was unfair to TIVO customers *he indicated they made up a much smaller customer base for Cox and therefore fewer customers would be affected*.


BTW, if you can get the above bolded section in writing from Cox ... seriously ... let me know.


----------



## Saxion (Sep 18, 2006)

Once again, a gold mine of useful information from dt_dc. You are one of the most valuable posters on this forum.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Saxion said:


> Once again, a gold mine of useful information from dt_dc. You are one of the most valuable posters on this forum.


ditto


----------



## djones18 (Jan 6, 2006)

dt_dc,

Great info...thanks. You've provided all the info I need to move beyond "ranting to customer service". 

Cheers.


----------



## dbtom (Feb 14, 2002)

My cable company (Cablevision) had the chutzpa to say that they were not raising rates despite increasing programing costs. Oh, yeah but they were raising rates on the mandatory cable box rental fee despite the box being exactly the same as it was yesterday.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

SugarBowl said:


> I guess if this is an MCARD rate, and you can now only rent 1 card instead of 2, it's a wash.. But prices will go up again..


Yes ... I would think this would come with M-Card support and the ability to rent a single card and pay for a single 'digital outlet' with an M-Card. But ... I wouldn't assume ... it sure would be nice to get that in writing too.

And even so, what happens to people who are _currently_ renting two S-Cards? Are they going to have to pay for a service call for someone to pop out their two S-Cards and pop in a new M-Card. "HD Tivo users - Your monthly rate will go up $5 per month unless you pay us $x for a service call"? Ouch!

Even if this is for M-Cards ... sure would be nice for existing users to have some sort of (reasonable) upgrade path (or some way to keep renting two S-Cards for the same price as they'd have to pay for an M-Card).


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

If it's legal in your state (and it is in most states), you can record the phone conversations you have with Cox without notifying them. http://www.rcfp.org/taping/

I used a recorded conversation I had with a TWC manager in small claims court once. It definitely helped in my victory.


----------



## djones18 (Jan 6, 2006)

According to documents provided by dt_dc in the thread above, Cox must give customers written notification within either 60 days, or no less than 30 days when the price increase is being cablecast (I assume on their local channel?). 

Cox Fairfax customers now are within the 60 day price increase window (1 October). I have seen nothing on their community service channel about a price increase, though I admit I'm not glued to this channel 24/7.

I have not received written notification. Has anyone using Cox in Fairfax County, Virginia, received written notification?

I ask because I intend to include this aspect of the price increase in my complaint unless I somehow missed the mailing or threw it out in all the spam snail mail I receive.

Thanks.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

someone posted this link to COMCAST in another thread:

http://www.comcast.com/Customers/FAQ/FaqDetails.ashx?Id=2651

says cablecards on comcast will be charged at 1.91 or less due to regulations. But that regulated fees aren't in effect everywhere.

So while I can't find the specific thing that says cablecards should cost less then 2 dollars I think that confirms it.

BUT it sounds like dt_dc's guess that they got declared to have competition means cox in that area can ignore any regs and so they can charge whatever they want to is spot on.


----------



## djones18 (Jan 6, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> someone posted this link to COMCAST in another thread:
> 
> http://www.comcast.com/Customers/FAQ/FaqDetails.ashx?Id=2651
> 
> ...


Cox, Fairfax, has successfully petitioned the FCC to be released from pricing constraints/controls which may be imposed by local government entities. They successfully argued that two competitors (Dish and Direct Satellite) exist in their local market.

The only constraint I could find on cablecard pricing is embodied in a larger rate setting context within the government documents provided by dt_dc.

To quote: "All charges to Subscribers shall be consistent with a schedule of rates and charges for all services offered by a Grantee"... (Cox Cable).

That's it...a very thin basis for restricting Cox from pricing cablecards at any level they think the market will accept.

Unless someone can find an FCC imposed restriction on cablecard pricing, I see no limit on how high standalone cablecard rental charges can go unless customers complain loud enough and in great enough numbers to get government regulators attention.


----------



## boywaja (Sep 30, 2001)

I got a reply from Cox Fairfax , "The customer can now choose from several equipment/hardware options, including a Cable Card, at virtually the same price." I guess they are ignoring the whole nominal fee for cable cards thing. The cost of a cable card shouldn't be equivalent to the cost of a box.

While it was nice havig four hd tuners for the fall tv season last year, I'm wondering if it isn't time to cut back my donation to our TV monopoly.


----------



## mwenn1 (Aug 15, 2007)

Wow I am getting 2 cards from COX here in Phoenix for $2 each per month hopefully they won't raise the rates for the rental on those here as well. They just raised there pricing earlier this year for programming anyway.


----------



## oldnacl (Mar 23, 2007)

GoHokies! said:


> If everyone thought that, nothing would happen.
> 
> Link to complain to the FCC is in my .sig. Everyone affected take 2 minutes out of your busy day and fill out the form.
> 
> I'd be pissed if Comcast did that around here - it's a good thing FIOS is right around the corner.


I'm a little late coming back to this, but since a Series 3 TiVo is no longer in my house, the thread isn't germaine. However, just to set the record straight, I complained to the FCC after getting nowhere with Comcast. It's not just the time involved with letter writing, it was the days I had to take off work in order for the inepts working for Comcast to come back several times to get things working. The whole package of inconvenience and frustration was what resulted in my returning the Tivo. I bought a Series 2 (no CCs) to utilize my remaining 3 year TiVo subscription.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

mwenn1 said:


> Wow I am getting 2 cards from COX here in Phoenix for $2 each per month hopefully they won't raise the rates for the rental on those here as well. They just raised there pricing earlier this year for programming anyway.


you should pay carefull attention-doesn't qwest provide tv there? Cox could probably argue they have effective competion from the telco in Phoenix...


----------



## djones18 (Jan 6, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> you should pay carefull attention-doesn't qwest provide tv there? Cox could probably argue they have effective competion from the telco in Phoenix...


Virtually any Cableco in the United States can effectively petition, as our Cableco has, to the FCC they have at least two local competitors and should be released from government price controls/constraints. Dish and Direct Satellite footprints cover virtually the entire continental United States and therefore provide the justification.

If you accept the logic above, Cablecos are then free to price their cablecards at the same price or higher than the rental cost of their HD/DVR. That's certainly apparent from the 1 October cablecard price increase ($1.99 to $4.50 each) in our area of Northern Virginia.

The Series 3 TIVO posed little competition, lets face it, due to its high cost. However, the lower cost TIVO HD does pose a potential threat to Cableco HD/DVR rentals, at least until Cableco's incorporate a TIVO type user interface (Comcast and Cox have announced such an interface). When that happens, and if cablecard rental prices continue to escalate, potential TIVO customers who also want Cable have some tough decisions ahead.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

djones18 said:


> If you accept the logic above, Cablecos are then free to price their cablecards at the same price or higher than the rental cost of their HD/DVR. That's certainly apparent from the 1 October cablecard price increase ($1.99 to $4.50 each) in our area of Northern Virginia.


IMO if they price the lone CableCARD above the cost of their HD-DVR they are only inviting trouble for themselves, because it would clearly indicate they are using predatory pricing to eliminate CableCARDs as a viable option. Their HD-DVR uses the same CableCARD because of the July 1st deadline and if they price the CableCARD higher than the HD-DVR, then that means they are renting the HD-DVR to you at a negative value.

This violates the whole reasoning for enforcing separable security and cannot be justified under any lobbying spin. If there is no existing regulation that can be used to change their behavior they are inviting introduction of new mechanisms (rules, regulations, legislation) to control their behavior.

On the other hand if they at least make a token effort to price the CableCARDs $1 below the HD-PVR they will probably avoid any troubles for themselves. Still not good for the consumer, but I think there is effectively an upper limit to what they can charge for a CableCARD.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> you should pay carefull attention-doesn't qwest provide tv there? Cox could probably argue they have effective competion from the telco in Phoenix...


Cox has already been granted (back in 2002) a determination of effective competition for much of the Phoenix area ... Chandler, Gilbert, Glendale, Paradise Valley, Peoria, Phoenix and Scottsdale ...

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2294A1.pdf

And yes, that was in large part due to 'competition' from Qwest.

It's possible for communities to file for re-certification ... for example, if Qwest were to stop offering service and no loger compete ... the communities could file a petition to get their authority to regulate rates. But otherwise ... rates have already been deregulated for (much) of the area for quite a while ...

Much of the area that wasn't covered in the 2002 determination of effective competition were then addressed earlier this year ...

In May 2007, the FCC found that in unincorporated Maricopa county (and several other AZ communities) Cox was subject to effective competition and revoked rate regulation:
http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2007/db0601/DA-07-2282A1.pdf


----------



## djones18 (Jan 6, 2006)

sfhub said:


> IMO if they price the lone CableCARD above the cost of their HD-DVR they are only inviting trouble for themselves, because it would clearly indicate they are using predatory pricing to eliminate CableCARDs as a viable option. Their HD-DVR uses the same CableCARD because of the July 1st deadline and if they price the CableCARD higher than the HD-DVR, then that means they are renting the HD-DVR to you at a negative value.
> 
> This violates the whole reasoning for enforcing separable security and cannot be justified under any lobbying spin. If there is no existing regulation that can be used to change their behavior they are inviting introduction of new mechanisms (rules, regulations, legislation) to control their behavior.
> 
> On the other hand if they at least make a token effort to price the CableCARDs $1 below the HD-PVR they will probably avoid any troubles for themselves. Still not good for the consumer, but I think there is effectively an upper limit to what they can charge for a CableCARD.


They might be inviting trouble. However, Cox's 1 October pricing here will put the cost of renting two cableCARDs + additional "Digital Gateway" fees for TIVO HD/Series 3 well above the cost of renting their HD-DVR.

So, here's the cost difference between renting an HD-DVR vs TIVO on 1 October:

Cox HD-DVR: $13.49
(DVR at $6.50 + 1 Digital Gateway Fee at $6.99)

TIVO HD or Series 3: $21.98
(2 x cableCARDS at $9.00 + 2 x "Digital Gateway" fees at $12.98)

Ouch! $8.49 more operate your TIVO HD/Series 3 on their Cable system. Why the huge difference?

Cox is charging two "Digital Gateway" fees for two cableCARDS in the TIVO but not for their own HD-DVR. Despite having cableCARDS in their new HD-DVRs, they are raising the rental price by only $.60.

Cox is likely to incorporate this price difference into their customer response protocol when potential TIVO customers call asking about rental HD-DVR vs TIVO HD. They are also likely to mention the cost of cableCARD installation vs rental HD-DVR self-installation.

Is this predatory pricing to reduce the impact of TIVO HD/Series 3 competition or simply sound marketing?


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

djones18 said:


> They might be inviting trouble. However, Cox's 1 October pricing here will put the cost of renting two cableCARDs + additional "Digital Gateway" fees for TIVO HD/Series 3 well above the cost of renting their HD-DVR.
> 
> So, here's the cost difference between renting an HD-DVR vs TIVO on 1 October:
> 
> ...


You need to compare apples to apples. A Cox CableCARD HD-DVR is using 1 CableCARD and TiVo HD is capable of using 1 CableCARD for both tuners. That means the comparison is:
Cox HD-DVR at $6.50 ($2 HD-DVD + $4.50 M-Stream CableCARD) + 1 Digital Gateway at $6.99

M-Stream CableCARD $4.50 + 1 Digital Gateway at $6.99

Cox can justify the higher cost for 2 CableCARDs by saying this is a design problem with TiVo S3 that it cannot use a single card. They could claim they would charge the same fees for their own DVR if it used 2 CableCARDs, but it doesn't.

So it sounds to me Cox is being smart and just at the edge of what they could charge for the CableCARDs without appearing to give away their own HD-DVR.

If they charged anything over $6.50 for the M-Stream CableCARD then IMO they are inviting trouble and/or scrutiny for themselves so that is the effective upper limit they can charge.

BTW what is included in the "Digital Gateway" fee? Is that purely a service fee? or if you pay that fee does it include an STB? If the latter, you could technically pay the Digital Gateway fee, get the included STB, pull the M-Stream CableCARD, stick it in your TiVo HD, and re-pair the CableCARD.


----------



## mkennedy96 (Dec 11, 2003)

Here is my read on this issue:

Prior to the ban on integrated security, my cable company charged $6.95 for a digital box. They charged $2.95 for cable card, raised to $3.95 on 1 Jan 07.

if I rented cable co equipment before the ban:
$6.95 per month

After the ban on integrated security, they SHOULD be renting the equipment for the same $6.95 per month PLUS charging for the CableCard which is REQUIRED in new boxes. (if they can justify an equipment cost reduction old vs. new), then an equivalent reduction in $6.95 would be appropriate.

If I rent now after the ban:
$6.95 but should be:

$6.95 plus $3.95.

I would suggest that everyone contact the FCC to require Cable companies to seperate the CableCard price from the equipment cost for their equipment. If their box has 2 CableCards, then they would have to pay the same dual outlet fee etc. This way, any price increase would affect all of their customers. This would be in keeping with the spirit of the integrated security ban.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

djones18 said:


> Cox HD-DVR: $13.49
> (DVR at $6.50 + 1 Digital Gateway Fee at $6.99)
> 
> TIVO HD or Series 3: $21.98
> ...


BTW, Cox Fairfax ALSO charges a 'DVR Service' fee ($9.99) in addition to the hardware.

http://www.cox.com/fairfax/digitalcable/dvrrates.asp
http://www.cox.com/fairfax/digitalcable/rates.asp

Also, I believe the previously $5.90 (to be $6.50) HD/DVR hardware rate is ONLY applicable if you are upgrading one of their 'bundles' which include a (non DVR) box and digital outlet. So it's $6.50 + $9.99 to upgrade from one of their boxes to one of their DVR.

If you're ordering and it's not part of a bundle ... ie, 'a-la-carte' DVR ... it costs $9.99 (hardware) + $9.99 (DVR Service) + $6.99 (digital gateway).


----------



## snathanb (Sep 13, 2006)

TiVotion said:


> They should be ashamed. What a bunch of Cox.
> 
> (Come on, it took someone this long to say that?)


I work for a very large telecom equipment manufacturer. Cox buys untold millions of dollars worth of fiber optic transmissions systems from us. In a typical week, we have been 8 and 16 Cox employees from around the country in our training center, being trained on how to turn up and manage the equipment they buy from us.

Trust me, we say it daily.

Oh... and you'd be ever so much more pissed if you saw how their employees are spending YOUR money when they are down here for training.... oh, and the same goes for those of you who have comcast, fios, brighthouse, att, time warner, etc... they all buy their transmission gear from us.


----------



## djones18 (Jan 6, 2006)

sfhub said:


> You need to compare apples to apples. A Cox CableCARD HD-DVR is using 1 CableCARD and TiVo HD is capable of using 1 CableCARD for both tuners. That means the comparison is:
> Cox HD-DVR at $6.50 ($2 HD-DVD + $4.50 M-Stream CableCARD) + 1 Digital Gateway at $6.99
> 
> M-Stream CableCARD $4.50 + 1 Digital Gateway at $6.99
> ...


Your post highlights to me the difficulty of precisely defining what you are paying before receiving your bill as a result of price increases (and changes) in equipment and services. Especially so if you have a mix of rental HD-DVRs and TIVO HD devices.

As OP, my intent is to compare Effects (as we say in the military): that is, what is the Effect of cableCARD price increases in Fairfax County, Virginia, of renting a 2-tuner HD-DVR versus owning a 2-tuner TIVO HD device...and by inference, is the cable company swaying customers away from TIVO with price increases for TIVO specific components?

You discuss M-Stream cableCARDS. However, I don't see your price breakdown in Cox Fairfax's price list. Are you indicating Cox's cableCARD pricing in our area reflects M-Stream cableCARDs? If so, this might lower the cost for TIVO HD owners. Are all Cox HD-DVRs, as of 1 July, using the M-Stream cableCARD?

Cox defines a their Digital Gateway fee as: "Digital Gateway (required for digital service) Includes Interactive Program Guide (IPG), access to On Demand, 46 Digital Music Choice Channels, plus access to digital pay-per-view, premium & digital service tiers.

This "Digital Gateway" fee is required to attain HD service for each outlet in your house. You also pay for rental of your STB/HD-DVR. Cox, here, currently defines a single cableCARD as an outlet so you pay twice if you have a TIVO HD or Series 3 using two cableCARDS. You don't pay twice for Cox's 2-tuner HD-DVR.


----------



## djones18 (Jan 6, 2006)

dt_dc said:


> BTW, Cox Fairfax ALSO charges a 'DVR Service' fee ($9.99) in addition to the hardware.
> 
> http://www.cox.com/fairfax/digitalcable/dvrrates.asp
> http://www.cox.com/fairfax/digitalcable/rates.asp
> ...


Whew, you're right about the additional $9.99 DVR Service Fee on top of their device rental fee. I also forgot to include TIVO's monthly charge for their service when figuring the overall impact of owning versus renting as of 1 October. Another poster has also thrown M-Stream cableCARDs into the discussion. It's back to the calculator! This is giving me headache.

Is it fair to say that having a TIVO HD/Series 3 connected to Cox cable will cost more in just over a month? And if you believe the price increase is predatory or excessive file a complaint?

Cheers.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

djones18 said:


> You discuss M-Stream cableCARDS. However, I don't see your price breakdown in Cox Fairfax's price list. Are you indicating Cox's cableCARD pricing in our area reflects M-Stream cableCARDs? If so, this might lower the cost for TIVO HD owners. Are all Cox HD-DVRs, as of 1 July, using the M-Stream cableCARD?


I do not know Cox Fairfax's pricing for an M-Stream CableCARD. I do know that my area charges the same for M-Stream and S-Stream CableCARDs. I've been told in my area all new CableCARDs they get in the warehouse are M-Stream CableCARDs. I have not yet heard of any cable company charging more for M-Stream CableCARDs.

I also do not know if in practice Cox Fairfax is deploying only CableCARD-equipped DVRs/STBs as of the July deadline. They are supposed to be doing this. My area is only deploing Motorola DCH units now, which are CableCARD units. They of course are deploying with M-Stream CableCARDs because otherwise it would cost them twice as much for the CableCARDs per box (for the 2-tuner DVRs), which would affect their bottom line, because they don't charge for their boxes based on how many CableCARDs they contain, they just charge for STB or DVR.


djones18 said:


> Cox defines a their Digital Gateway fee as: "Digital Gateway (required for digital service) Includes Interactive Program Guide (IPG), access to On Demand, 46 Digital Music Choice Channels, plus access to digital pay-per-view, premium & digital service tiers.
> 
> This "Digital Gateway" fee is required to attain HD service for each outlet in your house. You also pay for rental of your STB/HD-DVR. Cox, here, currently defines a single cableCARD as an outlet so you pay twice if you have a TIVO HD or Series 3 using two cableCARDS. You don't pay twice for Cox's 2-tuner HD-DVR.


So it sounds like your Digital Gateway fee is purely a service fee and the equipment fee is separate.

In my area we have something called a "Additional Digital Outlet Fee", which includes one equipment, whether that be an STB or CableCARD. It also bundles in the digital mirror fee for the service (which is your Digital Gateway Fee). This gives birth to our 2nd CableCARD for TiVo fee, which is the charge for a CableCARD if it is the 2nd one installed in the same TiVo (first being included in the "Additional Digital Outlet Fee"

Oh and we get one Digital Outlet included in our whichever service plan we have, so those ADO fees only start adding up for your 2nd TiVo S3 (assuming you have no other cable STBs)


----------



## dcollens (Mar 13, 2002)

I filed my complaint to the FCC a while ago on this issue and last week received a non response from them.

They sent a copy of one of their regulations that essentially said that they did not regulate anything but basic rates.

They didn't say so, but my impression of their response is that this is as far as they intend to go with the issue. - A non issue to the FCC.

I hope others have more luck.


----------



## djones18 (Jan 6, 2006)

dcollens said:


> I filed my complaint to the FCC a while ago on this issue and last week received a non response from them.
> 
> They sent a copy of one of their regulations that essentially said that they did not regulate anything but basic rates.
> 
> ...


Not sure if your complaint was aimed at cableCARDS, services, or other equipment pricing. Perhaps you could be more specific.

However, the implication is that cableCARD fees are unregulated and therefore not subject to constraints or controls. The upcoming huge price increase in Northern Virginia supports this.


----------



## mkennedy96 (Dec 11, 2003)

One no may not be there final answer. If we all complain, we have a better chance of regulation. The FCC has to look at this or what is the point of the integrated security ban. Since you have to get the cards from them and they can price them at any price, why not charge $100 per card per month. No one would ever own a competitive box and the cable companies win. I have filed the complaint below with the FCC. I encourage everyone paying more than $1.95 to file a complaint. They keep raising the prices, where will it stop without FCC intervention?


The Honorable Kevin J. Martin
Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street SW
Washington, DC 20554

Re: Brighthouse Networks Predatory Pricing


Dear Mr. Chairman:

I am writing to request an investigation and regulatory action regarding the predatory pricing activity of Brighthouse Networks in Tampa Florida.

As you know, Section 629 of the Communications Act, as added by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress directed the FCC to create rules that would allow consumers to obtain "navigation devices" -- meaning set top boxes, remote control units and other equipment -- from commercial sources other than their multichannel programming service provider. In 2007, these rules were adopted and most requests for additional waivers were denied.

It important to note, that CableCards were developed as a result of the actions of Congress, and the FCC and not by any desire of the cable industry to offer this product. In fact the cable industry has fought the integrated security ban implementation for eleven years. Unable to win the battle on the regulatory front, cable companies are now opting for predatory pricing as a back door in their CableCard war.

As I understand it, neither the Telecommunications Act of 1996 nor the subsequent FCC regulations require that CableCards be made available for purchase by consumers. Consumers are left in the same position they were in prior to the ban; they must rent equipment from their local cable company. There also appears to be no regulation regarding the pricing of the CableCard equipment.

While Section 629 did not direct the FCC to incent consumers to go out to buy set-top boxes, it should be inferred that a level playing field must be established.

Brighthouse Networks does not charge consumers that lease set-top boxes an additional fee to lease the CableCards needed to operate the security component of their boxes. Therefore, the fees that they set for the CableCards only affect consumers that choose to own their own set-top boxes. In the absence of regulation of their CableCard pricing, cable companies are free to set CableCard pricing that is anticompetitive and predatory in nature. It is my contention that Brighthouse Networks has done just that.

As a customer of Brighthouse Networks, I recently switched from using one of their HD DVRs to the use of a Tivo Series 3 DVR and CableCards and one of their Set-Top Boxes to another Tivo Series 3 and CableCards.

Brighthouse charges the following to lease their equipment:
CableCard: $3.95
Set-Top Box with a CableCard: $6.95
HD DVR with 2 Cable Cards: $6.95

If you break the product bundle of the cable companies and charge the $3.95 per CableCard equally to all equipment, the Set-Top Box lease rates for the Brighthouse equipment are:

Set Top Box with a CableCard: $6.95
Less 1 CableCard -$3.95
$3.00 for a Set-Top Box

HD DVR with 2 CableCards: $6.95
Less 2 CableCards -$7.90
-$0.95 for an HD DVR

In order to justify the CableCard pricing in the Set-Top box example above, their cost to purchase a CableCard would have to be 31% higher than their cost to purchase the Set-Top box. While I have been unable to secure actual costs, the data I have uncovered indicates that this is not the case.

In the HD DVR example, they are clearly pricing the DVR below cost in an attempt to disincent consumers from owning their own Set-Top Boxes (drive competition out of the market / prevent competition from entering the market).

Their actions are predatory. Predatory Pricing is defined as an anti-competitive measure employed by a dominant company to protect market share from new or existing competitors. Predatory pricing involves temporarily pricing a product low enough to end a competitive threat.

While both the Brighthouse HD DVR and the Tivo Series 3 have one cable connection and two tuners requiring two S-Card CableCards. The Brighthouse equipment is only charged one (1) Digital Additional Outlet fee of $0.95. The Tivo unit is charged for two (2) Digital Additional Outlet fees of $0.95. This further amplifies the predatory nature of their pricing.

I am requesting that the FCC establish rules regarding CableCard pricing to prevent predatory behavior. I request these rules also be applied in markets where pricing is no longer regulated as their pricing is circumventing the intent of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

A few possible remedies could be:

1. Force cable companies to charge all customers for CableCards and not allow them to bundle the cards into the Set-Top box pricing.
2. Regulate the lease rates of CableCards to keep them in the same relation to equipment cost as the Set-Top Boxes they lease to regular customers.
3. Require cable companies to bill connection charges for leased and customer owned equipment in the same manner to prevent additional outlet charges to customers with owned equipment that are not charged to customers with leased equipment.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,


Max Kennedy


cc: Robert Miron
Chairman and CEO
Brighthouse Networks
700 Carillon Pkwy, Ste. 1
St. Petersburg, FL 33716


----------



## dcollens (Mar 13, 2002)

djones18 said:


> Not sure if your complaint was aimed at cableCARDS, services, or other equipment pricing. Perhaps you could be more specific.
> 
> However, the implication is that cableCARD fees are unregulated and therefore not subject to constraints or controls. The upcoming huge price increase in Northern Virginia supports this.


My complaint to the FCC was regarding pricing that is being put into place at a rate that does not correspond to other rates that they are charging.

I also indicated in my complaint that this predatory increase was aimed solely at users of Tivo equipment.


----------



## djones18 (Jan 6, 2006)

You folks in Northern Virginia with Cox who are following this thread may want to know what I posted over on the Cox CableCARD thread:

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cox, Northern Virginia indicates M-Stream CableCARDs now available and provides pricing. Anyone using M-Stream CableCARD here yet?


"Dear Valued Cox Customer:

Thank you for contacting our Cox Northern Virginia Online Customer Care Team.

We already have the M-Stream cable cards available. It has to be installed by a technician and installation fee is $29.99. The rental charge for the card is $1.99 per month apart from the digital gateway price of $ 6.95 per month."

NOTE: Cox CableCARD prices in this area increasing 1 October to $4.50 per card but if you have a TIVO HD, this is somewhat more palatable than paying for two S-cards and two digital gateway fees.


----------



## Revolutionary (Dec 1, 2004)

djones18 said:


> You folks in Northern Virginia with Cox who are following this thread may want to know what I posted over on the Cox CableCARD thread:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Cox, Northern Virginia indicates M-Stream CableCARDs now available and provides pricing. Anyone using M-Stream CableCARD here yet?
> ...


What this means is that all of our griping is misplaced (I've already written emails to the FCC, Fairfax County, and Cox). We *should* be complaining to Tivo!

Tivo, please, please, please - for the Love of God please already! - activate the M-card slot on the Series3! Until you do, your customers will be getting screwed by their cable providers!


----------



## Revolutionary (Dec 1, 2004)

On another note, did anyone catch this headline at EngadgetHD (other than bdraw, obviously).

"Cox deploys SDV solution in Virginia, hopes to expand HD offerings"

So now we are not only paying more for our cable cards, but we are (potentially) getting fewer channels!

Edit: slightly more information in this thread (54 channels, not identified).


----------



## angel35 (Nov 5, 2004)

moyekj said:


> Cox in several areas including mine is already deploying Moto DCH boxes with M-card as "separable security". I use quotes because they deploy the box with the M-card pre-configured and screwed into the back of the unit. So no waiver for them.


Same here in Time Warner NYC :down: SA box 8300HDC


----------



## Revolutionary (Dec 1, 2004)

Good news. I got a response to my complaint to Cox. The CSR informed me that Cox has, since noticing the CableCard increase, "reconsidered" the increase and is leaving the rental rate alone at $1.99.


----------



## boywaja (Sep 30, 2001)

Revolutionary said:


> Good news. I got a response to my complaint to Cox. The CSR informed me that Cox has, since noticing the CableCard increase, "reconsidered" the increase and is leaving the rental rate alone at $1.99.


thanks, I hadn't seen that yet.

I just went over to http://www.cox.com/fairfax/rate_Oct_2007.asp to verify and there is no longer a cable card price hide listed. 
:up:


----------



## Revolutionary (Dec 1, 2004)

boywaja said:


> thanks, I hadn't seen that yet.
> 
> I just went over to http://www.cox.com/fairfax/rate_Oct_2007.asp to verify and there is no longer a cable card price hide listed.
> :up:


Methinks they changed that this afternoon. It was still listed as of this morning.

I think they must have received a lot of backlash about it, so they quietly abandoned it. Long live TCF!


----------



## precarious (Feb 21, 2007)

boywaja said:


> thanks, I hadn't seen that yet.
> 
> I just went over to http://www.cox.com/fairfax/rate_Oct_2007.asp to verify and there is no longer a cable card price hike listed.
> :up:


A customer service supervisor confirmed for me today that it was definitely due to the numerous complaints that Cox Fairfax received from subscribers in the past month that made Cox just in the last two days rescind the price increase on cablecards. Hooray for the people!


----------



## boywaja (Sep 30, 2001)

over at broadband reports coxengr is trying to say it was all a mistake. They were never raising prices on cable cards.

Yeah right.


----------

