BHN cfl raising prices

[jcarrera]

Just got a bill.
Has an insert page.
Page says they are raising both price of a converter box and price of "Combo".

I have 3 converters, so I will get 6.16 per month increase.
Oh, plus taxes on top of that too.

Thank you, BHN. Guess $140.87 just wasn't enough for you huh?
Now, I am asking myself: do I get $140.87 + 6.16 worth of enjoyment out of this? Answer: NO!
Wait, I do use the internet a lot, so let's take $50 out of it for that.
Now, I am asking myself: do I get $90.87 + 6.16 worth of enjoyment out of this? Answer: NO!

Tell you what. I'll trade you about 100 channels of c*** for no increase. Deal?

If no deal, there's gonna be a lot of thinking going on about an antenna. One month's no-bill from you will pay for a dang good antenna. And there's streaming too. And there's radio. And there's reading.

Watch out Brighthouse. Some houses are about to go dim. Ball's in your court. Have you miscalculated this time as to how much you can squeeze? We will see, won't we?

 

[The Insider]

Every single provider is raising rates. and i agree they are getting out of hand. The biggest burden is from the content providers though. Over 40% of your bill goes directly to the channel providers. That leaves a small portion for over head and profit. The sat companies have typically remained a bit cheaper then cable but the overhead costs are more fixed and a bit less.

There are ways to get your bill cheaper as with ANY company. Call to cancel and if you have to really cancel. They will give you the deal of the lifetime to stay, then 1-2 years later depending on length rinse and repeat.

 

[Islandguy43]

Every single provider is raising rates. and i agree they are getting out of hand. The biggest burden is from the content providers though. Over 40% of your bill goes directly to the channel providers. That leaves a small portion for over head and profit. The sat companies have typically remained a bit cheaper then cable but the overhead costs are more fixed and a bit less.

There are ways to get your bill cheaper as with ANY company. Call to cancel and if you have to really cancel. They will give you the deal of the lifetime to stay, then 1-2 years later depending on length rinse and repeat.

I don't necessarily buy that it is the huge increased content costs for the providers. It seems more like Corporate Greed to me. For years they havebeen rebroadcasting channels, charging subscribers for the service to receive them, and then the Satellite/Cable Co. inserts their own commercials that they sell for additional revenue. Are they justly raising their advertising rates the same percentage too?

 

[feb1003]

I live in california , i have brighthouse, i recive increase notice also, its time to turn them off, im paying over $120.00 a month, i watch a total of about 20 chs, i want nfl ch and red zone, they dont offer it, good by cable hello internet, $8.00 for netflix looks good

 

[The Insider]

I don't necessarily buy that it is the huge increased content costs for the providers. It seems more like Corporate Greed to me. For years they havebeen rebroadcasting channels, charging subscribers for the service to receive them, and then the Satellite/Cable Co. inserts their own commercials that they sell for additional revenue. Are they justly raising their advertising rates the same percentage too?

How do you not buy that its increased content cost? Have you not been paying attention to all the content providers raising rates? Including channels that were "Free" before now costing money? The companies have to recover that money some where. Not to mention the fact everything is going up. From the cost of raw material, to cost of labor to fuel.

The cable companies also insert ads because they buy the space from the channel. They enter into agreements to give them certain time slots etc.

 

[Islandguy43]

How do you not buy that its increased content cost? Have you not been paying attention to all the content providers raising rates? Including channels that were "Free" before now costing money? The companies have to recover that money some where. Not to mention the fact everything is going up. From the cost of raw material, to cost of labor to fuel.

The cable companies also insert ads because they buy the space from the channel. They enter into agreements to give them certain time slots etc.

Sounds like you work for a Cable Company. BTW since when do they buy space in order to promote their own cable company constantly to me. I.E. Time Warner constantly bragging on their "space" to promote their triple plays and their own news channel that is not available on FIOS or Satellite. Seems to me they should use their advertising potential subs rather than currently subs.

 

[The Insider]

Sounds like you work for a Cable Company. BTW since when do they buy space in order to promote their own cable company constantly to me. I.E. Time Warner constantly bragging on their "space" to promote their triple plays and their own news channel that is not available on FIOS or Satellite. Seems to me they should use their advertising potential subs rather than currently subs.

I do, but that does not mean anything I said was not fact. I certainly have bashed the company when they are wrong and defended them when they are right.

 

[Islandguy43]

I do, but that does not mean anything I said was not fact. I certainly have bashed the company when they are wrong and defended them when they are right.

Oh...you work for a Cable Company; so that should make your views neutral and unbiased, because the Cable Company does not provide you with free or extremely discounted services?:rant:

 

[The Insider]

Oh...you work for a Cable Company; so that should make your views neutral and unbiased, because the Cable Company does not provide you with free or extremely discounted services?:rant:

I get everything free except RR Lightning adn the bastards make me pay 10 bucks a month for it. What a rip..

But what does any of this have to do with there being nothing but fact in the post I made. Instead of trying to discredit me, why not try to prove something I wrote as being inaccurate?

 

[Islandguy43]

I get everything free except RR Lightning adn the bastards make me pay 10 bucks a month for it. What a rip..

But what does any of this have to do with there being nothing but fact in the post I made. Instead of trying to discredit me, why not try to prove something I wrote as being inaccurate?

I just find it hard to believe, that you can be an objective neutral critic of a company whom you make your living from. On top of that fact; you receive basically the same service for free, which us actual subscribers have to pay for. I fee your pain for having to pay $10.00 a month for a premium internet service, which would cost me individually $65 a month. So you won't receive any sympathy from me, that your Company has outrageous increasing programing costs. After all they are passing the savings from not carrying the NFL Network or Mark Cuban's HD Networks onto the consumers aren't they?

 

[jcarrera]

... Instead of trying to discredit me, why not try to prove something I wrote as being inaccurate?

There are facts (such as," BHN raised the prices") and there are opinions (such as "they had to because content costs went up").

For the latter, it is no doubt true that costs went up. However, it is opinion about whether price to us had to go up (probably) and more importantly, by how much. The latter is totally opinion and cannot be proven right or wrong. It is a judgement call.

Thus, your challenge to be proved wrong is ridiculous, when the matter causing upset is an opinion or a judgement call, rather than a fact.

AS an aside, key your ear to guests on many shows who say, "the fact of the matter is..." and proceed to express an OPINION.

 

[The Insider]

I just find it hard to believe, that you can be an objective neutral critic of a company whom you make your living from. On top of that fact; you receive basically the same service for free, which us actual subscribers have to pay for. I fee your pain for having to pay $10.00 a month for a premium internet service, which would cost me individually $65 a month. So you won't receive any sympathy from me, that your Company has outrageous increasing programing costs. After all they are passing the savings from not carrying the NFL Network or Mark Cuban's HD Networks onto the consumers aren't they?

Objective is all relative.

Our companies programming costs are increasing outrageously, so is everyone elses across the industry. Which is why your cable bill keeps going up and up. As programming costs increase so to does your price. Not to mention other costs of running said company.

And BHN is not saying anything by not carrying NFL Network. If they were to add it they wouldnt eat the cost, you would. As they would simply pass on the cost to you and add yet another price increase. BHN is no different then any other MSP. They usually only raise rates once per year. Instead of each time they add things. For instance BHN added nearly 50 new HD channels, upgraded the entire network to support wideband etc etc incurring millions in capital expense and yet they did not raise rates until the end of the year. As new channels are added and old channels increase in cost, of course the difference is passed on to you the consumer. Its a business not a charity.

 

[The Insider]

There are facts (such as," BHN raised the prices") and there are opinions (such as "they had to because content costs went up").

For the latter, it is no doubt true that costs went up. However, it is opinion about whether price to us had to go up (probably) and more importantly, by how much. The latter is totally opinion and cannot be proven right or wrong. It is a judgement call.

Thus, your challenge to be proved wrong is ridiculous, when the matter causing upset is an opinion or a judgement call, rather than a fact.

AS an aside, key your ear to guests on many shows who say, "the fact of the matter is..." and proceed to express an OPINION.

How is it not a fact? You run a business dont you? When your cost goes up you dont just eat it, you pass it on. The guy who does my yard increased my rates to because of gas prices. It was expected. The cost of food is going up because of gas prices etc. FACT is as programming costs increase BHN is forced to rasie rates to cover those increases. That is a undeniable fact. They will not nor will any company simply eat the cost. They would be bankrupt.

So no it is not opinion that costs had to go up. it is complete fact. As costs to do business go up, price of product MUST go up in order to remain profitable. It is not a judgement call, its smart business. When the price of beef goes up your hamburger cant stay 1$ forever. You will go out of business. Which is why the dollar menus are going the way of the dinosaur in many chains.

The price of programming and plant operation are going up so to must the price the consumer pays. Do you understand the huge capital expenses in operating a business like this? I drive around with over 200k$ worth of stuff (including the truck) and just in my little office there are about 15 of us. (and we are a small department) Not to mention I spend about 90$ every two days in fuel (fill up at least 2 to 3 times a week) So your monthly bill does not even cover my fuel for a week. And as gas prices continue to rise so to will your cost of service go up.

 

[jcarrera]

If BHN costs went up $10M and they raised prices to collect $15M, how do you contend that is not a judgement call? Where does fact enter into that call? The fact part is ONLY that costs went up. Everything past that fact is judgement and opinion...a BHN employee has to say, it is my opinion we should raise prices by $ ____ . That is NOT a fact. It is a judgment call based on OPINION about what has to be done.

You can assert that it is a FACT that prices HAVE TO BE raised. Wrong. A company might be making enough that they choose to NOT raise prices to customers when their costs rise. A company might CHOOSE to lose money on part of their business, or for a short term, for any number of reasons. No doubt, there is a point when they cannot continue to do that. But it absolutely is not a given, much less a fact, that any cost increase MUST immediately translate into a price increase to customers. Sorry. You cannot convince me of that. It is not a fact. It is a judgement by the business. It may be a smart thing to do, but it is not a fact. Something you CHOOSE to do is not a fact until after you have done it; then it is a fact that you did it. Something you feel has to be done does not make it a fact.

 

[Islandguy43]

Objective is all relative.

Our companies programming costs are increasing outrageously, so is everyone elses across the industry. Which is why your cable bill keeps going up and up. As programming costs increase so to does your price. Not to mention other costs of running said company.



And BHN is not saying anything by not carrying NFL Network. If they were to add it they wouldnt eat the cost, you would. As they would simply pass on the cost to you and add yet another price increase. BHN is no different then any other MSP. They usually only raise rates once per year. Instead of each time they add things. For instance BHN added nearly 50 new HD channels, upgraded the entire network to support wideband etc etc incurring millions in capital expense and yet they did not raise rates until the end of the year. As new channels are added and old channels increase in cost, of course the difference is passed on to you the consumer. Its a business not a charity.

BHN and TWC had to improve their systems to be remain competitive with the DBS Companies and the TELCOs, and don't forget that all the providers made a killing with FCC required Digital Transition, through cable setbox revenue. Which of providers have had losses in the last two years?

 

[iceturkee]

Objective is all relative.

Our companies programming costs are increasing outrageously, so is everyone elses across the industry. Which is why your cable bill keeps going up and up. As programming costs increase so to does your price. Not to mention other costs of running said company.

And BHN is not saying anything by not carrying NFL Network. If they were to add it they wouldnt eat the cost, you would. As they would simply pass on the cost to you and add yet another price increase. BHN is no different then any other MSP. They usually only raise rates once per year. Instead of each time they add things. For instance BHN added nearly 50 new HD channels, upgraded the entire network to support wideband etc etc incurring millions in capital expense and yet they did not raise rates until the end of the year. As new channels are added and old channels increase in cost, of course the difference is passed on to you the consumer. Its a business not a charity.

i still find it hard to believe that bhn, time warner and, maybe, one small cable co are the only ones who don't have nfl network. imho, it sort of defeats the argument bhn and time warner have given for years. either that or all of the other cable companies don't mind eating the extra cost because they know it has and will continue to bring them viewers.

 

[The Insider]

BHN and TWC had to improve their systems to be remain competitive with the DBS Companies and the TELCOs, and don't forget that all the providers made a killing with FCC required Digital Transition, through cable setbox revenue. Which of providers have had losses in the last two years?

Huh? How did all the providers make a killing with FCC digital transition? You do realize that transition did not apply to the cable companies, sat companies etc and only to over the air broadcasters right? BHN still provides over 60 analog channels. If anything BHN and the cable companies have lost money because of the FCCs rulings like there annoying "seperable security" requirement, and the whole cable card fiasco.

And yes BHN and others upgraded their network to remain competitive, but that does not take away the fact an upgraded network costs more money.

 

[The Insider]

i still find it hard to believe that bhn, time warner and, maybe, one small cable co are the only ones who don't have nfl network. imho, it sort of defeats the argument bhn and time warner have given for years. either that or all of the other cable companies don't mind eating the extra cost because they know it has and will continue to bring them viewers.

There excuse is money. On both sides. Who is right or wrong depends on how bad you want the channel or dont want the channel. Me I could care less so I am on TWC/BHN side as I do not care about the NFL. But I also understand the argument as I feel the same way about channels we do offer. Like paying almost 4$ a month for ESPN.. I enjoy the programming but if i certainly wouldnt pay that much for a channel with as many commercials as ESPN has.

And iceturke the other cable companies are not eating any cost for adding NFL network, they simply charge more to the customers to cover it. BHN pays 0 for the content they offer, you the customer pay for it.

 

[The Insider]

If BHN costs went up $10M and they raised prices to collect $15M, how do you contend that is not a judgement call?

Where does fact enter into that call? The fact part is ONLY that costs went up. Everything past that fact is judgement and opinion...a BHN employee has to say, it is my opinion we should raise prices by $ ____ . That is NOT a fact. It is a judgment call based on OPINION about what has to be done.

I never disputed the amount. Only that rates had to rise. How much of course is a call based on many factors and is up for debate. Whats not up for a debate and is a fact is as costs go up BHN MUST recoup the losses by raising rates (or cutting the services, but since we already know services were not cut but rather more added the fact comes rates have to be adjusted). Or they would be out of business quick.

You can assert that it is a FACT that prices HAVE TO BE raised. Wrong. A company might be making enough that they choose to NOT raise prices to customers when their costs rise. A company might CHOOSE to lose money on part of their business, or for a short term, for any number of reasons. No doubt, there is a point when they cannot continue to do that. But it absolutely is not a given, much less a fact, that any cost increase MUST immediately translate into a price increase to customers. Sorry. You cannot convince me of that. It is not a fact. It is a judgement by the business. It may be a smart thing to do, but it is not a fact. Something you CHOOSE to do is not a fact until after you have done it; then it is a fact that you did it. Something you feel has to be done does not make it a fact

They do eat the cost increases throughout the year and only increase rates once a year. They do not increase rates each time there costs go up but rather on a annual basis. So we know costs went up, so we know the fact is rates will follow.

 

[Steve Mehs]

i still find it hard to believe that bhn, time warner and, maybe, one small cable co are the only ones who don't have nfl network. imho, it sort of defeats the argument bhn and time warner have given for years. either that or all of the other cable companies don't mind eating the extra cost because they know it has and will continue to bring them viewers.

Time Warner Cable, Brighthouse, Cablevision, Mediacom, Charter and overbuilder WOW are the major cable companies that don’t offer the NFL Network. Comcast had a lot of issues with them but has carried NFL Net for a while now. None of these cable companies have lost a significant amount of subscribers by not carrying the NFL Network. Sure some have left, but not enough to have a negative impact. These are businesses, not charity operations, and despite what many people think, these companies have some very intelligent people working for them and when it is all said and done, it’s not hurting them too bad by choosing not to carry the NFL Network. So there is no reason for them to offer it.

I love NFL, I love sports, but in all honesty, the NFL Network is a stinker. I watched it when I had DirecTV, my uncle has Dish Network, I see it at his house, the network is lame. IMO, ESPN does a better job with highlights and analyses. And while I love watching NFL RedZone on my phone, it just shows how greedy the NFL actually is. There is no reason for Red Zone to be a separate service at an additional cost, it could just be a programming block on NFL Network as during Sunday afternoons NFL Network is basically just a scoreboard channel.

I for one hope the NFL Network is NEVER EVER EVER added to TWC/BHN! As usual TWC/BHN are doing good, more power to them!