Time Warner Cable mailing out 2010 rate increases

Submitted by Mark on October 26, 2009

It's almost November, and to Time Warner Cable customers that means seeing the new year's rate card -- and a number of rate increases -- coming in their mailed statements.

The new rates take effect in November.

This year, Time Warner Cable changed their lineup and with it the names of their digital programming packages. Digital Variety takes the place of what was known as Digital Basic, and Digital Choice replaces Digital Standard.

Basic service, non-digital channels comprised of local broadcast stations, rose 9.5% from 2009's level, while standard analog service rose 9.8%. Other notable increases include DVR service raising to $9.95 per month, Road Runner Lite increasing more than $10 per month, and the Nuestra Tele package increasing 11%.

The Digital Movie package stayed unchanged from last year's level, though RetroPlex and Sundance channels were added to the package.

Service	2009 Rates	2010 Rates	% Change
Basic (analog; locals only)	$24.85	$27.21*	+9.5%
Basic / Standard (analog)	$55.99	$61.49	+9.8%
Digital Variety (formerly Digital Basic)	$60.50	$64.99	+7.4%
Digital Choice (formerly Digital Standard)	$66.50	$69.99	+5.2%
Digital Variety (Plus 2 Premiums)	n/a	$84.99	xxx
Digital Choice (Plus 2 Premiums)	$86.50	$89.99	+4%
Digital Variety (Plus 4 Premiums)	n/a	$94.99	xxx
Digital Choice (Plus 4 Premiums)	$97.50	$99.99	+2.5%
Watch & Surf Package (Basic/Standard TV / 7 Mbps Road Runner)	$96.51	$102.99	+6.71%
Nuestra Tele (Basic service, 23 Spanish channels, 46 Music Channels)	$17.95	$19.95	+11.1%
Digital Movie Package (formerly Digital Movie Lovers Tier) (Encore, IFC, Fox Movie Channel, RetroPlex, Sundance)	$5.95	$5.95	--
DVR Service	$8.95	$9.95	+11.1%
Cable Card	$3.40	$3.40	--
EarthLink Internet Service	$46.95	$49.99	+6.5%
Road Runner 768Kbps	$19.95	$29.99	+50.3%
Road Runner 7 Mbps	$46.95	$49.99	+6.5%
Channel Guide Magazine	$4.05	$4.05	--
Hourly Service Charge	$50.00	$50.00	--

Time Warner Cable

Submitted by Aaron on October 26, 2009. #

Wasn't there just a monster

Wasn't there just a monster price increase last year? It's a good thing I have a 2 year price lock.... for now.

Honestly, they haven’t added anything worth while in 2009 to justify this. They've actually taken quality channels away (MLB HD, ESPN News HD)

This increase averages out to a 10.8% increase across the board. Kind of a lot of you ask me, but hey, people are going to pay it.

Submitted by Mark on October 26, 2009. #

I agree with you across the

I agree with you across the board. Too bad there's not much of an alternative I could switch to... at the very least not one that's really much cheaper.

Submitted by Steve on October 27, 2009. #

My promotional deal with TWC

My promotional deal with TWC ran out, so my cost per month was going to increase to $115 (Basic + Standard Cable, 2 HD DVRs, 1 HD Box, Internet). I did some number crunching and for $113 I could get U-Verse (U200 - with NFL Network, 3 boxes, Total Home DVR, Internet). I placed my order last week and will be installed on Saturday. I have wanted U-Verse since it first came out in other markets around the country, and now it makes sense. With these increases, it looks like I made the move at the right time because my TWC bill would have increased to $130 a month, which is a little less than double the promo rate they had me at.

Submitted by Mark on October 27, 2009. #

I really wish I could move

I really wish I could move to AT&T U-Verse but there are a couple things that keep me from doing it.

Firstly, I think it's ridiculous that they limit you to one DVR per household and you cannot expand the storage space via USB or eSATA external drives. The one-terrabyte eSATA drive I use with my Time Warner box is a lifesaver sometimes, though I like having the ability to get additional DVRs, including TiVos I purchase myself, if I want.

I also really wish they would bring the lease fee per extra receiver down, or give some sort of tiered pricing if you get additional boxes. In my house now, I have a living room TV, a bedroom TV and an office TV in active use now, but I will be getting a flat-screen next spring that will be in my basement family room. Four boxes means an additional $21 per month, which is ridiculous when I can split my cable off to as many rooms as I want without needing receivers (also a point against satellite).

Also not particularly crazy about the limited number of program streams available to the household. Hate the idea that if my wife is watching TV upstairs and I have shows recording on the DVR, I could possibly not have the ability to watch ANY TV downstairs. For someone who watches a lot of HD shows, that's a huge problem for me, not to mention the HD access fee. Though I like AT&T's HD lineup better, the skinny pipe for video into the home is a major issue.

I absolutely love AT&T's platform and technology much better, but in my situation I find it much more costly and restrictive.

Submitted by Steve on October 28, 2009. #

For me... I never fill my

For me...

I never fill my DVR the way it is, so the expansion has never been an issue.

We have two TV's (of our five) that do not have boxes. We decided that we never watch these TV's so we are eliminating them from the house. The other three are HD (two with DVR) and have boxes that we pay for anyways. With TWC we would end up paying $20 for DVR and something like $6 per box, or $38 total. With U-Verse it will be $10 for HD, $14 for the extra boxes, or $24 total.

I think we get four streams at a time with U-Verse (two HD, two standard. The most we have ever tried to DVR at once is three programs, which is why we added the 2nd DVR with TWC. I don't like the fact that, if we record three shows, one of the three will not be in HD, but can live with that. I love the fact that I can watch a recording on any TV. I would rather have that option than have to sit in front of the TV it was recorded on. We have (mostly) total home DVR with TWC now because we set the same recordings on each DVR and then watch where we want.

So for my family it fits our needs, but I can definitely see issues for someone like yourself based on what you have described.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on October 29, 2009. #

I work for U-verse, and you

I work for U-verse, and you can add HBO/Cinemax free for 3 months and/or upgrade to the next level (U200 to U300 or U300 to U450) free for a month. The U300 otherwise is $15 more than U200 but includes all the premiums (showtime, encore, starz, tmc, flix) except HBO/Cinemax (which you'd be getting for free for 3 mo anyways). Something you may want to look into.

Submitted by depereguy on October 30, 2009. #

Do you know if the Uverse

Do you know if the Uverse coverage area expanded at all this last year in De Pere/Green Bay? I noticed last year that a few streets over from where I live is in a coverage area. I was hoping they would have expanded that this year, but they didn't.

Submitted by Aaron on October 27, 2009. #

I've gotta agree with every

I've gotta agree with every point you make Mark. I'd love uVerse for the channel lineup, user interface, and also the total home DVR. But for a house with 5 tv connections, the receiver fee just gets out of hand, as does the limited ability to watch every TV at once. The $10 HD fee sucks too.

I'll be sticking with TWC and negotiating with them every two years. I just got them to give me an extra HD-DVR box for only the price of the DVR service, no charge for the box itself. It pays to call and talk to them!

Submitted by Steve on October 28, 2009. #

I have called and

I have called and renegotiated every time my promo runs out. I tried again and they must have a note on my account not to negotiate because the could not do anything for me no matter how hard I tried.

Submitted by Andy on October 28, 2009. #

Does anyone remember the

Does anyone remember the "Video Competition Bill" that became law a couple of years ago? It doesn't seem to have brought prices down at all, and U-Verse is still only available in limited areas.

There is currently a "Cable Consumer Repair Bill" circulating in the state legislature. Hopefully this will clean up some of the problems created by the previous bill. See info about it at: http://www.wapconline.com/documents/HeblCoSponsor.html and tell your state representative to support it.

Submitted by Aaron on October 29, 2009. #

It almost seems like the

It almost seems like the video competition bill is having a reverse effect. With UVerse and satellite companies nickel and dimeing everyone for every aspect of their service, it only gives TWC a reason to do it as well. It's as if all the telcos are in agreement to charge as much as the consumer can afford (then add 10%).

Could you imagine if UVerse came in with a substantially lower price than TWC? It would be game over for TWC.

Submitted by Mark on October 29, 2009. #

Totally agree. If U-Verse

Totally agree. If U-Verse would lower their per-receiver lease fee, drop the HD technology fee and open up their DVR to additional storage, I'd be on board in a heartbeat (even despite the 4-stream limitation... maybe....)

Submitted by forst on October 30, 2009. #

I'd bet that they would

I'd bet that they would suddenly find ways to become quite competitive.
You're talking about a BIG competitor. I don't picture TWC sitting back and not putting up a good fight for the business. I'd like to think that they would prefer to have increasing new business and buy some loyalty from their existing customer base, even if it meant having to do some creative competition.

We can only hope.

Submitted by Willscary on October 31, 2009. #

For those of you in outlying

For those of you in outlying areas who rent, I can understand where you are stuck with cable or satellite. For those of you who have to have all of the sports networks or premium movie channels, I can also understand why you subscribe to a pay service.

Again...for 22 years I was a loyal Charter Cable subscriber. I also always got the "introductory" rate. Then, one day, like the poster above, They raised my cable + internet rate from $99/ month to $145/ month. After a short phone battle, I dropped the TV service (and kept the internet). They made a clerical mistake by charging me $400 (via direct withdrawal) for a cable box that I had returned and when I produced the return receipt, I was rewarded with an apology, my $400 back and $14/ month internet for nearly 2 years.

Nearly immediately, I began receiving "We want you back" mailings. I had gone OTA with an antenna. I spent big money on solid infrastructure and I now get (for free) service that is much better and more reliable than basic cable. I receive all of the Green Bay stations in HD plus their standard definition sub channels. I also receive all of the Wausau stations in the same manner. Finally, I receive 62 FM stations with most of them in perfect hiss free stereo and a few of them in Hybrid Digital.

Considering the cost of basic local only cable, my savings by not having the service will have paid for my tower and equipment by the middle of 2011. I can tell you that my picture and sound quality is better than cable and is much more reliable. Will this work for everybody? Nope, but it will work for most of you if you are willing to try.

I do miss ESPN, Discovery, TLC and a few other channels, but I don't miss the monthly bill. To me, it was worth it.

I have told my story before, but in these times, I continue to tell it. Perhaps it will help some of you.

On a side note, I still have Charter High Speed internet 20Mb down/ 2Mb up plus Charter phone. I dropped AT&T/Ameritech phone service at about $25/ month (WITHOUT LONG DISTANCE) and now pay Charter $65/ month + taxes (around $70/ month total) for the 20/2MB internet and unlimited nationwide LD phone service. The phone service has been perfect in every way and the internet is blazing fast.

Bill

Submitted by depereguy on November 2, 2009. #

I've been without cable TV

I've been without cable TV since April and I'm not looking back, neither is my wife (surprisingly). We live in De Pere so we only have the GB stations. I agree...the picture and sound quality are great. My set up goes like this: free OTA GB stations, TWC Roadrunner (currently paying $40/month for 7Mb), Tivo HD on basement TV ($13/month), Roku box on living room TV, Netflix 2 DVD subscription ($14/month). With the Tivo and Roku we get Netflix streaming service to both TVs which I highly recommend. If there isn't anything on TV, we always find something on Netflix. I ended up purchasing Ooma for our home phone and I'll admit TWC Digital phone was better in quality, but seeing as though Ooma already paid for itself; it was the right choice. We miss certain cable stations like ESPN, HGTV, Lifetime, Hallmark (my wife misses these), but given the choice between these and paying the extra $50 a month, we choose to live without them. The cable companies have been getting away with enormous increases lately. I wonder at what point will they start to get hurt by them? Especially in this economy, there has to be a point where their loss in customers starts exceeding the additional revenue from their rate hikes.

Submitted by Willscary on November 2, 2009. #

I believe that cable

I believe that cable companies ARE being hurt by their rates. Fifteen years ago, about 25% of all households had OTA TV and about 70% of homes had cable TV with the last 5% having the newcomer...satellite. Cable rates have risen enough that now, although only about 10% of U.S. housholds now have OTA TV, cable has still lost market share and now hovers around 60%. They have clearly lost ground to satellite, even though satellite does not compete with internet or cable telephone.

Cable is clearly pricing itself our of the market, or more precisely, can not competitively compete with satellite for the same services. I often wonder if the cable companies would be better off giving up on video services and concentrating on phone and internet services. Fiber is the future for both of these services, but once the satellites are in orbit, satellite infrastructure becomes very inexpensive compared to tethered line communications (in my opinion).