The fact is that cable companies are price-gouging and underserving consumers. Newspaper reports from across the country show that some consumers are being hit with annual increases of more than 7 percent. Residents of Kearny, Neb., and towns nearby have seen their rates increase 36 percent since late 2001.

This is not a new trend. In the eight years since the federal government started deregulating cable-industry prices, rates have skyrocketed 56 percent, almost three times the rate of inflation. Consumers fed up with those bills have nowhere to turn, since most have only one choice of cable provider or satellite service. And satellite sometimes lacks popular channels and can be costlier than cable.

While cable companies offer more channels than ever, consumers are forced to pick from a limited number of channel packages rather than choose the individual channels they actually want to watch. The government’s investigative arm, the General Accounting Office, reported that households receiving more than 70 channels watch, on average, only 17 of them.

It’s time for Congress to step in and deliver to consumers real choice and real competition. It is no secret that more competition means lower prices. The GAO also found that when consumers can choose between two cable providers, they pay 15 to 41 percent less than when only one cable company is available. Unfortunately, only 2 percent of all consumers have that option. If everyone had a choice, the savings could amount to about $4.5 billion a year.

How can we get more competition? Congress can make it easier for new companies to enter the cable market by preventing mergers between companies that create programming and those that deliver it. But that won’t happen overnight. In the meantime, how about letting consumers buy the channels they want on an individual basis at a reasonable price?

Paying only for the channels you watch could save you money. Giving consumers that choice is also a solution to growing public concern about violent and sexually explicit programming. Now, consumers can block objectionable content with technology such as the v-chip (required in new TVs beginning in 1996), but they still pay for channels they block.

Satellite television may never be able to go head-to-head with cable on all fronts. Although satellite service is a good option for many people, especially those who live in rural areas where no cable is available, satellite companies have failed to provide some local TV channels in certain areas because of technological limits. Satellite-dish antennas must have an unobstructed south-facing view--no tall trees or tall buildings--to receive the service. And some cable companies offer high-speed Internet access at a discount to their cable-TV customers. That further erodes the ability of satellite companies to compete because it has limited Internet capabilities.

If Congress isn’t inclined to limit cable prices, at the very least it should require cable companies to allow consumers to choose and pay only for the channels they want. Consumers Union believes that lawmakers must re-evaluate their hands-off policy toward cable and encourage more competition in the industry. It’s time consumers realize the increased choices and lower prices they were promised more than eight years ago.

then	& now

Lightening the load

1950		2004

The front-loaders we tested that year ranked at the bottom of the list. The one shown at left vibrated, tangled clothes, and wasn’t great at spin-drying.

Today our highest-scoring washer is a front-loader (See our June 2004 report). They’re pricier than top-loaders, but they generally do a better job while using less water and energy. They’re quieter, too, making it easier for the user to show others how all the features work.