how-to block ads
|
mig288
Premium
join:2002-07-13
Merchantville, NJ
|  Well
"Comcast isn't forcing customers to take both products or nothing at all, they're not violating anti-trust guidelines."
Well ..They aren't forcing BUT..Aren't they the only ones that the people can turn to in MOST cases?!? I hope comcast truly goes under i can't stand them! | |
mattmhk
join:2003-02-06
Eugene, OR
| "conditioning of the sale of one product on the buyer's purchase of another product". Their "conditioning"(ex. $40 for Internet w/ Cable TV or $55 w/o Cable TV) put on their Internet service really does all depend on whether or not you have cable TV or not, which many people choose not to for various reasons. I'm under the Comcast umbrella, and I'm sure a lot of people such as myself dont watch TV and have no need for digital cable or directv. Is it fair to charge someone $15 a month more because they do not wish to watch TV? | |
comcasttech0
join:2002-03-06
Edmonton, AB
| How can you say that comcast isn't forcing their customers to take the bundled packages???
Lets look at the math... if you have cable TV services with comcast, your monthly HSD service will be from $42.95-45.95/mo, not bad
Now if we get rid of their TV services, then that goes up a whopping $57.95-60.95???
What do you do now?? Essentially they're making the customers take the bundled package... and get them to spend more of their money... but it makes the consumer think they're saving a bundle for internet services...
It's a total joke!
anyways, that's my rant!
cheers,
cctech0 | |
TheMadSwede
Premium
join:2001-01-30
Holland, MI
 ·Charter Pipeline
| reply to mattmhk
said by mattmhk  :
Is it fair to charge someone $15 a month more because they do not wish to watch TV?
I agree with you 100% (because I'm in the same situation), but fair and legal are 2 different things -- whether they should be or not (unfortunately). Since it is legal, the only thing that folks in our situation can hope for is that since the fairness of this practice looks questionable, it will be a bad PR move, which will drive change at Comast.
But speaking of PR, we have to remember that high speed internet, while becoming more and more popular, still doesn't exactly have a huge voice in American society. And when the voice is occasionally loud enough to be heard, it's generally only complaining and whining. I'm not saying the complaining and whining are not justified, just that broadband users can seem like a pretty tough bunch to please.
If you owned a cable co and had to make a choice to annoy your TV people or your HSI people, you'd choose the internet ones because there are fewer of them and even fewer within that group that have no TV, just internet.
I love BBR, but us users do often suffer from groupthink in regards to broadband and many of the issues around it. Just because we wear our broadband hearts on our broadband sleeves around here, doesn't mean that the "general public" does the same...or even knows or cares what's going on.
All in all, I guess we can only speak our minds, then wait and see how it pans out.
--
Welp -- finally trying this cable thing out. | |
medici
join:2001-02-22
Shohola, PA
| reply to mig288
They're not forcing anyone to subscribe to cable tv. They are discounting Internet Access for customers that also subscribe to Cable TV.
Let's face it, there's a fixed cost associated with providing copper (or, if you're lucky, fiber) to each household. This cost doesn't really change if your using just cable TV, just Internet, or both.
There are also fixed costs associated with providing the infrastructure to provide Internet access, as well as for various tiers of TV programming. And, of course, Comcast needs to make a profit to justify its operations and keep its stockholders happy, and to fund future improvements.
Let's say that the fixed cost of maintaining the cable infrastructure is $15 per month. (While this seems high to me, I don't have any basis to dispute any particular amount.) So when I subscribe to basic CableTV, $15 of the $45/month I spend is apportioned to maintaining the cable infrastructure, and $30 goes to programming (downlinks, equipment, franchise/network fees, etc...). Of course there's a profitable mark-up calculated on both components.
Likewise, if I subscribe to Cable Internet, $15 of the $55/month I spend is apportioned to maintaining the cable infrastructure, and the remaining $40 goes to back-end equipment and bandwidth (plus, of course, profit).
However, if I subscribe to BOTH CableTV and Cable Internet, I don't want to be charged twice for the one connection to my house. Since I'm already paying the $15/month to maintain the cable infrastructure as part of my CableTV subscription, Comcast can discount Cable Internet as an add-on to my service.
So I don't view this as a surcharge for customers who choose Internet -only service, I view it as a discount for customers who use BOTH Internet and TV service, as well it should be.
I think a more appropriate issue is whether Comcast (or whoever) is abusing its monopoly powers where it is the only terrestrial-based high-speed Internet provider. (I think that terrestrial-based is an important distinction -- both for TV and Internet, but particularly for Internet -- because satellite-based systems just don't provide the bandwidth, latency and reliability necessary to be considered true competition to anything but dial-up access.) If Comcast charges higher prices where there's no competition from DSL, then an argument can be made about abuse of monopoly power. Aside from this, there's nothing illegal or unethical about Comcast's pricing.
That doesn't mean I'm a fan of Comcast or any Cable TV provider. First of all, it's been a while since I lived in a market served by Comcast, but most of the Cable TV providers I've dealt with are similar. Their technical support is horrible. Their terms-of-service are draconian. They really don't understand what Internet access is all about. They don't listen to or understand their customers, and don't spend any effort or money on customer satisfaction or loyalty (why should they, they don't have any competition). And they seem to be uniformly cheap as dirt when it comes to expanding programming or adding features, unless they either see increased revenues or are at risk of losing marketplace.
If you're lucky enough to have a choice between xDSL and Cable Internet, then you can choose the best bang for your buck. If you really think you're being overcharged, then cancel your account. No ISP is going to LOWER PRICES unless they start losing market share. | |
seriousfun
join:2003-02-27
Los Angeles, CA
·Comcast
 ·Verizon FIOS
| said by medici :
They're not forcing anyone to subscribe to cable tv. They are discounting Internet Access for customers that also subscribe to Cable TV.
...
Comcast, specifically in this example, is not trying to sell this as a discount, but a requirement to get a service at a price. Their marketing gaffe is that they didn't analyze their inheritable customers' services and expectations, and IMO it wouldn't have taken genius to do so.
Bundling can be an effective marketing tool when there is a clear-cut set of needs by a class of customers in a market, but internet service and cable TV are not the same water, just because they come down the same pipe. Bundling would involve a choice of adding faster DL with existing UL speeds, or a higher newsgroup DL limit with your existing service, and giving a price break for the bundle; with cable it would be for example an ala-carte choice of channels or a fixed number of PPV events for a fixed price, smaller than ordering them individually. Bundling just doesn't apply here in the classic sense.
Bundling as a marketing tool can make sense when it makes your bundle a more compelling value than your competitor's; monopoly or not, none of us can switch to a competitive cable internet provider (Earthlink reselling notwithstanding).
I am certainly evaluating alternatives to Comcast with the switchover from ATTBI, and I certainly would have had no specific motivation to do so without being faced with this bumbling, possible mean-spirited, non-bundle being shoved down my throat.
[text was edited by author 2003-04-17 18:53:29] | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| seriousfun, do what I did: immediately purchase basic cable for $9.95, which will mitigate your loss by saving you the full $15 hike, cutting it to $10.
additionally, if you calmly and respectfully express your frustration with Comcast to the salesperson, and inform them that you really think paying even $10 more a month in too much. Also say that you have seriously been considering switching to DSL, you just havent made up your mind yet for sure.
If the Comcast salesperson does not offer you a promotion for $5.95 a month with free installation, claim your friend told you he signed up under that promotion (I actually did sign up about 2 weeks ago under that promotion) and that if you got that deal, you'd stay with Comcast for sure.
*OR*
SBC is offering a deal for $35/month so you can just switch to DSL. | |
YuriLuzr
join:2002-08-14
San Jose, CA
| reply to medici
I don't think Comcast would get such a negative response if they just left the price for HSI @ $42.95, then if you also subscribe to TV then reduce that price to $39.95 or so. The problem is they are raising the rate for HSI for no real reason other than calling it a bundling hike.
--
YuriLuzr "Master of all, ruler of none." | |
dtiernan
join:2002-01-27
Fillmore, CA | reply to comcasttech0
Which explains, why after 4 years, I am bailing on the cable modem and going dsl. I was an early @home customer here then ATTBI and now comcast. As soon as the dsl is up and solid....I dish goes on the roof.
dt | |
jungleman406
join:2003-04-22
Highland Park, MI |  reply to medici
Hey guy tell the truth you work for Comcast don't you!!!! | |
|
