DSL, Bundle Prices On The Upswing?U-verse rates raised twice already... ( old news - 12:31PM Tuesday Feb 06 2007) tags: prices · competition · business · cable · telcoThe LA Times cites a Banc of America report which claims that prices for DSL and bundled services from the phone company are on the upswing, a trend that's good for investors, the article claims, but bad for consumers. The report notes that the average bundle of local phone, long-distance and DSL service rose 3% in a year. Introductory DSL prices, meanwhile, rose 34%, according to the Times. "It's too early to draw a conclusion, but it appears that competition is not leading us to a race to the bottom," Banc of America analyst David W. Barden said. Instead, he said, a duopoly is emerging where cable and phone companies can avoid provoking price cuts in their core services. Carriers, for instance, can discount DSL service while keeping prices up on phone service, and cable firms can drop prices for phone service but maintain higher pay-TV rates." Dave Burstein of DSL Prime also chimes in. He claims that AT&T has raised the price of U-Verse service twice since launch. FiosTV has also already seen a rate hike. This, of course, is in comparison to the cable industry, which usually refuses to compete on price when it comes to broadband, consistently edging up the cost of standard television service year after year. Related:- Tracking FiOS TV Bundle Price Changes
- Tampa Tribune Highlights FiOS Billing Problems
- Wednesday Evening Links
- Thursday Morning Links
- Thursday Evening Links
- Wednesday Evening Links
- Friday Evening Links
- Viacom, Time Warner Cable Kiss, Make Up
|
  ronpin Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06 Nirvana
·AT&T Southwest
·Charter Pipeline
edit: February 6th, @11:46AM
| Look at the total costs I dumped AT&T when I finally looked at the outrageous cost of landline phone service. Most cable companies offer a closed-loop VoIP service that when packaged with broadband and cable TV is actually much cheaper than it may look. Do the math. -- America has been hijacked by selfish nationalist corporate pigs. The whole world hates us now. Have a nice day. | |
|  |   Placebo Premium join:2005-12-14 Huntley, IL
·Comcast
| Re: Look at the total costs But, then I'd have to put up with Cable rate increases...
I've managed to survive with DSL for the past year after switching away from Comcast. I indeed miss the speed, but my overall bill is significantly lower than it was with Comcast.
As always, your total cost depends on the options you throw on top of the basic services. | |
|  |  |   en102 Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: Look at the total costs Very true...
TimeWarner VoIP = $44.95 (intro discounts + bundled discounts available) AT&T unlimited local + ld = $44.95 (bundled discounts available)
TW: $34.95 1.5Mbps, $44.95 6Mbps, $54.95 (10 or 15Mbps) (bundled discounts available, and into discounts) DSL (AT&T or in my case, DSL-Extreme) = $12.95 (768/384), $17.95 1.5/384 $22.95 3Mbps/512, $32.95 6Mbps/768 (I pay $2/month more as those were 1st year pricing. AT&T gives bundled discounts)
TW: Digital TV $44.95 for basic digital TV + franchise fees. (intro + bundled discounts available) $9.95 / extra tv DirecTv: $44.95 for digital, $5/extra TV
They're all similar... however, it typically makes sense to use satellite/DSL/POTS OR cable/HSI/VoIP for pricing. | |
|  |  mlbSAE
join:2000-08-01 Dayton, OH
| said by ronpin :I dumped AT&T when I finally looked at the outrageous cost of landline phone service. Most cable companies offer a closed-loop VoIP service that when packaged with broadband and cable TV is actually much cheaper than it may look. Do the math. That math depends on where you are located, and what you bundle.
I switched from cable TV, voip, internet (all Time Warner), and 2 cell phones to AT&T/Cingular/Dish Network. In the end I ended up saving approximately $40 a month and got more channels on the TV. 2 cell phones, a land line, DSL (with faster speeds, mind you), and Dish Network all bundled together has been great. | |
|   P Ness You'Ve Forgotten 9-11 Already Premium join:2001-08-29 Cromwell, CT clubs:  | WOW Shocking Mergers don't reduce prices?
WOW who would have guessed. | |
|  |   Amadeus Premium join:2005-05-02 Miami, FL | Re: WOW Shocking lol..
How long do you think it will be before they split att up again?
I think before 2010  | |
|   anonone
@af.mil | Advertised u-verse prices appear unchanged There does not appear to be a pricing change on the u-verse website. Is this price change coming or is this because they are charging for installs? | |
|   Toguro
join:2003-10-23 Ottawa, IL | Banc of AMERICA Banc or Bank | |
|  |   ninjatutle You can keep the "change"
join:2006-01-02 San Ramon, CA | Re: Banc of AMERICA Its a major banc in Mexico. We're not the only America.
They also have Will's Fargo down there. | |
|  |   RadioDoc Sortofadog Premium,ExMod 2000-03 join:2000-05-11 Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| Banc of America = Not FDIC insured, investment products. Bank of America = FDIC insured, banking products.
It's a way to isolate one from the other marketing-wise. A bank can't really offer investments directly so they put up these subsidiaries to keep the regulators happy. -- Toolmaster of La Grange. For "Pompous Windbag", see 419381 | |
|  |  |   Toguro
join:2003-10-23 Ottawa, IL | Re: Banc of AMERICA Thanks I forgot about banc opopular and so fourth ,I just assumed it was a type o. | |
|  |  |  |   RadioDoc Sortofadog Premium,ExMod 2000-03 join:2000-05-11 Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Banc of AMERICA It's an end-run around the banking regulations. A "bank" is regulated as to what it can and cannot do. A bank holding company, however can do whatever it wants as long as it doesn't call itself a "bank". So some clever marketing type coined "banc" for those names. Sounds the same on radio and TV and looks close enough in print. Since a Bank cannot own other banks these holding companies tend to call themselves RobberBaron Bancorp or RobberBaron Bancshares or something similar so as to not trip over that regulatory line.
Nice shell game, eh?
And to confuse things even more..."Banco Popular" is a Spanish name (for a Puerto Rico-based company), and "banco" is "bank" in Spanish. I wonder if banc is bancoc in Spanish...  -- Toolmaster of La Grange. For "Pompous Windbag", see 419381 | |
|   John T
@verizon.net
| Unsurprising I've seen multiple reports over the last year or two that the sales growth from cheap $19.95/month 768kbps DSL was considerably slowing. It seems that a lot of the people who were willing to switch from dial-up to DSL for the same rate have already switched. Kind of confusing to me, since there still seems to be people on dialup, but then again I'm not them.
Since the sales growth from people switching to get $19.95/month barely-broadband DSL was already slowing, many of the companies started suspending those offers for new customers. "Introductory DSL prices" rose 34% precisely because those offers ended, and fewer of the new customers were going for the cheap broadband.
There are quite a few different types of broadband customers. Some people are primarily motivated by price, and will even stick to dial-up rather than switch (at least until they've tried something faster.) Some people have to have dialup, but don't care much between a 768kbps connection that you and I dismiss as not really broadbadn and a 5 or 10 Mbps connection or even faster.
Others of us crave speed and are willing to spend $10 extra per month-- or more-- to get 15Mbps or 30Mbps down and 5 Mbps up from FiOS.
So with that kind of situation one should not expect at all a commodity market with people competing on price alone, especially not when the technologies involved are quite different. Some plans, like $19.95/month barely broadband DSL, are entirely designed to get people to give up dial-up and try broadband. Some more expensive offerings are aimed at people like me.
The recent moves are in large part because of a shift away from chasing the customer who needs to switch from dialup, to chasing the customer willing to pay a few extra dollars for more speed.
"The report notes that the average bundle of local phone, long-distance and DSL service rose 3% in a year."
After several years of falling prices, it notes, as the companies were chasing prospective dial-up switchers. And unadjusted for the 2.5% overall inflation in the year. | |
|   KrK Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK edit: February 6th, @12:38PM
| Meet the new Boss! .... same as the old Boss! | |
|   Maxo Your tax dollars at work. Premium,VIP join:2002-11-04 Tallahassee, FL clubs:
·Embarq
| The price war is already over We had the price war about three or four years ago. DSL hit rock bottom prices. DSL is still much cheaper and faster than it used to be. In '02 (I think) SBC was selling 768kbps for $50/month. Now you can get twice that for ~$20. It could double and would still be cheaper than it was. I don't see a cause for alarm. | |
|   Loker Premium join:2004-07-11 Fargo, ND clubs:
| Welcome Back Ma Bell We Missed You I think the rates are going up because like someone previously said....the $19.99 promotion rates are being suspended because not many are signing up for them anymore....
Now my theory on THAT is the telco's have reached a sort of critical mass in aquiring dial up users, the limiting factor being the range from the CO! there are still PLENTY of dial up users that would jump at that DSL offering but they are unable to because of distance..... -- "While preceding your entrance with a grenade is a good tactic inQuake, it can lead to problems if attempted at work." -- C Hacking | |
|  |   Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26 | Re: Welcome Back Ma Bell We Missed You
Ummmm....$19.95 for 1.5 DSL is the current standard, no contract pricing from AT&T | |
|  |  |   John T
@verizon.net
| Re: Welcome Back Ma Bell We Missed You said by Fatal Vector :Ummmm....$19.95 for 1.5 DSL is the current standard, no contract pricing from AT&T Sure. But other providers have brought that offer out and rescinded it. If it says that "introductory DSL prices have gone up 34%," you had better believe that's entirely because of some companies not offering the same $19.95/month plans (or $14.95, or whatever) when the survey was done as they were the last time, or else more people going for the faster plans that cost more. (And then the survey results being based on what people actually sign up for, not the cheapest plan.)
Actually, currently it looks like Verizon is doing a "first three months at $9.95/month, $19.95/month thereafter" plan for the 768kbps down package, with a "$19.95/month for the first three, $29.95/month thereafter" plan for faster speeds. But they require the one year commitment and reserve the right to raise the prices after the first year. | |
|  |  |  |   Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
| Re: Welcome Back Ma Bell We Missed You
I called to see about my contract (at $12.99) which expires soon. I was told there are no promotions and that they are doing standard month to month, so my 1.5 will rise to $19.95, which is what I paid per month on my first contract last year.
This is fine with me and I find it a acceptable price for a DSL service that has been rock stable and on speed since the beginning. | |
|   crazyoregonian
@comcast.net
from: BillRoland 
| Innocent? So I guess that the cable companies aren't the only ones playing "jack up my prices"
Those who live in glass houses... | |
|  |   BillRoland Premium join:2001-01-21 Ocala, FL clubs:
·Cox HSI
| Re: Innocent? said by crazyoregonian :
So I guess that the cable companies aren't the only ones playing "jack up my prices"
Those who live in glass houses... I was going to say the same thing. Looks like we've turned a corner here at DSLR, we've had a revelation. -- "Don't steal. The government hates competition." | |
|  dynodb Premium,VIP join:2004-04-21 Minneapolis, MN
| 3% ? Yawn. Come on... a 3% increase for bundled service? That barely keeps pace with inflation. Color me unconcerned.
As for the 34% increase, the article (though not providing examples) says that's for stand-alone DSL, though I'm not sure how they arrived at that figure.
Given the price drops and introductory deals, DSL prices for a given speed have dropped significantly over the past year or two- how long that will last is anyone's guess. | |
|  |   Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
| Re: 3% ? Yawn. "Given the price drops and introductory deals, DSL prices for a given speed have dropped significantly over the past year or two- how long that will last is anyone's guess."
Not long. Ma Bell is just about back together. All it will take is another merger or two, then we'll be sorry. | |
|  |  |  dynodb Premium,VIP join:2004-04-21 Minneapolis, MN
| Re: 3% ? Yawn. said by Fatal Vector :"Given the price drops and introductory deals, DSL prices for a given speed have dropped significantly over the past year or two- how long that will last is anyone's guess." Not long. Ma Bell is just about back together. All it will take is another merger or two, then we'll be sorry. I don't see mergers making much difference with regards to DSL. The Bells aren't competing with each other so much in regards to broadband as with cable and VoIP providers. Aside from re-sellers, how many people can, for instance, choose between Verizon, SBC/AT&T and Qwest for DSL service? | |
|  |  |  |   Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
| Re: 3% ? Yawn.
It's not a matter of their competing among themselves, it's a matter of the telco being able to basically set whatever rate they want to and so called resellers still have to pay them to use the lines they own. Once Ma Bell is back together, you will see the old monopoly attitude re emerge full force. It has allways been there semi hidden in the manner that the RBOC's conducted business like a cobra waiting to strike. | |
|  tmc8080
join:2004-04-24 Floral Park, NY
| dsl + landline = screwed customer.. Yes, well landlines are where the real screwing comes.. they cost too much, add too many fees/taxes and are cumbersome/regressive in pricing(which mean a total ripoff) so people need to think very hard when going for a "pots" line with few features, vs a voip line from a 3rd party for loads less and few, if any taxes/fees tacked on to the bottom line price.. If telcos want gouge you on the DSL, it can only serve to bite them in the ass when it comes to the landine becoming 3rd party voip.. and Banc of America can kiss my ass.. reporters of how big business screws the consumer-- industry by industry..
The 4 major providers of "LAST MILE" at&t, verizon, comcast and time warner own prime real estate on broadband lane, and if your not careful will exert much havoc if not properly kept in check by local public service commissions.. companies are already getting fined for not maintaining legacy networks which cost a bundle so they see where they can cut corners and fly under the fcc and local psc's radar for QOS complaints.. | |
|  |   KrK Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
edit: February 6th, @06:05PM
| Re: dsl + landline = screwed customer.. said by tmc8080 :Yes, well landlines are where the real screwing comes.. they cost too much, add too many fees/taxes and are cumbersome/regressive in pricing(which mean a total ripoff) so people need to think very hard when going for a "pots" line with few features, vs a voip line from a 3rd party for loads less and few, if any taxes/fees tacked on to the bottom line price..
You're hitting the nail on the head here. I'm in this situation. I have for years been a happy Dish Network Customer. I've got a solid and fast DSL line. So I'm covered on TV and Internet. However, I pay $35+ a month for a bare-bones POTS line that I DO NOT want and basically is just plain dial up, no caller ID, call return or any other features... As stripped down/cheap as you can get it. I'd love to get a fully featured VOIP service, but the cost isn't justifiable if you have to maintain the POTS line to get DSL. Basically I have to pay for POTS as a "penalty" for DSL.... AT&T won't let you turn off POTS but keep DSL.
The only options I have is keep exactly what I have or dump *everything* and get Cox Digital Cable, Telephone, and Internet.
I was hoping naked DSL requirements would allow me to kick POTS off the bill, but the option is un-useable, but the extremely bad price point, low speed and very temporary nature of the naked DSL offering nixxed that. | |
|  |  |   yeaidid
@sbc.com | Re: dsl + landline = screwed customer.. This is not true, you can get DSL as a "dry loop" from AT&T (DSL w/o POTS line). | |
|  | |  |
|
|