Rammer
Premium
join:2001-03-06
clubs:  | wolf in diguise
well as money hungry as the big co-op are today they will not loose money on anything---like the old saying goes
if it sounds too good too be true then it probably is |
|
phxmark
What Country Are We Living In?
join:2000-12-27
Glendale, AZ | If it quacks....
...like a duck, swims like a duck and looks like a duck, it is probably a GOOSE!
--
Still living on Dial-Up. |
|
DHRacer
Fire Survivor
join:2000-10-10
Lake Arrowhead, CA
 ·Charter Pipeline
 ·Verizon west (ex G..
| Good to some, bad to others
One thing I have found in these forums, is that some people agree with bundling as a legitamate form of business, and others see it as a form of extortion.
Despite the two sides of thought about this practice, one thing seems certain. Companies are going to continue to do this. Companies that have already started are going to come up with new bundles, and companies that have not yet started will probably start offering them.
From all the news about them, this whole bundle thing seems inevitable, and yet we here argue about it like we make a difference. I don't think we will. We are not enough in numbers and we are the few who choose to educate themselves enough to see it for what it is. The general public, in my mind, are lambs to the slaughter. They will just blindly follow along as they get ripped off, and hardly complain when it happens.
I wish that the FCC or someone would step in and set things straight, but I think the government is a little occupied right now with other things, and by the time it does, it will be too late. |
|
herdfan
Premium
join:2003-01-25
Hurricane, WV
| No problem with Bundling!
We buy things all the time bundled. Who has not bought a combo meal at a fast-food restaurant? We don't think anything about that. We buy options on our cars this way in the form of packages, we buy vacations bundled that include air & hotel and sometimes meals, we now buy computers bundled with CPU, monitor, sometimes printer and software. Who would want to a computer with no software and have to go purchases Windows to install on it.
Why should telco & broadband be any different. Bundles are created since the fixed costs of providing service are spread out over several products or services. Companies can then provide more services at a lower incremental price.
My parents currently pay about $15 for their cable internet service. This is the difference in the price of the package they are on vs. the same TV lineup without the internet service. I'm going to guess that the majority of people are happy with the bundling of services and the unhappy minority are the ones making noise.
--
DRS 3.0(Gray)G3C 1210 Host: Dell 4100 PIII 933mzh, 512, 40 XP Pro SP1, Clients: Dell 8250 P4 2.8, 512 1066 RDRAM, 120, XP Pro SP1 Sony Vaio Laptop, 1G Athlon, 256,40, XP Home(Never Again)Wireless thru Orinoco AP-200 to Orinoco Gold Card /Using DPC Manager |
|
nightdesigns
Gone missing, back soon
Premium
join:2002-05-31
AZ
·Cox HSI
| Bundling is just a ploy
It's just a ploy to make you "think" that you're saving money, and it's everywhere. Just yesterday while iw as getting a sanwich from togos they had a bundled deal. All i wanted was a drink with my sandwich and it was $1.19, but next to that sign was an ad for "add chips and a drink for only $100" So i did that instead. They charged me for the chips, and then only $.11 for the drink, probably still more than what it costs them to buy it. On occasion they are beneficial, just not in the case of the users who don't want cable TV with their HSI. |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to DHRacer
Re: Good to some, bad to others
It depends.
I see SBC's offering of DSL for $30/month if you get some of their add-on phone services as a bundle deal.
I see Comcast charging $62.95/month for cablemodem if you don't use their TV service (when it's been $45.95 or cheaper all along) as extortion.
A bundle deal would have been to get CHEAPER cablemodem if you subscribe to a premium tier or something.
-- Rob |
|
GerryB
join:2003-03-16
Manchester Township, NJ
| reply to herdfan
Re: No problem with Bundling!
Why do you pro bundle guys always choose to compare telco's and cable companies to industries that are very competitive and have absolutly no monopoly control on customers?
It is always a fast food restaurant or cars and if memory serves correctly, the last time I drove on a major road I never saw a lone fast food restaurant, or a single car dealer without one right next to it. Now your adding computers into it? One if not the most competitive consumer industries right now? |
|
NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
·VOIPo
| reply to nightdesigns
Re: Bundling is just a ploy
said by nightdesigns  :
It's just a ploy to make you "think" that you're saving money
Right! Bravo!
There is no such thing as a free lunch (pun not really intended here, but it does fit).
Whatever happened to the view of bundling as an anticompetitive practice (as in DoJ-needs-to-be-involved-anticompetitive practice) when virtual monopolies were involved? Does anyone else remember the big problem with MSIE being bundled with Windows 95 and Windows 98? When telcos and cable companies have no competition within an area, they are monopolies (this is the case in probably 95% of the country, at least with cable companies). Why hasn't the DoJ gone after them?
--
Cox cable: the hallmark questionable business practices and lousy cable service! |
|
KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs:
·Verizon FIOS
·Speakeasy
| Because the whole D0J vs. MS case turned in the favor of MS, which pretty much gives free reign to the idea of 'bundling' as a viable business practice.
And while a supporter of the DoJ in most of their points against MS, I don't agree that bundling is overall a bad thing. Consumers should get discounts if they purchase more products from one place - 'cheaper in bulk' is a huge part of capitalism! Or at least, our implementation of it.
BUT when it's used with other tactics to force out competition, or when used in a monopoly situation, then it can be a problem!
KM |
|
jasqid
Fiber In Your Diet?
join:2002-04-02
East Palestine, OH
| I think consumers SHOULD get discounts for multi services. Bundling is okay but it's how it's done that is making everyone mad. You actually DO SAVE money when you buy a valu meal from Mickey D's instead of ordering it all separate. Get the sandwich, fries and a Coke for $4.35 or get just the sandwich for 2.99 and a large drink for 1.69 (4.48).
But, an example of how it's done wrong is Comcast. HSD price of $42.95. Then they decide to bundle it with Cable TV. Basic cable here is 10.50. So now if you take their bundle it's $53.45. If I stay with HSD only I will have to pay $58.99. Oh well, I save 3 bucks and some change right? NOT. I'm actually paying $10.50 MORE for something I dont need. The only benefit I get from it is that I can watch my locals and the local weather channel on all my TV's. Big deal. My ANT was fine and FREE.
What they did was a price increase. Again. For if it were a true bundle HSD would have went down or the price of Basic cable would have went down. But there are NO price breaks here. It's still $42.95 and $10.50. Now they just add the two together and force you to pay it. If you dont take it you are forced to pay EVEN MORE. ($58 vs. the $54) |
|
nightdesigns
Gone missing, back soon
Premium
join:2002-05-31
AZ
·Cox HSI
| said by jasqid :
I think consumers SHOULD get discounts for multi services. Bundling is okay but it's how it's done that is making everyone mad. You actually DO SAVE money when you buy a valu meal from Mickey D's instead of ordering it all separate. Get the sandwich, fries and a Coke for $4.35 or get just the sandwich for 2.99 and a large drink for 1.69 (4.48).
It saves you money, they still make loads of cash, slightly less, but it's a loss-leader as well. The coke costs them probably about $.05 to serve and $0.05 for the cup (bulk buying!), but charge $1.69.
quote:
But, an example of how it's done wrong is Comcast. HSD price of $42.95. Then they decide to bundle it with Cable TV. Basic cable here is 10.50. So now if you take their bundle it's $53.45. If I stay with HSD only I will have to pay $58.99. Oh well, I save 3 bucks and some change right? NOT. I'm actually paying $10.50 MORE for something I dont need. The only benefit I get from it is that I can watch my locals and the local weather channel on all my TV's. Big deal. My ANT was fine and FREE.
What they did was a price increase. Again. For if it were a true bundle HSD would have went down or the price of Basic cable would have went down. But there are NO price breaks here. It's still $42.95 and $10.50. Now they just add the two together and force you to pay it. If you dont take it you are forced to pay EVEN MORE. ($58 vs. the $54)
Yes it's an screwey way to do it, but what can you do. They probaly also have a small justification for for raising the price that way (i don't know, equipment to get it to your house is more price effective if you have more than one service, etc).
Yes it doesn't make sense on the consumer end, but it does make sense on the provider end. |
|
fuzydice
join:2000-12-18
Sunnyvale, CA
| monopolies suck
this is whats wrong with america. as people have proven, when you raise a price on a product in order to force people to buy another, its not called "bundling", its called extortion.
Comcast should have done this:
Separate prices
HSD: $43/mo. Cable: $10+/mo (depending on location).
Before bundling: 43+10 = $53.
After bundling: 43+10 = $53.
bundled prices
HSD + Basic Cable*: $50/mo.
* for example, lets say the bare minimum cable in your area is $10.50 as 1 person said
This is good. People save $3/mo by buying both (or they could lower the price even more, adding more value to the bundle; im just using this as an example.) People who do not buy both are not penalized, they pay the same price they had been paying, but now have an incentive to buy both (to save money), and the cable company who is competing with others (satellite, dsl, etc) are making more money because the consumer is buying more of their products.
Unfortunately, here is what Comcast is doing right now:
Separate prices
HSD: price increase from $43 to $58-62/mo. Cable: $10+/mo (depending on location).
Before bundling scheme: 43**+10= $53.
After bundling scheme: 58+10= $68.
bundled prices
HSD + Basic Cable*: $53/mo.
** Remember, the price was $43 *before* comcast's bundling scheme, at which time they made the simultaneous price increase, therefore we must use the pre-bundled price for HSD which is $43 in our 'before' costs.
They made a massive 25% price increase (% depends on area, some get HSD for $56, some 58, some 60 and others 62). Dont think about the word bundling yet... they made a price increase, plain and simple. They are forcing you to pay more. Now... bring in the word "bundling"... For these people you do not save any money. you must pay $10.50 (or more for w/e cable package u want/have) in order to keep your pre-bundled price. You are not saving any money.
If the price of HSD had been $58-62 from the start there would be no complaining and instead there would be much cheer, because people would actually be saving money.
This is not the case. Comcast made the price increase *just* to increase the price. They're throwing in the word "bundling" so the government can't touch them (like the gov would touch them anyways... the word bundling also fools the idiots of the country who voted for pro-monopoly politicians into office [nice work pro-Bush ppl].) Nice game huh? Unfortunately its a game they play with your dollars, and because they're a monopoly, your dollars are their dollars, its just a matter of how fast they decide to take them from you.
The United States of Big Business. Feel proud?
--
[referring to the RIAA...] These guys buy congress people like M&Ms
[text was edited by author 2003-04-09 18:42:11] |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Certain types of bundling should be banned by law
...specifically, all harmful punishment styled anti-competitive measures.
IE, requiring Phone service or Cable TV service in order to get Internet services. Should be banned by law.
2) Charging people who DON'T get phone service more Cable TV service a higher rate then those who do. Banned by law.
3) The only discounting should be allowed on the the one the consumer adds as the SECOND or ADDITIONAL services. -- and the consumer specifies which service is the primary, and more important service, and the rest are secondary, *NOT THE Cable Co or Telco* In other words, If the consumer has Internet, AND THEN CHOOSES TO ADD TV or Telephone service, *THEN* they get a break...
None of this "Internet costs $xxxx (Big bucks) UNLESS you take Cable TV or Telephone service".
In other words, the discounting should always apply to the consumer's SECOND and additional services signed up for... NOT THE FIRST OR PRIMARY. That would nuke all this anti-competitive crap we have today...
I'm really tired of the Cable companies trying to block people who use Satellite from getting Broadband unless they bend over and get shafted. The obvious point is to force people to give up DBS in exchange for Internet. BS. Ban that crap by law!
--
"When the day comes that anyone can bend our country’s laws and lawmakers to serve selfish, competitive ends, that day democratic government dies" -- Preston Tucker, 1948 (Yep, it's dead.) |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to GerryB
Re: No problem with Bundling!
Exactly.
Imagine if a fast food chain pulled this crap:
"We know you really want the burger the most, so..."
A burger will cost you $5.99, Fries $1.50, and a Drink $1.49, but if you get all three, you'll pay only $6.50! What a deal, what a deal!
No, what a ripoff. In no time they'd be out of business due to competition.
--
"When the day comes that anyone can bend our country’s laws and lawmakers to serve selfish, competitive ends, that day democratic government dies" -- Preston Tucker, 1948 (Yep, it's dead.) |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to herdfan
The bundling isn't being offered as a true price break, but as a way to forcing you to pay for what you don't want and to prevent you from using the competition.
If it was truly a price break, you'd get discounts on additional products added, irregardless of what order added.... Penalty pricing should be banned "Ie you will pay a lot more for this service IF you refuse the services you don't want." The first item should NOT cost any more in order to force you to add the second.
The simple solution: By law the primary product wanted as designated by the customer must be sold at the lowest rate offered by the company to the public.
--
"When the day comes that anyone can bend our country’s laws and lawmakers to serve selfish, competitive ends, that day democratic government dies" -- Preston Tucker, 1948 (Yep, it's dead.) |
|
killbox13
@attbi.com | reply to KrK
Re: Certain types of bundling should be banned by law
DBS should be banned because of the ugliness. Next thing we know, neighborhoods around here will look like the Middle East with 86 satellite dishes crammed onto the roof of each and every house.
Unsightly. |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| Bundling
If you wouldnt have bought it in the first place its not a deal at any price. i see similar tactics at the supermarket. e.g. $1 off on a 2 litre bottle of pepsi (If you buy 2 packages of 36 count flour tortillas) i dont want or need tortillas, i didnt go in for them nor will i buy them to save a dollar on something i did go in for.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth |
|
cork1958
Cork
join:2000-02-26
Fruitport, MI | bungled
Should be more like bungled than bundled. Keep the bundled BS to yourself. If I wanted it, I would've asked for it.
--
»www.geocities.com/cork1958 |
|
bandw1dth
join:2003-02-07
Hoboken, NJ
| reply to fuzydice
Re: monopolies suck
Exactly. They raised all the prices, but lowered the raised price it if you bought the cable service. It's only a bundled discount if they announced a price increase and then the bundle. They did it all at once. A real bundle would have lowered the original price for people, and kept the single internet price the same. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to killbox13
Re: Certain types of bundling should be banned by law
Geesh, how snobby is that? --- Hey, why don't we cut down all those ugly utilities poles and get rid of all those ugly roads in our neighborhood?
Get real. DBS dishes do not make a house look bad.
--
"When the day comes that anyone can bend our country’s laws and lawmakers to serve selfish, competitive ends, that day democratic government dies" -- Preston Tucker, 1948 (Yep, it's dead.) |
|
