dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2005-01-09 12:05:35: Discounted pricing may help make the task of choosing a new high-speed Internet and cable television service provider easier for consumers, but at what point - if ever - does it become unfair competition. ..


insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN

1 edit

1 recommendation

insomniac84

Member

Hopefully this forces some changes

A town next to mine got WOW to move in and they offered cheaper rates and more content than comcast. Instantly comcast matched their offerings, while not letting people where I live enjoy the same deals. Comcast should be forced to have the same rates everywhere. Although I have no faith in our government to actually help the consumer.

xNPC
As Usual, Have Nice Day
Premium Member
join:2000-11-08
Errington, BC
·Shaw
ARRIS TG3482

xNPC

Premium Member

Re: Hopefully this forces some changes

well they should at the very least be forced to open their network to competitors the same way the tecos have been forced to do so. only then, when the customer has real choice for services will we begin to see in improvement in situations like this.

ProZach
@199.180.x.x

ProZach

Anon

Re: Hopefully this forces some changes

Actually they should not be "forced" to open their networks and neither should the telcos. The consumer benifits most with competition in the market, forcing companies to open their networks to other ISPs doesnt acomplish this, it just causes confusion on the part of the consumer and a lot of issues for both the network owner and service provider.

What needs to happen is the telco's and comcast need to be available to limit access to their lines, in the end they will sell access, for the right price. But as we're seeing in these communities other operators will come in with competing service and cause Comcast (and the telcos) to lower their rates (as we see happening here). Problem is when we get what we want ppl whine that it's not fair. Just like Walmart coming into a town, they might put some businesses out of business but in the end it's better prices for all as Walmart competes with target.

SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX

SRFireside

Member

Re: Hopefully this forces some changes

said by ProZach:

What needs to happen is the telco's and comcast need to be available to limit access to their lines, in the end they will sell access, for the right price.
That has already been proven to not work because the line holder would prefer to be the only game in town. Currently the telcos aren't being forced share their line... although they live to make it sound like they are. They agreed to it back in 1996 and are complaining now because they have competition in markets they weren't forward-thinking enough to realize.

If there is one line already in the ground I feel that line should be open to competition. It's a lot easier on the neighborhoods than having several companies dig up their yards to put in redundant lines. Personally I think the best way to do it is to have the infrastructure owners be only in business to lease their lines out and not offer services. This would keep them impartial and honest while not keeping out any conflict of interest.

Of course my idea is just as unlikely though.

ProZach
@199.180.x.x

ProZach

Anon

Re: Hopefully this forces some changes

How can you say it's not working? In this community it's getting the consumers almost a 50% decrease in price.

SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX

SRFireside

Member

Re: Hopefully this forces some changes

How can you say it's already happening when you said it "needs" to happen? What exactly is happening in your community?

ProZach
@199.180.x.x

ProZach

Anon

Re: Hopefully this forces some changes

"Comcast is offering its customers a 16-month discount on a combination digital TV and high-speed Internet package that would cut its usual price of $97 a month to $52."

'nuff Said

SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX

SRFireside

Member

Re: Hopefully this forces some changes

Problem with that is it's considered predatory pricing since it's only being offered in the one area. Comcast is basically the only cable game in town next to the muni, so if Comcast is undercutting the competition with the intent of running the competition out of business that's an anti-trust violation.

It's one thing when you have true competition over extended markets, but this isn't it. Do you want to know what's going to happen once the muni is run out of business? Prices will go back up again. Probably even higher than before. This isn't the way to assure a free market.

shimonmor
Premium Member
join:2000-12-30
Sedro Woolley, WA

1 edit

1 recommendation

shimonmor to insomniac84

Premium Member

to insomniac84
This is typical of big, greedy business. I'm a hard core conservative but I think the way big business gets away with raping the middle class is ridiculous.

So what's the solution? Well we can, as the general public, purchase our goods and service from whomever we feel would better serve our community and avoid large, faceless, "customer serviceless" companies such as Comcast or Walmart or whatever. Or we can sit on our arses and cry for government control. I suspect the latter will happen.

We had a great video rental store here in our small town and then Blockbuster moved in. Blockbuster offered lower rental fees and everyone flocked there (since it was built in a great American "strip mall" along with a Starbuck's and Pizza place). Eventually they ran the small town video store out of business. As soon the old place shut down, Blockbuster's prices shot up higher than they ever were and we were stuck crummy service.

Careful what you wish for...cheap is not always the path to happiness.
jazzy1124
join:2003-12-05
Fargo, ND

jazzy1124 to insomniac84

Member

to insomniac84
News Flash:
No Multi Town Cable Operator maintains pricing throughout it's markets. Richer communities will get smacked harder because they know they won't have to worry about losing customer base to dish for asthetic reasons. Headends are not all the same throughout the markets. Service and Quality of Service is not the same throughout the markets. Therefore pricing will not be the same.

On The Flipside:
Midcontinent Communications have been dropping their prices by up to 50% to attempt to steal my customers away, while at the same time raising prices to the general public in the same community. That is about as dirty of pool as you can play.

I do agree that those massive companies should be forced to publish rates on their websites and stick to them. If they want to steal customers in one community or neighborhood they should be forced to sacrifice profits systemwide. Targeted free installs is one thing, but a recurring discount is not fair for the rest of the customers or the competition.

good4thegoose
@optonline.net

good4thegoose to insomniac84

Anon

to insomniac84
I'm not phased by this, if a MUNI can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen... this is COMPETITON, if the services are compared apples to apples, price alone is not the determining factor, Quality of Service is. That's why people are more loyal in the long run to companies that provide a real track record of doing right by the consumer. Having a superior transmission medium (fiber) would be helpful too!

SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX

SRFireside

Member

Re: Hopefully this forces some changes

When "competition" becomes predatory in their business practices it's called anti-trust. If Comcast is showing itself to do these things to drive out the only competition in that area you can be sure it will be called illegal.

dadkins
Can you do Blu?
MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA

dadkins

MVM

Waaaaa

"Comcast is offering its customers a 16-month discount on a combination digital TV and high-speed Internet package that would cut its usual price of $97 a month to $52."

It's a "Promotion"! After this "Promotion" is over... guess what, the price goes back up! DUH!

If this muni really wanted to compete, they would offer the same or better "Promotion" to snag customers, no?

ropeguru
Premium Member
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA

1 recommendation

ropeguru

Premium Member

Re: Waaaaa

To me, though, this comes back to anti-trust tactics. The big boys leverage their monopolistic advantage with all the $$$ to undercut everyone else so as only to run them out of business. Then, they raise their prices back up until the next person comes along.

I think it is time for the SEC to jump in again and stop these actions.

As far as the muni trying to match Comcast, their may be no feasible way to do that. I am sure that Comcast has calculated just how much it is costing the muni to run their system. Then Comcast cuts their rates to below what the muni can afford to charge. If the muni then drops their rates to below Comcast, then they lose money and wind up going out of business. Comcast has probably figured out just how long this will take to do and that is why the promotion is 16 months.

Comcast can afford to lose money in this locality because they will funnel money from all their other over priced areas to cover the loss. In the end it is a no win situation for the muni.

oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium Member
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA

oliphant to dadkins

Premium Member

to dadkins
It's not that the have a promotion, it's who qualifies for the promotion. I'm not familiar with this specific deal but if the promotion is available EVERYWHERE, then I would agree with you. If it's only available in a single franchise then it could be considered predatory pricing and be illegal.
smallblock
join:2004-01-03
Milford, MA

smallblock to dadkins

Member

to dadkins
are you for real??

insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN

insomniac84 to dadkins

Member

to dadkins
[BQUOTE=dadkinsIt's a "Promotion"! After this "Promotion" is over... guess what, the price goes back up! DUH! [/BQUOTE
WOW, your sarcasm suggests you think your right. The reason they call it a promotion is because they don't want to have to offer it at other places and can end it in 16 months if they killed the competition. If the competition is still around they will of course extend that promotion for as long as they need to. But once competition is gone, rates will go back up to 97. Its anticompetitive behavior. If they want to offer it at 52 a month, they should be forced to make it stay that price for good.

djrobx
Premium Member
join:2000-05-31
Reno, NV

1 recommendation

djrobx to dadkins

Premium Member

to dadkins
Yes, this is what I detest about Comcast. I have to work to keep my bill low. I used to think it was unethical to threaten to cancel to get them to offer a deal, but when they start offering people 16 months of discounted service, I realize it's me that's getting the shaft if I don't pressure them for a better deal.

I would much prefer a "regular every day low price" than having to negotiate with a CSR every few months.
Rammer
Premium Member
join:2001-03-06

Rammer

Premium Member

h really

like we all no comcast wont do that
now come on
a fine upstanding out fit like them

who would have throught such

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

LAME

I'm sure the municipal utility is able to offer great discounts because they don't have to pay the same taxes and franchise fees that Comcast does. Of course, that's not considered "unfair."

This situation is exactly how competition is supposed to work. You have multiple providers of the same type of service and the providers lower their costs to snag the most customers. There is nothing wrong with that.

SpitefulCrow
Insert Witty Tag Here
Premium Member
join:2003-06-04
Berkeley, CA

SpitefulCrow

Premium Member

Re: LAME

Exactly. And there's nothing wrong with a nationwide company having different service charges in different markets. If Comcast set its rates the same everywhere it would get undercut by municipals where they exist and could get undercut by Verizon and SBC everywhere else!

oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium Member
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA

1 edit

oliphant to pnh102

Premium Member

to pnh102
It's predatory pricing, not competition. It's not competition when other franchises subsidize a particular market. As soon as the competitor is driven out and Comcast establishes their micro-monopoly in that market they'll raise their prices back up.

As for unfair, there are plenty of industries that have no problem competing against gov't.

UPS, Fedex and DHL seem to be able to compete on their merits against the USPS just fine and they do so despite the USPS being in most cases cheaper.

Private schools seems to compete just fine against public schools when public schools are FREE.

Meanwhile we have Comcast which must resort to predatory pricing to compete with a muni rather than simply offering better service.

Comcast should be competing based on it's merits as other companies do rather than relying on their market position to break the law.

Fact remains there would be no demand for muni services if Comcast was doing a better job for its customers. It's because Comcast has such an array of anti-consumer policies and tactics that creates the market for the munis.

ropeguru
Premium Member
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA

ropeguru

Premium Member

Re: LAME

said by oliphant:

UPS, Fedex and DHL seem to be able to compete on their merits against the USPS just fine and they do so despite the USPS being in most cases cheaper.
And you forgot to add the fact that it is against FEDERAL LAW for any other company to transport mail that is enclosed in "paper" envelopes. Which is why DHL, FedEx, UPS and any others, must use cardboard packaging for documents.

And I am sure there are some other catches that these carriers have had to face in regards to the USPS and the way they are protected by federal laws.

JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium Member
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD

3 recommendations

JTRockville to pnh102

Premium Member

to pnh102
said by pnh102:

I'm sure the municipal utility is able to offer great discounts because they don't have to pay the same taxes and franchise fees that Comcast does. Of course, that's not considered "unfair."
It would be unfair if it were true. But the town of Braintree requires equal franchise fees from both cable providers: investor-owned Comcast and publicly owned BELD.

It's more likely BELD doesn't get the same tax breaks as Comcast.

oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium Member
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA

oliphant

Premium Member

Re: LAME

...and it's often the case that municipal services are subject to much more regulation and oversight than private sector companies like Comcast.
TACSPEED
Premium Member
join:2001-04-14
Tacoma, WA

TACSPEED to JTRockville

Premium Member

to JTRockville
Same here in Tacoma. Click! ,our municipal cable company, pays the same taxes and franchise fees as Comcast to the city of Tacoma.

AbBaZaBbA
Premium Member
join:2002-07-10
Wildomar, CA

AbBaZaBbA

Premium Member

well

well at leas't they're trying to compete with a muni instead of spending a bunch of money on pr lies to convince stuipd people to vote against it.

frankenfeet
934 is 10-8
Premium Member
join:2001-10-14
Smiths Grove, KY

frankenfeet

Premium Member

No different than Walmart.

This is how Walmart competes on the local level. They can afford to take a loss in some locals because they make up for it in others. Eventually the local supermarket will get to the point that it can no longer compete with the prices that Walmart offers, so they go belly up. Walmart can the raise it's prices back to their originals, or even go higher because of the lack of competition. At that point they become a monopoly, and the government should step in and fine them, IMHO.

oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium Member
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA

oliphant

Premium Member

Re: No different than Walmart.

Predatory pricing is a bit different. It would be like Walmart at a particular store dropped their price to drive out competition while all the other Walmart stores charged market prices.

And that's the whole point, in this case Comcast is using their market position to siphon off money from other markets to subsidize this predatory pricing to drive out this specific competitor. If Comcast simply implemented a new lower nationwide or regional pricing schedule to drive out competitors there would be less of a question as to whether it's true predatory pricing.
oliphant

3 recommendations

oliphant

Premium Member

Predatory pricing is a Federal Crime

It's predatory pricing plain and simple and could be considered a violation of the Robinson-Patman Act.

»assembler.law.cornell.ed ··· 00-.html
said by The Act:
TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 13

§ 13. Discrimination in price, services, or facilities

Release date: 2004-05-18

(a) Price; selection of customers
It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality, where either or any of the purchases involved in such discrimination are in commerce, where such commodities are sold for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, and where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination, or with customers of either of them
The main exception being where the price difference is justified due to the cost of delivery or manufacture, meaning in Alaska where it costs more to deliver goods, or where labor may be more expensive a higher price may be justified, but when comparing prices here with say 80 miles away, they'd have a hard time proving that there is a significant cost difference.

And according to a different section of the act, it may even be illegal to receive the discounted price.
said by The Act:
(f) Knowingly inducing or receiving discriminatory price
It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, knowingly to induce or receive a discrimination in price which is prohibited by this section.
What it comes down to is the Act means to stop predatory pricing so that everyone gets the same 'deal' based on what it costs the seller to produce and deliver the goods. In Comcast's cast the Act would justify a nationwide pricing mandate (the similar mandate that DirecTV and Echostar agreed to when they tried to merge that would have protected consumers in rural areas against predatory pricing).
Relic (banned)
join:2003-09-29

Relic (banned)

Member

Re: Predatory pricing is a Federal Crime

While I agree 100% with you, what do you think our corporate-backed government will do about it?

It's sad. When I moved to this town we had roughly 5 video stores, all mom-and-pop. Then in came Blockbuster. I watched them first-hand (as a blockbuster employee in high school) cut prices way below their average prices and way below the competition's. Soon after the other video stores folded, and not surprisingly, the prices on rentals skyrocketed, literally. It went from $3 per rental to $6 in the span of a few months. Now being the ONLY video store in town, they have been free to charge whatever the hell they want to those too paranoid to rent online.

I probably shouldn't mention the shady contracts that a phone and cable company have with this town to be the sole provider of their mediums.

Sufficed to say these corporations are supposed to be following laws which oliphant elaborated on, yet are not and anyone with a grasp of the obvious can see they aren't being forced to. What happened to capitalism in this country?

••••
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD

nasadude

Member

thank you oliphant

thanks for the post - I was pretty sure such behaviour is illegal, but couldn't site anything specific.
Rammer
Premium Member
join:2001-03-06

Rammer

Premium Member

Re: thank you oliphant

this line is what makes it bad
for comcast in my eyes

The municipal utility, which charges $76 for the same package, says the 16-month rate is not available in other towns or to -----Comcast's current customers in Braintree.------
sharksfan3
Premium Member
join:2004-02-16
North Hollywood, CA

sharksfan3

Premium Member

Goes back to one issue

Forcing Comcast to open up their lines to other providers in the first place is wrong. They built the network, they should be the sole operators.

You built the house you live in. Now the government is forcing you to let me live there too at a rent rate substantially below market value.

These other companies (ie earthlink) need to front the money to build their own networks. Freeloading isn't the answer.

•••••

F14b0mbk4t
Walmart Is 73h L337 Yo'
Premium Member
join:2004-11-11
Above

1 recommendation

F14b0mbk4t

Premium Member

Comcrap

Comcast = Comcrap

PliotronX
My Katamari's Bigger Than Your Katamari
join:2000-05-13
Sunland, CA

PliotronX

Member

Re: Comcrap

Take your pick...

spie340
Hmm
Premium Member
join:2004-01-06
Boise, ID

spie340

Premium Member

it is business

While unfortunately they can be seen doing this it is business.

Walmart does the same thing. I couldn't believe it at first but when I used to go to Walmart in Oregon I found my prices to be cheaper than going to Walmart in idaho. I asked a friend who has a brother fairly high up in walmart and he said they base their prices on what everyone else is charging for that area.

Though it seems that the prices the cable companies are charging are way out of proportion. This isn't right. But who knows what it going to happen

•••••••••••••
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina

Member

Dish Network - Charlie Ergen

What ever happened to the argument Charlie tried to make regarding "localized" pricing? I thought the government was fighting his efforts to cut prices in highly competitive areas while milking rural customers where only DirecTV can compete?

Did he win or lose this battle? If he lost, then there seems to be a precedent about offering consistent pricing. If he won, while potentially despicable, what Comcast is doing is probably not illegal.
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Wakefield, MA

BosstonesOwn

Member

Re: Dish Network - Charlie Ergen

said by rradina:

What ever happened to the argument Charlie tried to make regarding "localized" pricing? I thought the government was fighting his efforts to cut prices in highly competitive areas while milking rural customers where only DirecTV can compete?

Did he win or lose this battle? If he lost, then there seems to be a precedent about offering consistent pricing. If he won, while potentially despicable, what Comcast is doing is probably not illegal.
If I am not mistaken you have it the reversed Charlie Ergen fought with the FCC to bring nationwide pricing to the table for dbs providers. It was in retaliation to Directv and Pegasus who would charge more or less depending on the area. Pegasus was one of the biggest offenders because they would resell Directv equipment and service for a higher price.

Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium Member
join:2001-11-29
Verona, PA

Combat Chuck

Premium Member

I guess I'm the only one...

...who thinks that it's ironic that a government run utility; who can undercut the private sectors prices because they have pretty much their entire tax base to fall back on; complains that a private sector company is undercutting them using the rest of the company to fall back on.

I would point out that this is one of the reasons that you don't want government competing with the private sector but I'm pretty sure it's a waste of time at this point....

•••••••••
garrettm
join:2002-05-23
Beaverton, OR

garrettm

Member

contact the FTC

If somebody here has all the details. For example (what Comcast is offering against the muni and what is not being offered to other people in neighboring comcast area.) Contact the FTC(Federal Trade Commission) and you might actually get an agent to look into it. I totally agree that if people do not follow up on this stuff we all be down to about one broadband internet provider charging $70+ per month once they realize they can. It is a long shot but it is possible somebody at the FTC will actually care about what we are paying them to do.

ctceo
Premium Member
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN

ctceo

Premium Member

Ahhh.

The problems with Free Enterprise strike again
2farfromCO7
join:2000-10-14
Farmington, MI

2farfromCO7

Member

The REAL people getting ripped off here

are the ones in surrounding cities whose cable bills go up to pay for thes discounts. Not only do they not get the benefits of competition, but they must also PAY for the benefits of the lucky ones who have it. That's why predatory pricing is wrong. If Comcast could demonstrate that they weren't borrowing from other cities to pay for these promotions, then I might be OK with it. However, I'm certaint that isn't the case here.

•••

Jacob Aziza
@aol.com

Jacob Aziza

Anon

unbelivable

I can't believe what I have been reading here. Am I the only one to stumble across This stie and realize that cable TV is a luxery, not a nessessity (yes, I know, I don't spell well)

Are consumers being "ripped-off" became Caddilacs and H2s and Lincolns cost so much more than they are actually worth?

Aside from the fact that you really don't need TV at all, fact is, there is such a thing as broadcast television. Its free. Get an anttena. Cable companies wouldn't charge so much if people weren't happy to pay it. There is no reason the FTC or FCC or any other government body should regulate cable, weather they are gouging, or undercutting, or price fixing or whatever they want to do.
We should be worrying about the privitazation of healthcare. Hospitals today are all for profit, and the prices are skyrocketing. Lets see some disscussion of the pros and cons of government intervention in an area which actually matters

P.S. (why even bother responding to the anonomys capitalist? He is clearly an idiot. Sorry, I just had to throw that in)