DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey | Not surprised
How could the telcos spend all that money, price it lower ? They would have to recoup the cost somehow and keeping the price close to or the same as cable is the way... |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD | I'm shocked, just shocked!
why who would have thought that our duopoly/monopoly TV industry wouldn't be bringing us lower prices with this great new "competition" from the telcos!
and they promised! |
|
celeritypc
For Lucky Best Wash, Use Mr. Sparkle
Premium
join:2004-05-15
Caldwell, NJ
| The real answer is...Yes...and No
In the long run, prices will not go down. They always go up. The programming costs are the same whether you are a cable co or a telco. What does happen (as is happening in states with cable/telco competition) is that consumers are in a better negotiating position with either company to get a deal. This process is a proactive one in which the consumer must pursue the deal. Consumers can't expect to wait for "prices to drop" as it will not happen. Also, it pays to bundle in order to get a deal. If you want cheaper tv, you have to take internet and phone as well from the same provider. If anything, there are options, but that is what life is about.
The real culprit here is the programming. Regulating or playing the providers off one another does nothing to stop the way companies like Disney, Viacom or NBC/Universal play with programming costs and force providers into taking other channels to keep the most popular ones. Also, sports programming a la ESPN et al is the single most expensive component of programming costs. Until people say "Enough is enough," we will continue to get hammered by these costs whether we view sports or not. |
|
bhorow
join:2004-05-17
Forest Hills, NY
| This is exactly right.
People keep forgetting that cable programming costs continue to rise. They are correct that in areas that areas that Verizon is in they quickly raise the prices of the cable.
I don't know why the consumer thinks that programming cost for company A is different than programming for company B.
Disney doesn't get cheated with ESPN when it raises its programming costs.
All of these companies offer the same thing and is pretty close to a level playing field. They all offer internet-phone-cable.
So it comes down to who services people the best, Cable companies have a large advantage in the beginning. They are gaining phone customers at a rapid rate. Doscis 3.0 is going to start coming in 2008.
The field is fairly leveled at this point. Phone companies have a lot of work to do still to enter into the T.V. area.
There will be no price wars...There will be a value war which means how much speed and how many extras will be put into these packages, how much flexibility the consumer will have. |
|
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL | Who is surprised by this?
It's about time someone tells the emperor that he has no F'ing clothes on. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| reply to celeritypc
Re: The real answer is...Yes...and No
you know, programming is one of the issues in pricing, but the cable and telcos could also take a smaller profit and lower prices.
that's actually a traditional way of getting new customers - offer a better price point than the competition.
Besides the fact that there isn't real competition with only two companies offering a service, neither company really wants to compete anyway. The preferred method of doing business seems more to rely on lobbying local and national government for advantageous legislation and offering bundles that make it difficult to compare features.
I would bet that programming costs could go down, but cable prices wouldn't go down. Programming costs are just a convenient excuse for raising rates. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit | said by nasadude  :you know, programming is one of the issues in pricing, but the cable and telcos could also take a smaller profit and lower prices. These industries - telecommunications(includes cable) and entertainment barely make a return on assets that is above what people can get with savings bonds. They can't LOWER prices without going out of business due to lack of investors. The ignorance of people on these forums about the financial aspects of business is truly appalling.
ROA by Industry
»money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/···dex.html
ROA by company in telecommunications
»money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/···s/2.html
ROA by company in entertainment
»money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/···t/2.html
If investors can't get a return on their investment money, the money goes elsewhere.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO | what
Local telecom professor? Some university gave this guy a professorship just to study telecom? |
|
MadMANN
Premium
join:2005-08-19
·Comcast
| I've said it before
The competition is going to be on CONTENT, not price. While price will certainly impact customer choice, the value of the content that you get for the price is what really counts.
Posted after FIOS raised their rates: »Re: FIOS TV statewide franchise granted in NJ today |
|
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
 ·Qwest.net
| reply to footballdude
Re: what
said by footballdude :Local telecom professor? Some university gave this guy a professorship just to study telecom? Can I have that job? Think it pays well? Maybe a little cableco subsidy? Sounds nice. |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| reply to footballdude
said by footballdude :Local telecom professor? Some university gave this guy a professorship just to study telecom? Actually "Barry Orton, a UW-Madison professor of telecommunications", a MUCH broader field. And yes, there have been degrees given in telecommunications for at least 27 years, my University in California had a telecommunications degree back then which is how I can say that. They were also the department that ran the school TV and radio stations.
That said, I did not realize that degree branched out to the economics of telecommunications, I thought it was more of the use of various telecommunications to get a message/show out.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
faulknkid
join:2002-07-30
Murrieta, CA
| I have verizon and saving over 120 a year now
I have had verizon TV(about 5 months) and internet(about a year)and I am currently saving at least 120 a year. On top of that, the tv service is better(more channels) than Time Warner. The only down side it the set-top and Home Media DVR boxes are a little BETA'ish. The Internet, obviously is way faster. So not only is it cheaper, but I have a better service overall. Best of both worlds. I have noticed that Time Warner has been offering cheaper deals then what I had originally with them , now that I am not their customer.  |
|
faulknkid
join:2002-07-30
Murrieta, CA
| I have had verizon TV(about 5 months) and internet(about a year)and I am curently saving at least 120 a year. On top of that, the tv service is better(mor channels) than Time Warner. The only down side it the set-top and Home Media DVR boxes are a little BETA'ish. The Internet, obviously is way faster. So not only is it cheaper, but I have a better service overall. Best of both worlds. I have noticed that Time Warner has been offering cheaper deals then what I had originally with them , now that I am not their customer. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to TKJunkMail
Re: The real answer is...Yes...and No
Hasn't Comcast been producing high profits for the last few years ?
In general - I agree, investors want (demand?) a decent ROI, and why would investors pump money into something that will not bring a decent return. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by en102 :Hasn't Comcast been producing high profits for the last few years ? Profit $'s yes. But their profit percentage on revenue was 4% and their Return on Assets was only 1%.
They have large revenues, but the cable industry has huge capital costs(in their infrastructure) and in operating costs to maintain that infrastructure. So profits are not any where near excessive. The profits are barely enough to keep investors from fleeing to other opportunities.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
| Typical
fox guard the henhouse as the best way to farm BS by the cable overlords. Too bad most people won't wake up long enough -- and in time -- while they're sucking powerboosted p0rn to notice 'till it's too late. Then watch the 'whining' begin. When will people learn that government and big business work for one another and not the consumer? Is it that f'n hard to figure out or is the US truly a nation of consumer drones living on subprime loans and CC vapor? Sad. Truly sad. Well, any nation that would let their government kill unions as a matter of course, given that it was unions that built the great middle class, deserves everything they get. It's too bad the sensible innocents also get caught in the slaughter or tossed on the slag heap with a shiv in their back. |
|
HyPeRbAnD
join:2006-01-07
Stow, MA
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: The real answer is...Yes...and No
said by TKJunkMail :said by nasadude :you know, programming is one of the issues in pricing, but the cable and telcos could also take a smaller profit and lower prices. These industries - telecommunications(includes cable) and entertainment barely make a return on assets that is above what people can get with savings bonds. They can't LOWER prices without going out of business due to lack of investors. The ignorance of people on these forums about the financial aspects of business is truly appalling. ROA by Industry » money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/···dex.htmlROA by company in telecommunications » money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/···s/2.htmlROA by company in entertainment » money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/···t/2.htmlIf investors can't get a return on their investment money, the money goes elsewhere. You took the word right out of my mouth...
Anyway we complain about prices, we should look at Exxon Mobil and their profit. Lower the damn gas prices and we will have more to spend on entertainment. |
|
MadMANN
Premium
join:2005-08-19
·Comcast
| reply to Titus Pullo
Re: Typical
said by Titus Pullo :fox guard the henhouse as the best way to farm BS by the cable overlords. Too bad most people won't wake up long enough -- and in time -- while they're sucking powerboosted p0rn to notice 'till it's too late. Then watch the 'whining' begin. When will people learn that government and big business work for one another and not the consumer? Is it that f'n hard to figure out or is the US truly a nation of consumer drones living on subprime loans and CC vapor? Sad. Truly sad. Well, any nation that would let their government kill unions as a matter of course, given that it was unions that built the great middle class, deserves everything they get. It's too bad the sensible innocents also get caught in the slaughter or tossed on the slag heap with a shiv in their back. Wow. |
|
justbits
More fiber than ATT can handle
Premium
join:2003-01-08
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
2 edits | reply to faulknkid
Re: I have verizon and saving over 120 a year now
said by faulknkid :I have had verizon TV(about 5 months) and internet(about a year)and I am curently saving at least 120 a year. It's this kind of perception that makes people wind up not having any savings at all. $120 a year? That's $10 a month. You may be saving $120 a year, but if you're spending $1000 a year on a product that should have cost you $500 a year in a competitive market, the $120 savings is just lip service from the marketers who made you believe you were saving $120 a year.
edit: bad math |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: The real answer is...Yes...and No
You'll also find that most packages (bundled tv/hsi or phone/dsl) are not that different in price with the exception of intro pricing. When I was on Comcast, they were more expensive than POTS/DSL/DirecTv on every service except for digital phone, where their price was the same.
TimeWarner is more competitive, where their TV service (digital) is pretty much the same as DirecTv, and they have a lower priced tier for HSI (1.5/384), and offer bundle incentives. I can assume that the 'average' person (not highschool age, or gamer) doesn't need the 8Mbps/768kbps package. I do remote work on VPN/SSH/X-11/Remote Desktop, and 2.5Mbps/512kbps is fine for me... and I've been doing this for 3 years.
Having high availability tiers for those wanting to pay $$$ is a good revenue generator, especially if it isn't that difficult to implement. Having a low/basic tier for some (cable) is difficult, as they don't _really_ want low end options. |
|
