VZ FiOS
@verizon.net | Are you really getting more for your dollar?
If the consumer was getting more for their dollar, prices would not be increasing but remaining consistent. How can you possibly get more for your dollar when you are giving them more dollars? Sounds like the exact opposite to me... |
|
Joe12345678
join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL | Direct Tv and dish have better deals
Direct Tv and dish have better deals then cable more channels and lower box fees $5 per box first free vs $6-$7 on cable with drv fees at $14-$15 vs $5 or less fees for drv on sat. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
1 edit |  Link to see article if you dont subscribe to NYT
»news.google.com/news?as_q=indust···any&aq=f
And then just click on the 1st item. Google gives authority to read news item.
Or you can just register for free at nytimes.com
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
Anon123
@comcast.net
 from:
TKJunkMail 
| reply to VZ FiOS
Re: Are you really getting more for your dollar?
said by VZ FiOS :
If the consumer was getting more for their dollar, prices would not be increasing but remaining consistent. How can you possibly get more for your dollar when you are giving them more dollars? Sounds like the exact opposite to me...
What do you mean by consistent? Not changing? Prices are always going to rise due to inflation with a service like this. As any operator adds more channels there are more content partners to pay for each channel and you'd better believe they will adjust their fees for inflation. The NFL network wants everyone to have their channel so that everyone can pay the additional fees for it (because they want to make money!)
I think the cable co's point was that compared to 1998 you are getting many more channels and services that weren't available then such as VOD and HD. |
|
Morac
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
·Comcast
| More channels = higher price
Just because the "stuff" to price ratio is better now than it was 10 years ago, doesn't mean it's a better value.
10 years ago, I watched a handful of channels and didn't use VOD. Today, I watch a handful of channels and rarely, if ever, use VOD.
So I don't care if there are tenfold more (mostly crappy) channels compared to a decade ago. That doesn't make cable a bargain.
--
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by Morac :10 years ago, I watched a handful of channels and didn't use VOD. Today, I watch a handful of channels and rarely, if ever, use VOD. An interesting stat from the story:
watch only a fraction of what they pay for — on average, a mere 13 percent of the 118 channels available to them.
The debate is - would a la carte, where you pay only for that 13%, cost less than the whole package of channels. The FCC says a la carte would be cheaper. The cable companies and Hollywood say it won't.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
Bobcat
Premium
join:2001-02-04
Bedminster, NJ
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| A pack of lies
quote:
the cable industry says that you’re really getting more for your money.
That's a lie. Cablevision just took away approx 10% of my channels, with no decrease in rate. So cable is giving me LESS for my money. |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| Provider cost vs subscriber cost
When POS networks charge more, are the cablecos supposed to absorb those costs?
Is it Comcast's fault that ESPN or (insert channel/network here)__________ charges more for their channel(s)? 
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
Just2bfair
@comcast.net
| Just to be fair...
It depends on the cable service.
HSI price has held steady for the last 4 years while the speeds have increased from 4000/256 to 16000/2000. No price increase.
Comcast Digital Phone is cheaper than equivalent phone company service and the sound quality is much better.
The TV portion of my cable bill has increased but I have a lot more channels available and the picture quality has vastly improved.
Would I rather have Jones, TCI or AT&T back? HELL NO! |
|
Bobcat
Premium
join:2001-02-04
Bedminster, NJ
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Anon123
Re: Are you really getting more for your dollar?
said by Anon123 :
I think the cable co's point was that compared to 1998 you are getting many more channels and services that weren't available then such as VOD and HD.
The cable companies lie through their teeth. In 1998 my cable bill was $34.18. Now it's $51.12, and I get FEWER channels. We had VOD in 1998, but I never used it. And I don't care about HD. |
|
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·BroadVoice
| What a dumb comparison
It doesnt make sense to compare the prices of a non-tangible service to that of a tangible good. The price for consumer electronics has dropped because they are now being mass produced in China (among other places) in the millions. The market is now flooded with cheap goods made overseas, and there are so many options to chose from that the price naturally drops. A service on the other hand (such as cable), is not something you can mass produce in a factory someplace in Asia. A service is worth exactly what a person will pay for it, and thus the demand for that service drives the price. Look at it this way, the cost of a space flight currently sits at around $1 million because thats what people who can afford to do it think its worth. Cable service is no different, and simple economic principles will drive how much the operators charge, and therefore what we pay. Count on the New York Times to draw an apples to kiwis comparison, and then try and spin the results.....
--
Have YOU thanked a soldier today? If not, think about doing it as you speak ENGLISH this memorial day. God Bless America, and God Bless our troops.
|
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| A semi al a carte Method
The cable companies and media providers claim that if there were no bundles the cost of the individual channels would go up and "niche" channels would not be supported/available. I say there is a middle ground that would make al a carte and Bundles possible.
Right now I get X channels from Media Suppler Y for $Z. If I only want X/2 half of them than I should be able to get them al a carte for $Z/2. There is no $Z1 for channel 1 and $Z2 for channel2 (with the prices different based on popularity/etc.) but a flat $Z/X PER CHANNEL which is the same method as now (the Niche Channels are subsidized by the Popular ones).
Each Media Suppler sets their own bundle price now and would charge THE SAME BUNDLE PRICE under my system. |
|
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| On the DL(down-low)
Just between us... Newspapers are not worth the paper or online websites their made of either. You never see stand-up honest reporting anymore.. just airing what the corporate mouthpiece line is on everything... CNN, ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC.. gone are the days of doing the right thing. Reporting after 9/11/2001 DIED A SAD DEATH. Journalism is a dead industry. Cable TV is not what it used to be because they are advertising WHORES and they make more and more revenue from that source than anything else. They could even PAY you to watch it and they'd still eek out a profit if you changed nothing else. Alot of it is secret back room deals that isn't reported to the fcc, irs or anybody else. You won't see it on a stock earnings report, nor on Ronco's rotisserie express infomercial. So for that, you pay an arm, a leg franchise fees, surcharges, rental fees and are gouged beyond belief. However you are glad to pay for this nonsense. Then again, your grumbling right along with $4 gasoline so... a sucker will buy anything at a high price these days, so let the games begin. I think they should raise the rates by 40% it's not high enough.
Yes, there are tid-bits of sarcasm here.. but alot of truth subscribers just don't want to hear- or do anything about, such as unsubscribe. That would be too difficult. After all, you must be addicted to some of the programming to still be watching & paying for it. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to Just2bfair
Re: Just to be fair...
said by Just2bfair :
HSI price has held steady for the last 4 years while the speeds have increased from 4000/256 to 16000/2000. No price increase.
I have paid the same for HSI since 2001 - $42.95/mo.
And the speed went from 1500/128 to 6600/1000 during that time.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to wifi4milez
Re: What a dumb comparison
said by wifi4milez :A service on the other hand (such as cable), is not something you can mass produce in a factory someplace in Asia. A service is worth exactly what a person will pay for it, and thus the demand for that service drives the price. ONLY if I can choose whose service I can buy (as I can with the physical goods). So long as I have only one cable source (my local monopoly cable company) I must pay what they want to charge me. If I could choose my cable company (ie: I have access to a cable feed from my home to a peer point such as occurs on the Internet) and all the cable companies feed into the peering point and I choose whose feed flows over my Home-to-Peering_Point path, THEN the DEMAND for TWC's vs CV's vs Comcast's feed would set the price. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to dadkins
Re: Provider cost vs subscriber cost
said by dadkins :When POS networks charge more, are the cablecos supposed to absorb those costs? Is it Comcast's fault that ESPN or (insert channel/network here)__________ charges more for their channel(s)? If I want ESPN then I pay what their fees cause the cable company to charge me. I only pay this IF I want ESPN unless the cable company forms their own artificial bundle by grouping ESPN with other suppliers channels and sells it to me as a take-all-or-none bundle/tier. |
|
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
·Cox VOIP
·Skype
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| reply to VZ FiOS
Re: Are you really getting more for your dollar?
said by VZ FiOS :
If the consumer was getting more for their dollar, prices would not be increasing but remaining consistent. How can you possibly get more for your dollar when you are giving them more dollars? Sounds like the exact opposite to me...
Hell no I'm not. 40-50 of the 100+ channels I get could easily go away and never be missed by me. All of them seem to have informercials on them when you can't sleep in the middle of the night as well.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| reply to RARPSL
Re: Provider cost vs subscriber cost
said by RARPSL :said by dadkins :When POS networks charge more, are the cablecos supposed to absorb those costs? Is it Comcast's fault that ESPN or (insert channel/network here)__________ charges more for their channel(s)? If I want ESPN then I pay what their fees cause the cable company to charge me. I only pay this IF I want ESPN unless the cable company forms their own artificial bundle by grouping ESPN with other suppliers channels and sells it to me as a take-all-or-none bundle/tier. Welcome to cable TV!
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to RARPSL
said by RARPSL :unless the cable company forms their own artificial bundle by grouping ESPN with other suppliers channels and sells it to me as a take-all-or-none bundle/tier. Which Disney seems to like to force their carriers to do. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to RARPSL
Re: What a dumb comparison
said by RARPSL :ONLY if I can choose whose service I can buy (as I can with the physical goods). You mean like choosing service from Dish Network or DirecTV instead of your cable company? |
|
