2 edits | pfft The comments about raising rates before losing customers is unintelligent. If Comcast wasn't that worried about losing customers it wouldn't raise rates, it would lower them or keep them the same. If Comcast were to keep rates the same then they would probably roll out some sort of new line that allotted more channels to the various channel line ups.
It would not make business sense to raise rates when a competitor is coming into the market. A company is not in business to lose customers. Its in business to maintain and retain those customers. Otherwise the business goes under.
Raising rates for any business (for the most part) would help drive that business faster into the ground. The goal is to keep the business making money for as long as possible. Even if its a small amount of cash that adds up over time. Compared to the quick buck over a short time span.
But cable has been slowly dying in the first place because the people running those businesses are total morons. In all the smaller towns and rural areas where I know cable is an option everyone has satellite because its a better deal. You get more channels for what you pay, whereas cable charges you an arm and a leg just for 60 channels. Why pay near the same amount for 60 channels when you get over 100 channels AND better quality picture? |
|
 Steve BPremium
join:2004-08-02
Seattle, WA | For the price of the 60-75 channel package (basic or expanded basic) from Comcast, I get 185 channels plus over 60 channels off XM Sat Radio. That isn't promotional pricing either. Throw in an additional 10 bucks and now I got two DVRs.
I hate the constant cable rate hikes. One has to wonder though like the original article stated what valid justification could Comcast possibly offer for these constant rate hikes even though they have record profits. Oil companies come to mind too.... |
|
| Oil companies don't necessarily set the price of oil which why gas prices are higher. Ever hear of OPEC? |
|
Steve BPremium
join:2004-08-02
Seattle, WA | Actually, I have. What I was getting at is what was also stated in the original article of this thread. How could they have any valid reason for higher prices when they claim to have record profits. No matter how you slice it, its wrong. In simpler terms, no matter how you try to calculate it, you cannot claim record profits and then have any kind of excuse whatsoever for raising prices. |
|
 KAD ImagingJust Shoot ItPremium
join:2002-09-21
Hialeah, FL | reply to Techman21
GIG my friend. Greed Is Good (my new catch phrase)
Greed Is Good. Why provide more channels/content/features, or lower rates in place of a $250,000 bonus for myself? C'mon, I work hard raping my customers, I need decent compensation for it. ($250K not being excessive in any regard)
If in 10 years I'm charging $149 for basic (60 chans) and I make $10mil so be it.
--
Like Cars? Visit:
SportCompactMiami.com
forums.sportcompactmiami.com
blog.sportcompactmiami.com |
|
dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | reply to Steve B
said by Steve B:...How could they have any valid reason for higher prices when they claim to have record profits. No matter how you slice it, its wrong. In simpler terms, no matter how you try to calculate it, you cannot claim record profits and then have any kind of excuse whatsoever for raising prices. It's not a matter of right or wrong, especially when competition (Dish at the very least) exists. We're not talking about a necessity like power or water service here, but rather a luxury. You choose to pay it or you don't.
If raising rates brings in more money, then they are obligated to serve their shareholders by doing so. If raising rates ends up costing them money in the form of lost customers, then they're obligated not to.
There might be businesses out there that aren't interested in maximizing profits, but I don't know of any and I sure as hell wouldn't buy their stock. |
|
Steve BPremium
join:2004-08-02
Seattle, WA | True, I understand that businesses are in to make money and I also understand the obligation to shareholders. However, without customers, they wouldn't have any business. I do believe it is a matter of right and wrong. If you are in business and your money is made be ripping everyone else off, then its wrong and that company should not be in business. If not that, then bring in some viable competition. If given the chance, I would bet most people would not have cable because of their business practices, i.e. cable prices hikes every year. Like I mentioned though, sat is not viable competition since not everyone can get it for various reasons and we need viable competition. |
|
