dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
1278
ender7074
join:2006-11-21
Saint Louis, MO

1 recommendation

ender7074

Member

Full of BS

This guy is full of it. If he was so concerned with customer service, the cable techs would not have been outsourced to a foregin country. He also would be stomping mudholes into the butts of people in charge of the contractors that never show up on time. This is the exact same line of stinking, rotten BS that we heard when he was hired (I used to work at Charter Commons in St. Louis). He was going to be some grand savior and, so far, all he has done is run the company farther into the ground while outsourcing local jobs to a foregin country. Way to go jackass.

The last good CEO that Charter had was the guy before Carl Vogel. I think his name was Jack Kent or something like that. He was a good guy that got the axe because of one rotten apple in the bunch.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

1 recommendation

fiberguy2

Premium Member

... and don't forget with keeping all of that here, for a little guy, they'd have to raise rates WAY beyond what most Americans would be willing to pay..

.. don't forget that!!! ..don't forget that!!!

The landscape that makes up communications is not something for the arm chair quarterback. It's fierce out there, and takes a VERY fine tuned person to run. It's very easy to sit back and criticize these people but here's what they are faced with:

(applies to all com companies)

They have to offer a quality product
Make the customer happy
Make the investor/stock holder happy
Run a quality system
Pay employees fairly with good benefits.
Operate with in their budgets.
Keep up with the changes of tech and demands of customers.
Ward off the wolves (other providers) from their pack of sheep.

All of this while being in the scale of their operation. Why does anyone thing the mega mergers of the late 90's/2000's happened? It put companies in a cash position to be able to be a better competitor. Cable, for example, if they stayed as fragmented as they were with all the little guys trying to do it alone, you'd still be running on 256kbps cable modems, if even. Telephone would also still be a faint dream in the eyes of most providers and you'd still just have digital cable, not ADS and no VOD.

The mergers, as bad as some people see them, are what got the providers where they are today. The same is to be said about telephone.

Now, in my eyes, that they have got their networks built up, do we hope to see them broken up again? What would that do? Put us back to the 90's again? Would they be able to afford the next round of upgrades or would we sit put again? Does anyone thing Verizon would be able to offer FiOS today if they didn't buy up in strength with all of of their mergers? Doubt it.

Like I said.. it's not something to arm chair and it's never going to please everyone simultaneously because there will always be harsh critics.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK

Premium Member

said by fiberguy2:

... and don't forget with keeping all of that here, for a little guy, they'd have to raise rates WAY beyond what most Americans would be willing to pay..
Debt from their own mis-management is their problem. Sorry, but the stock will have to stay cheap for awhile and the CEO won't make his zillions. Too bad. Hire Americans.
They have to offer a quality product
Make the customer happy
Make the investor/stock holder happy
Run a quality system
Pay employees fairly with good benefits.
Operate with in their budgets.
Keep up with the changes of tech and demands of customers.
Ward off the wolves (other providers) from their pack of sheep.
They have to offer a quality product
Make the customer happy
Make the investor/stock holder happy
Run a quality system
Pay employees fairly with good benefits.
Operate with in their budgets.
Keep up with the changes of tech and demands of customers.
Ward off the wolves (other providers) from their pack of sheep.

All they really have to do is:

Operate in areas where there is little competition, and use bundling penalties to keep people needing broadband etc off of DBS satellite.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Thanks for armchair quarter-backing.

You've done little to change this post. When you called it a bundling penalty, you lost all credibility.

It was always a "discount" until someone (probably a cheap penny pincher) decided to call it a penalty because they always look at the cheapest route vs. actual price. Phone companies do this, actually invented this, and yet only cable catches shit for it?

I suppose that when you go to the grocery store and you see a special price "with coupon" that the regular price is the penalty for not having the coupon? To ward off future arguments, I suppose the cable of Coke for $4.00 (instead of the $6.99 price) WITH additional $25.00 purchase now becomes a penalty for those not wishing to buy more services and save? I just don't get this way of thinking.

Sooner or later reality will set in and then the conversation can continue.

But again, thanks for making my point even more clear.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK

Premium Member

It's not a discount. It's a price scheme designed to keep people locked into services.

In the same way "Naked DSL" is offered for $1-$2 less then DSL + POTS line. That's no deal. If you believe that the pricing is not set very deliberately and with intent to keep customers out of competitor's hands then you're the one who needs a dose of reality.

Yes, a PENALTY. The only way it would not be a penalty is if the pricing structure was the same for either service and then you got a discount when you added the second....

With CableTV, it works like this. You can get CableTV for $40 a month. Then you can get Cable Internet for $25 a month on top of that.... $65 a month for both. BUT should you only want Cable Internet and refuse to get the TV (Because you want to get it from oh, say DBS) then the price for Cable Internet is $59.00 a month.... That's no "discount". It's a penalty price to make sure you keep CableTV and stay off DBS, that's what it is.
jjeffeory
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN

jjeffeory to fiberguy2

Member

to fiberguy2
SO when are they going to get to the part where they offer a quality product, run a quality system, and make the customer happy?

I have to admit that they may be there in Pasadena, CA. In other parts of the country, it's a different story. All I'm saying is do things at least better than the old, small, "mom and pop" cables companies.

Anway, I'll be moving soon and getting another provider!
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2 to KrK

Premium Member

to KrK
said by KrK:

With CableTV, it works like this. You can get CableTV for $40 a month. Then you can get Cable Internet for $25 a month on top of that.... $65 a month for both. BUT should you only want Cable Internet and refuse to get the TV (Because you want to get it from oh, say DBS) then the price for Cable Internet is $59.00 a month.... That's no "discount". It's a penalty price to make sure you keep CableTV and stay off DBS, that's what it is.
Well? This is a long term argument. Here, Internet has always been $57.00 per month. However, they offered a bundle price for $42.00... So I guess it's all in how you 'choose' to look at it. In your example, you choose to look at the lowest price as "the" price of internet and the higher as a penalty.

Also, you're DSL example speaks clearly of AT&T systems. Qwest was the first ILEC to offer DSL "stand alone" aka "dry, naked, what ever"... They HARDLY offer the service at $1-$2 less than DSL + POTS. I DO, however, agree with the AT&T tactic. It's called the deal made with the Devil. This is classic of the devil's deals... "Sure, we'll offer DSL dry, but you didn't say it had to be at "X" price!!"

Want one further? Take Qwest, for example.. Qwest will offer you a cheaper price, however, it's with a "Qualifying" phone package. IE: You don't get the cheaper DSL price unless you have a 'specific' level of phone service.

Each service is not made equally in their pricing. However, the one thing that I don't see the unbundled price as a penalty. I know what it really costs to offer a service and bundling DOES save the company money. However, anyone is welcome to see it the way they choose.

Now back on topic..