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.. --
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and Im told its a womans prerogative..."