 kapilThe Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL | Idiots! Who are the idiots who believed the telco-tv-will-lower-costs bullshit?
I think we should make women in charge of all the regulatory bodies because they are quite used to this strategy that is used by drunk guys in bars...say anything to get you to strip and bend over.
Did ya' really think that VZ and T were all upset because they saw poor consumer being screwed by Comcast? If they were upset, it's only because they wanted to join in and make it a threesome and screw the consumer a little harder.
--
»PropertyMaps.com - Real-time, map based, nationwide MLS property search! |
|
 needforspeed59Cruise Ship Just Passing Through
join:2001-05-02
Glendale, AZ | Well, DUH! |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to kapil
When has TV service (Telco or Cableco) ever gone down ?
The only thing that has ever made it appear to have gone down is:
1. Bundling with HSI/DSL and/or voice
2. Throwing in cr@p channels (basically paid advertisements or the 'watching paint dry channel' )
I need to get a decent antenna and just do broadcast HD.
I agree all of them want money.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
| reply to kapil
said by kapil:Who are the idiots who believed the telco-tv-will-lower-costs bullshit? TV rates are still high because the nexus of control is with the content providers and not with the access providers. Hollywood and the 4 major entertainment companies control prices. Having the telcos deliver TV in addition to cable and satellite has not changed that fact at all.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
|
|
 MadMANNPremium
join:2005-08-19
kudos:2 | said by fAcEtIOUs:TV rates are still high because the nexus of control is with the content providers and not with the access providers. Hollywood and the 4 major entertainment companies control prices. Having the telcos deliver TV in addition to cable and satellite has not changed that fact at all. Exactly. However, nobody here wanted to believe anything other than the evil cable company wants to take their life savings.
When FiOS was a new topic here, all of us involved in the industry warned that prices were set by the providers. The MSO's have to make a profit and charge accordingly. Verizon is no exception.
The proof now is in your FiOS bill. Welcome to the TV biz, VZ! |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to kapil
said by kapil:Who are the idiots who believed the telco-tv-will-lower-costs bullshit? And if there were still regulations in place, there would be no FIOS and cable TV would continue to have no incentive to improve service.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
| reply to MadMANN
said by MadMANN:said by fAcEtIOUs:TV rates are still high because the nexus of control is with the content providers and not with the access providers. Hollywood and the 4 major entertainment companies control prices. Having the telcos deliver TV in addition to cable and satellite has not changed that fact at all. Exactly. However, nobody here wanted to believe anything other than the evil cable company wants to take their life savings. When FiOS was a new topic here, all of us involved in the industry warned that prices were set by the providers. The MSO's have to make a profit and charge accordingly. Verizon is no exception. The proof now is in your FiOS bill. Welcome to the TV biz, VZ! So if cable was so powerful, and at one time, the only game in town, why didn't they use that leverage to keep rates low? |
|
MadMANNPremium
join:2005-08-19
kudos:2
1 edit | said by moonpuppy:So if cable was so powerful, and at one time, the only game in town, why didn't they use that leverage to keep rates low? That statement kind of insinuates that cable is somewhat responsible for FiOS rate hikes. I don't know if that was your intent, but it would be pretty ridiculous to believe that IMO.
If you notice, rates increased the most once satellite offered competition. At that point, more and more content surfaced and people had another option to get that content. Meanwhile, the consumer made the demand for certain networks much higher. The more demand, the higher the price. Basic economics. And the MSO is not going to eat that cost. They are in business to make money.
Take the recent Big 10 controversy. Do you think that without the consumer demand they would have the balls to ask for the ridiculous amounts of money that they ask for? When ESPN started out they cowered and begged the cable companies to carry them. Years later when they developed a must-have standard from the consumer and satellite was competing, prices went through the roof. Then it became a bundle situation where the company who owned the in-demand content would threaten to pull the more popular programming and not renew contracts if the MSO didn't carry 5 or 6 of their other upstart content channels. Meanwhile, consumers figure if company x cable provider didn't carry what they want, then they can go to company y satellite provider to get it.
Also, when cable was the only game in town, the industry was much more regulated and the content choice was not as bountiful as it is today. However, people obviously wanted the competition and more choice of content, so they had to deregulate to make room for said satellite competition.
One thing good about VZ being such a large company and getting into the TV business is that it brings to light what cable companies have been trying to explain for years now.
Trust me, this is only the beginning of VZs TV rate increases. They have huge amounts of overhead to pay for in the building of infrastructure right now, not even including what they have to pay for content. |
|
| What I am saying, and have been saying for a while now, is why don't the cable TV companies tell the truth as to why rates go up. They blame network upgrades but many times it is content and the must carry rules.
If this were explained to the customers, I can almost guarantee you that the public will side with the cable companies BUT will turn if rates go up anyway. Customers may have short memories but they are not stupid. |
|
MadMANNPremium
join:2005-08-19
kudos:2 | Anytime I see a rate increase letter from any MSO (and I have worked for a few) it usually has two major points: Price of content and cost of network upgrades and maintenance. Both of which, BTW, are valid. I mean, show me the last rate increase letter you received and show me where they omitted content price as a reason for the hike.
They could explain in detail till they are blue in the face, but the average customer only knows that their bill is going up. The logo on the bill is the MSO and what is right in front of them, so that's who is going to be the first on the list to blame. They are not going to call Viacom and tell them to shove it.
Again, with the Big 10 thing as an example, I don't know the exact numbers, but it seemed to me that the public was divided 50/50 as to who is to blame. But in the end, the company who actually collects their money is the easiest and most obvious target. |
|
| I have NEVER seen a letter explaining a price increase due to content. I have had Comcast for 5 years. |
|
| reply to kapil
said by kapil:Who are the idiots who believed the telco-tv-will-lower-costs bullshit? I think we should make women in charge of all the regulatory bodies because they are quite used to this strategy that is used by drunk guys in bars...say anything to get you to strip and bend over. Did ya' really think that VZ and T were all upset because they saw poor consumer being screwed by Comcast? If they were upset, it's only because they wanted to join in and make it a threesome and screw the consumer a little harder. I could live with us women in-charge since most of us know B.S. when we see it.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl |
|
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:said by kapil:Who are the idiots who believed the telco-tv-will-lower-costs bullshit? And if there were still regulations in place, there would be no FIOS and cable TV would continue to have no incentive to improve service. DING DING DING!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE HAVE A WINNAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
 ropeguruPremium
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA | reply to supergirl
said by supergirl:said by kapil:Who are the idiots who believed the telco-tv-will-lower-costs bullshit? I think we should make women in charge of all the regulatory bodies because they are quite used to this strategy that is used by drunk guys in bars...say anything to get you to strip and bend over. Did ya' really think that VZ and T were all upset because they saw poor consumer being screwed by Comcast? If they were upset, it's only because they wanted to join in and make it a threesome and screw the consumer a little harder. I could live with us women in-charge since most of us know B.S. when we see it. So Hillary shouldn't be elected... Thanks for agreeing... 
»politicalhumor.about.com/library···tman.htm
--
FWD#: 223611 |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to supergirl
said by supergirl:I could live with us women in-charge since most of us know B.S. when we see it. I dunno about that one, Supergirl. I know one woman that a lightbulb can beat. |
|
 MrMasterjetsetterPremium
join:2000-12-16
St Thomas, VI
 ·Sprint Mobile Br..
·Virgin Mobile Br..
| reply to moonpuppy
said by moonpuppy:I have NEVER seen a letter explaining a price increase due to content. I have had Comcast for 5 years. You must be young. Only five years of cable company hell? If I only had 5 yrs worth I'd probably would have more hair on my head due to less stress! |
|
MadMANNPremium
join:2005-08-19
kudos:2 | reply to moonpuppy
If you post the last rate increase letter you got (which should be pretty recent) I will post the one distributed in my area. |
|
 DotMac4Shill H8rPremium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | reply to en102
said by en102:I need to get a decent antenna and just do broadcast HD. That's what I did...set up a UHF antenna and 2 MCE boxes...then cancelled E*. The money I'm saving pays for Blockbuster online and I still have $80/mo left over. CATV/DBS programming is overpriced crap. |
|
DotMac4Shill H8rPremium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | reply to pnh102
Cable has improved service? News to me. |
|
|
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
Access providers aren't helping themselves any by lobbying against a la carte regulations.
Entertainment companies are only as good as their product, and they're obviously producing something people want a lot. Something like ESPN is a natural monopoly, like Microsoft I guess, and they're doing what they can to keep it. But if they start sucking (a la Vista) they will lose their position quickly. Exclusive deals don't last forever.
If the content is worth it, people will pay for it. If not, they won't. The whole bundling thing is used to make people pay for things they don't want, to get something else they do want. But it makes the ESPNs too powerful, because they're essential to the bundle. By going a la carte, they are only worth what people will pay, and no more. The course of channels that people choose can be as cheap or expensive as they want, avoiding the "necessary" price increases if they want by cancelling the ones that cost too much. |
|
