 matcarlPremium
join:2007-03-09
Franklin Square, NY | Raising Rates They just raised the rates as of January of this year, now three months later they are going up again? |
|
|
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Digital OTA looks better and better to me all the time.
So far, I've got 19 channels OTA on a pair of rabbit ears (50 dB gain though). Only problem is that I don't get Fox or CBS.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| reply to matcarl
Yeah well programming costs can only be absorbed for so long before it has to be passed on.
Don't really know who u can blame for this.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
 wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | reply to en102
said by en102:Digital OTA looks better and better to me all the time. So far, I've got 19 channels OTA on a pair of rabbit ears (50 dB gain though). Only problem is that I don't get Fox or CBS. Well, get as much enjoyment out of it as you can now! The clock is ticking, and in less than 9 months it wont work anymore (Feb 2009 to be exact).
--
Весна прибыла |
|
 Fubar
join:2001-02-20
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:2 | said by wifi4milez:said by en102:Digital OTA looks better and better to me all the time. So far, I've got 19 channels OTA on a pair of rabbit ears (50 dB gain though). Only problem is that I don't get Fox or CBS. Well, get as much enjoyment out of it as you can now! The clock is ticking, and in less than 9 months it wont work anymore (Feb 2009 to be exact). Analog is going away... Digital OTA is here to stay |
|
 KickrootJava HeathenPremium
join:2002-11-24
Glassboro, NJ | reply to wifi4milez
said by wifi4milez:said by en102:Digital OTA looks better and better to me all the time. Well, get as much enjoyment out of it as you can now! The clock is ticking, and in less than 9 months it wont work anymore (Feb 2009 to be exact). He said digital OTA (ATSC), not analog (NTSC).
--
Only through the criticizing of others can we learn to love ourselves. |
|
CorydonCultivant son jardinPremium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO | reply to matcarl
said by matcarl:They just raised the rates as of January of this year, now three months later they are going up again? No big surprise. Someone has to pay for all of that fiber. There was just an article about how it costs UTOPIA about $2300 to connect a subscriber. I'm sure Verizon's costs are similar.
So there's no way that they're making their investment back fast enough to please Wall Street if your customers are only paying $100 a month. That's two years to recover the cost to connect them and you haven't paid for any programming costs, HSI connectivity or telephony back-end.
This is why FiOS is considered a gamble, and why Verizon may well end up losing their shirt.
--
My opinions are my own. No-one else would want them! |
|
1 edit | said by Corydon:said by matcarl:They just raised the rates as of January of this year, now three months later they are going up again? No big surprise. Someone has to pay for all of that fiber. There was just an article about how it costs UTOPIA about $2300 to connect a subscriber. I'm sure Verizon's costs are similar. So there's no way that they're making their investment back fast enough to please Wall Street if your customers are only paying $100 a month. That's two years to recover the cost to connect them and you haven't paid for any programming costs, HSI connectivity or telephony back-end. This is why FiOS is considered a gamble, and why Verizon may well end up losing their shirt. That opinion was once widely held a few years ago, when fios was first being rolled out, but it is not a widely shared opinion now. VZ (and all telcos) were always going to lose reg. phone customers, and they need to compete with cable. Now they can, with better infrastructure than cable. Considering their earnings were over a billion dollars this quarter alone, that is a long stretch from losing their shirt.
Further, with the stock up over $1 today, Wall Street is making their opinion known, although some of that is undoubtedly due to the wireless side. |
|
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | reply to Fubar
said by Fubar:said by wifi4milez:said by en102:Digital OTA looks better and better to me all the time. So far, I've got 19 channels OTA on a pair of rabbit ears (50 dB gain though). Only problem is that I don't get Fox or CBS. Well, get as much enjoyment out of it as you can now! The clock is ticking, and in less than 9 months it wont work anymore (Feb 2009 to be exact). Analog is going away... Digital OTA is here to stay Thats cool. I didnt even know there were two types of OTA!
--
Весна прибыла |
|
 TzaleProud Libertarian ConservativePremium
join:2004-01-06
NYC Metro | reply to Corydon
said by Corydon:said by matcarl:They just raised the rates as of January of this year, now three months later they are going up again? No big surprise. Someone has to pay for all of that fiber. There was just an article about how it costs UTOPIA about $2300 to connect a subscriber. I'm sure Verizon's costs are similar. So there's no way that they're making their investment back fast enough to please Wall Street if your customers are only paying $100 a month. That's two years to recover the cost to connect them and you haven't paid for any programming costs, HSI connectivity or telephony back-end. This is why FiOS is considered a gamble, and why Verizon may well end up losing their shirt. It used to cost around $1500-3000/subscriber when they first started a few years ago... Recent estimates put the figure at $600-1000/subscriber passed.
-Tzale
--
Neoconservatives (G.W.B) are not true conservatives. A conservative believes in defending the Constitution. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - RON PAUL 2008 »www.usconstitution.net/const.html
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| and it will continue to get cheaper and cheaper to connect a subscriber, while the price for the service will get higher and higher.
wake up everyone, we are in a monopoly/duopoly situation; PRICES WILL NEVER GO DOWN AND THEY WILL ONLY BE STABLE OVER SHORT PERIODS OF TIME (3-6 months).
without competition, prices only go one way...UP |
|
en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to wifi4milez
MAke that... I get 19 HD OTA channels with rabbit ears... only about 5 analog OTA
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
TzaleProud Libertarian ConservativePremium
join:2004-01-06
NYC Metro
1 edit | reply to nasadude
said by nasadude:and it will continue to get cheaper and cheaper to connect a subscriber, while the price for the service will get higher and higher. wake up everyone, we are in a monopoly/duopoly situation; PRICES WILL NEVER GO DOWN AND THEY WILL ONLY BE STABLE OVER SHORT PERIODS OF TIME (3-6 months). without competition, prices only go one way...UP Of course it is a semi-monopoly... Verizon has the best service available, they KNOW they can charge for it... However, I have seen the bandwidth / number of features increase in my area due to Verizon forcing the local cable co to really step up its game...
There IS competition, but just HOW MUCH competition is required to keep prices stable? I think it is a false hope to think more competition will keep prices lower... All these companies will just continue to raise prices when one takes the first jump.
-Tzale
--
Neoconservatives (G.W.B) are not true conservatives. A conservative believes in defending the Constitution. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - RON PAUL 2008 »www.usconstitution.net/const.html
|
|
CorydonCultivant son jardinPremium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO | reply to MrSpock29
I'm sure they've figured out ways to roll out their service for less and less as time has gone by.
It also helps that population density in Verizon's footprint tends to be fairly high.
On the other hand, the fact that no other telco in the US has shown much interest in the FTTH model shows that there are still considerable risks to the business model (though on the other end, Qwest shows the risks of doing nothing at all).
--
My opinions are my own. No-one else would want them! |
|
cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX | reply to Tzale
2 wire line tv, 2 sat tv and free OTA is probably about as much competition as you are going to get in a market. That is 5 options on where to spend your money. Not bad options if you ask me. |
|
TzaleProud Libertarian ConservativePremium
join:2004-01-06
NYC Metro | said by cwh:2 wire line tv, 2 sat tv and free OTA is probably about as much competition as you are going to get in a market. That is 5 options on where to spend your money. Not bad options if you ask me. I agree...
--
Neoconservatives (G.W.B) are not true conservatives. A conservative believes in defending the Constitution. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - RON PAUL 2008 »www.usconstitution.net/const.html
|
|
| reply to BosstonesOwn
>Yeah well programming costs can only be absorbed for so long >before it has to be passed on.
Ahh blam Congress, especially the current crop of Democrat leaders who are raking in huge amounts of money from media and content providers for continuing to block efforts to end forced bundling.
Verizon and other "cable" operators are still being forced to carry channels, and pay the increasing costs, that nobody wants in order to get access to those we do and their competition like Comcast, Time Warner and other "cable" operators that have ownerships stakes in the content providing companies are reaping the benefits.
Want lower rates and more options write your representative and demand an end to forced bundling. |
|
| said by UncleDirtNap:>Want lower rates and more options write your representative and demand an end to forced bundling. Moving to a la carte channel selection will not decrease bills, it will just decrease choice. ESPN (one of the most expensive basic tier channels costs MSOs about $2-$2.50 per subscriber per month). Smaller channels that are bundled with that tier usually get under $0.30 per subscriber per month.
Consider a system with 100,000 subscribers. ESPN earns $200,000 (low end estimate) and small channels earn $30,000 a month. If cable companies are forced to offer a la carte pricing and 50% of subscribers decided that they did not want to pay for ESPN, Disney would either have to make less money (cutting all other costs of running this network) or raise its price. Given that those who wanted to keep ESPN are probably somewhat less price sensitive, doubling their price to make up their revenue shortfall is Disney's most likely response. That means, those subscribers who continue to receive ESPN, will pay more, either raising their overall bill or causing them to drop other channels to make up for it.
Smaller channels will be even more drastically affected. If they are not getting bundled customers their prices will have to increase much more and many will just cease to exist.
/carmi |
|
