Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000 | reply to rawgerz
Re: Corp exec retirement fund contribution fee?
And CV has lucrative video, voice and HSI income. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| CV doesn't get USF $, and doesn't sell $10.95 caller ID, and doesn't have a wireless division with premium pricing (compared to sprint) that extorts rural users (no SPCS or TM). The video programing eats the vast majority of CV's revenue. CV's Lightpath division's business broadband penetration is limited. Business still subscribe to pure profit bonded T1s from Verizon as if nothing else exists other than a T1. Also I don't think CV has any government customers, Verizon has tons of government customers that will pay whatever Verizon writes on the bill, they have an unlimited source of money, YOU! |
|
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
 ·VOIPo
 ·Cox HSI
1 edit | They aren't bleeding voice customers by the tens of thousands either nor are they dropping $21B.
There is no excuse for them charging a $300 junk fee other than the simple fact that their network can't support this tier so they have to do what they can to insure no one buys it while still being able to throw a "$99 for the fastest broadband" claim around. |
|
rawgerz
In Debt we trust
Premium
join:2004-10-03
Grove City, PA
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Wiki says CV had 7.23B in revenue in 2007, compared to Verizon's almost 100B.
I'd rather ask the question, why does it cost so much per sub for 3.0..
--
You can't make all the people happy all of the time. But it should be common sense to shoot for the majority. |
|
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
·VOIPo
·Cox HSI
| Cablevision has one of the highest per subscriber revenue rates in the industry »www.chicagotribune.com/business/···23.story . There is no excuse for a $300 junk fee other than to dissuade users from signing up since their network can't support a 100Mb tier. |
|
rawgerz
In Debt we trust
Premium
join:2004-10-03
Grove City, PA
·Verizon Online DSL
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| If their infrastructure can't handle the tier, why would they spend so much per person to upgrade it? Where is this limitation?
Even if it was for something ludicrous, like bragging rights, it would take years to make up the initial investment.
I don't blame them, maybe $70-100 dollars goes to just a modem and the rest is to recoup some of the costs. And I'm sure most NY residents earn a pretty high average salary compared to the rest of the country.
If somebody wants it, they'll buy it.
--
You can't make all the people happy all of the time. But it should be common sense to shoot for the majority. |
|
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
·VOIPo
·Cox HSI
| Because the old tier could not handle sustained 20Mb service which is the reason they resort to gimmicks like powerboost.
The "old" network was designed for 10Mb service in an era where there wasn't tons of content and even then CV would cap uploads of "excessive" users.
Channel bonding will allow them to provide fairly reliable 40-50Mb powerboosted speeds but it simply can't provide capacity in these huge sustained quantities to more than just a couple of users.
This tier is all about marketing which is why they have to huge junk fee which insures even less adoption by higher end subscribers. |
|
atuarre
Here come the drums
Premium
join:2004-02-14
Lake Charles, LA
clubs: 
| said by Bit  :Because the old tier could not handle sustained 20Mb service which is the reason they resort to gimmicks like powerboost. The "old" network was designed for 10Mb service in an era where there wasn't tons of content and even then CV would cap uploads of "excessive" users. Channel bonding will allow them to provide fairly reliable 40-50Mb powerboosted speeds but it simply can't provide capacity in these huge sustained quantities to more than just a couple of users. This tier is all about marketing which is why they have to huge junk fee which insures even less adoption by higher end subscribers. You obviously fail to realize the revenue that the ILECs like AT&T, and Verizon bring in, plus access to the universal service fund (that little line on your bill that adds up to billions upon billions of dollars worth of mismanaged money) vs Cable companies income. Sometimes i think people just post stuff, to stir the pot, with no real basis what so ever. Having different divisions, like a wireless division, and a landline division, and long distance helps the telcos. |
|
rawgerz
In Debt we trust
Premium
join:2004-10-03
Grove City, PA
·Verizon Online DSL
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| reply to Bit
Well they don't seem to offer analog tv, and that used up what, 65Mbps?
Seems to me like they will have the pipe for it with no analog. After all, what I've come across says the bottle neck for those speeds isn't the coax, just yet, it's the hardware and 3.0 is supposed to remedy that.
--
You can't make all the people happy all of the time. But it should be common sense to shoot for the majority. |
|
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
·VOIPo
·Cox HSI
3 edits | reply to atuarre
You're right, it does appear some people just post stuff just to post stuff. No other cable operator is charging a $300 activation fee on top of an install fee. Not Comcast, not Cox.
Of course Verizon's overall revenues are higher. They have millions and millions of subscribers. Those larger revenues also have to support an aged and huge infrastructure (their expenses are higher by far). But in the scale that matters, per subscriber revenues, Cablevision is near the top of the industry.
So Verizon spends 3X Cablevision's entire revenue deploying FiOS and still doesn't have to charge for an install. In fact I can't think of any cable operator who charges $335 in activation and install fees. Cox certainly doesn't, they charge $100 for install. Comcast doesn't. Despite the expense of installing an ONT and pulling cable, Verizon doesn't charge for the install either.
Fact is there is simply no justification for such exorbitant junk/install fees other than Cablevision desperately wants to avoid too many people signing up because their network couldn't handle more than a few users local to each other on that tier. At the same time they want to mislead people/media about the price with big print $99 pricing with the real cost buried in the fine print.
Simply put, Cablevision wants to be able to make the claim of "fastest broadband service" while having a scant few actually take them up on the offer because their newly upgrade network isn't up to the task. |
|
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
·VOIPo
·Cox HSI
| reply to rawgerz
Thing is that analog is the same for everyone across the entire franchise area. It certainly frees up some additional channels to dedicate to HSI as would SDV but unless they dedicate a shitload of channels to HSI, they will never be able to support even remotely prevalent 100Mb service.
As previously they are trying to squeeze blood from a turnip. Instead of being reasonable, it is like their marketing department instead of their network engineers are determining the tier speeds they offer. They're going to quickly be in the same capacity mess they were in before the upgrades if they keep promising speeds the network has no hope of supporting.
They should offer 10, 20, 30Mb tiers with PB speeds to 50-60Mb, maybe even powerboosted speeds to 100Mb. That would be the responsible thing to do and insure that everyone has a good experience without the need for draconian network management efforts. |
|
atuarre
Here come the drums
Premium
join:2004-02-14
Lake Charles, LA
clubs: | reply to Bit
I seriously doubt Cablevision is the top cable company, or near the top of the industry. Think they are surpassed by Comcast, Cox, Charter, and Time Warner. |
|
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
·VOIPo
·Cox HSI
| »www.chicagotribune.com/business/···23.story
said by AP May 7, 2009 :
The average monthly revenue per subscriber rose 5.4 percent to $136.55, among the highest in the cable TV industry.
So while they may been spending money on their subscribers, they get a ton of money from their subscribers, near the highest in the industry. |
|
Subaru
1-3-2-4
Premium
join:2001-05-31
Greenwich, CT
clubs:
·Packet8
| reply to Bit
said by Bit :Because the old tier could not handle sustained 20Mb service which is the reason they resort to gimmicks like powerboost. Boot or "powerboost" as you call it was not really a gimick like you said.. when I was having issues with the non boot line It was hard to get up to 15mbps speeds switching to boost moves the modem over to another frequency less people might not have that so less people clogging it up..
Now with Ultra it's the same thing as with boost but with newer equipment and far less users.
--
It's NOT Ni-kon It's NE-KON!
|
|
mrbueno
join:2002-08-03
US | reply to Bit
Why do they need an "excuse"? What a sense of entitlement you have. |
|
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
·VOIPo
·Cox HSI
| reply to Subaru
I'm saying gimmick in that a cable company can use it to provide 20-30Mb service without actually providing 20-30Mb service. And at least with my cable provider, Cox, more and more advertising shows the Powerboost speed as the tier speed and only on the actual order pages on their website do you see what the true tier speeds are. |
|
