TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
2 edits | reply to baineschile
Re: Its back off the shelf
said by baineschile  :We all know that their plan will be back off the shelf and re-accounced in the coming months. I just hope their caps will be more reasonsable (100gig+), not 5-40. They would be smart if they kill the caps altogether & move to a sliding consumption model that charges more the more you use. And then structure the fees so that average users pay the same they are paying now; very light users pay less(good PR value); and the hogs pay a lot more. End result is the same revenue with a good upside potential as more users use the connection for video.
LOL. I should be charging the cable companies for these ideas. They need a change in their marketing and business plans. »Some observations
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| said by TKJunkMail : And then structure the fees so that average users pay the same they are paying now; very light users pay less(good PR value); and the hogs pay a lot more. End result is the same revenue with a good upside potential as more users use the connection for video. Well, I don't think any users will pay less, if they get an ARPU dent, that CEO is out of there and the stock gets sell ratings from Craig Moffett.
50 MB has to be the lite tier so grandma checking her email is going to go over the limit for the lite tier. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
2 edits | said by patcat88 :said by TKJunkMail : And then structure the fees so that average users pay the same they are paying now; very light users pay less(good PR value); and the hogs pay a lot more. End result is the same revenue with a good upside potential as more users use the connection for video. Well, I don't think any users will pay less, if they get an ARPU dent, that CEO is out of there and the stock gets sell ratings from Craig Moffett. 50 MB has to be the lite tier so grandma checking her email is going to go over the limit for the lite tier. Marketing analysts and the accountants could structure the fees so that the chance of a dropping ARPU are close to zero. And then you get the customer on slowly increasing costs so that they will hardly notice. That reduces the chance of them jumping ship to a low probability - especially since the other companies will likely adopt this winning strategy. No competition on price to worry about.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
neowulf
join:2000-10-20
Port Orange, FL
| reply to TKJunkMail
So pretty much metered billing, exactly how is that any different then what they were offering?
The problem is who defines who the hog is? The cable company? They already made it quite clear they think anything over 40gigs a month would be considered insane amount of data for the average user.
If the cable company wants metered billing so bad, then they are going to have to be heavily regulated like any metered service, something they don't want, and spend millions a year lobbying against.
I think the real problem is that they are a cable company before they are a internet service provider. They are trying to protect the outdated business model, when à la carte is what people want, and you can find online now. You don't have to subscribe to some over inflated package of 50 channels you will never watch just for the one or two they stick in the package you watch all the time.
That is really what this is all about, I don't even think they care if they make more from the metered billing aspect, and if they do that is just the gravy on top, as long as it keeps people from being able to watch online video. Being Time Warner prohibits operators to sell channels which stand alone it sort of points to the fact they think à la carte is not a profitable business model and are doing everything in their power to make sure consumers don't have that choice online either. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail : And then you get the customer on slowly increasing costs so that they will hardly notice. That reduces the chance of them jumping ship to a low probability - especially since the other companies will likely adopt this winning strategy. No competition on price to worry about. So, your suggestion is they treat their customers like the "boiling frog": don't turn up the heat (charges) to high all at once or they'll jump out; turn up the heat (charges) slowly, and before they realize it, they will be cooked (fleeced)!
as far as "No competition on price to worry about", it's more like "no competition to worry about". |
|
baineschile
2600
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI
·Comcast
 ·magicjack.com
·Verizon Wireless B..
| reply to neowulf
said by neowulf :I think the real problem is that they are a cable company before they are a internet service provider. They are trying to protect the outdated business model, when à la carte is what people want, and you can find online now. You don't have to subscribe to some over inflated package of 50 channels you will never watch just for the one or two they stick in the package you watch all the time. Cable cannot choose to do a-la-carte. There are comm companies that own multiple networks (the recent Viacom/TWC fight comes to mind) that dont let cable buy single networks. So, if one of these companies owns a populat channel (Nickelodeon) and ALSO another not-so-popular-channel they want to sell the cable companies (Water Poloing Horses), cable has to buy ALL channels the other companies want to sell them.
That cost, of course, is passed onto the consumer. There are a lot of niche channels out there that people would pay for, but the price per channel would be expodential as opposed to what is now). |
|
k1ll3rdr4g0n
join:2005-03-19
Homer Glen, IL
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude :said by TKJunkMail : And then you get the customer on slowly increasing costs so that they will hardly notice. That reduces the chance of them jumping ship to a low probability - especially since the other companies will likely adopt this winning strategy. No competition on price to worry about. So, your suggestion is they treat their customers like the "boiling frog": don't turn up the heat (charges) to high all at once or they'll jump out; turn up the heat (charges) slowly, and before they realize it, they will be cooked (fleeced)! as far as "No competition on price to worry about", it's more like "no competition to worry about". We don't like change, so TW and others could have easily gotten away with this if they just eased it in (ie high caps BEFORE the recession, then during the recession they can use the "excuse" "due to economic times we have to lower the caps" which of course we all knew would be BS but they could get away with it.) But when you mix stupidity and greed all you get is a badly run business. But now that TW has screwed up any possible chance of a per-use model, I really doubt they are going to try it again. TW has proven that this is NOT what customers want, no matter what they say or do. |
|
PI Vacationer
@holdenandrew.com
| reply to neowulf
While vacationing in the Philippines, I watched a commercial from Sky Cable which offered a la carte service - pay for the channels you only want to watch. That is so cool! To think the cable companies here says we Americans do not need a la carte in our cable TV service. Screw them! Now these same American cable companies are offering Internet services capped and metered. While the world moves forward, we are moving backwards. Bleh! :-P |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to k1ll3rdr4g0n
said by k1ll3rdr4g0n :said by nasadude :said by TKJunkMail : And then you get the customer on slowly increasing costs so that they will hardly notice. That reduces the chance of them jumping ship to a low probability - especially since the other companies will likely adopt this winning strategy. No competition on price to worry about. So, your suggestion is they treat their customers like the "boiling frog": don't turn up the heat (charges) to high all at once or they'll jump out; turn up the heat (charges) slowly, and before they realize it, they will be cooked (fleeced)! as far as "No competition on price to worry about", it's more like "no competition to worry about". But when you mix stupidity and greed all you get is a badly run business. But now that TW has screwed up any possible chance of a per-use model, I really doubt they are going to try it again. TW has proven that this is NOT what customers want, no matter what they say or do. I kind of disagree with that, TW has proven time and time again that they are not consumer friendly, and they continually try to leave the door open for this blantant gouging in the future. Furthermore, they have yet to address how they plan to upgrade any of their existing customers. The "surgically upgrade" statements should show their customer base just how much TW cares about the ever expanding consumer need.
Or in other words...they've slung so much sh*t that they can't help stepping in it again!
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! |
|
neowulf
join:2000-10-20
Port Orange, FL
| reply to PI Vacationer
The whole argument that we can't do a la carte in America is based on that different cable companies are the content holders and also the provides and will only give premium channels in package deals with channels no one watches simply to make more channels to sell more advertising time. It is so stupid and backwards as you say the rest of the world is moving ahead seeing that you need to change with the times, instead of trying to force things to remain statues quo.
In the end the fear that TWC has of being just another "dumb pipe" will be a reality because they did not change with the times. They are so busy looking backwards not seeing the forest through the trees, thinking that old business model is going to last forever as long as they squash innovation.
And just a side note about the whole you will pay a lot for one channel if they took it out of a package. Well I rather pay 5 bucks for 1 channel I will watch, then 35 bucks for 1 or 2 channels I watch and 50 added I have not intention to ever watch. But I gave up cable tv service 3 years ago, there is plenty of good OTA free programing. And what little I did watch over cable, now has migrated to also being online, such as The Daily Show. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to TKJunkMail
I was thinking "Please don't give them anymore bad ideas!"  |
|
