how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to bsoft
Re: Comcast will modify business plan if TV moves to internet said by bsoft:However, people see HSI as a way to REDUCE the cost of video.. and that's not going to happen.. that's not how business works. In a near-monopoly situation like Comcast is in many areas With cable, two satellite carriers, and many more places having a 4th choice.. the monopoly term is a little outdated... (my options for TV are Comcast or satellite, and satellite is out because I'm in an apartment and can't see the southern sky), That's your fault.. WHERE you live is your choice.. neither the cable or satellite carriers tell you where to live.. When you look for an apartment next time, perhaps you should ask for a southern facing unit. Also, no level of further excuse will work. You can't say there are no more available.. there's always other complexes or apartment buildings. And, before you try "but this one was the one I wanted".. well, people also often move a lot when they live in apartments so a move is guaranteed in your future as well.
Comcast will charge what the market will bear. Also - when talking about their pricing of the product, they don't price it based on a few apartment dwellers that can't see the southern sky... they DO have to compete with satellite VERY aggressively.. Comcast is no exception as they paid customers up to $400 to convert.
Well, more specifically, they'll charge the profit maximizing price, which is more than some customers will pay and less than some other customers will pay. ok.. and? They charge a profit is all I got out of that.. and this is wrong why?
The question is whether customer tolerance for high prices will decrease. Nothing new here... While basic cable is about $60 a month now, 10 years ago it was about $35 a month.. people bitched back then too about prices.. 15 years before that basic cable was about $25 a month and guess what, people bitched then too.. so what's going to change in 10 more years? Prices will still go up, people will still bitch. And, you say something further in your post which I'll address too..
Many of us are now accustomed to the idea of getting video online for free, which might make subscribers less willing to pay $100/mo for TV + HSI. Ummm... not enough to matter. What you're getting on the internet is basically the scraps.. left overs.. yesterday's stuff... and for many people, great... they are okay with that. But, there are still many shows that people WANT and they want them when they air.. not next week.. not next month, and not a crappy boot leg version either.. they want the real deal. The only thing that people REALLY (the masses) are going to accept (and really won't care about the tech behind it) is streaming video over the internet of live television. And like I said, most people don't care HOW it gets to their TV so long as it does.
And, while you may not want to pay $100 a month for TV and HSI, the fact is that as TV revenue decreases and is replaced by the internet, the price AND value of that internet will rise.. period.
Moreover, there's a risk that Comcast gets paid only for the transport of the content, and the content producers themselves (Discovery, Viacom, Disney, Fox, etc.) get paid directly for the content itself. And this is a GOOD thing? For real? You'd rather go direct to the "crooks" and pay them?? I mean, REALLY? .. okay.. if you say so. So there is a risk that Comcast (well, lets say Cable, becuase this isn't really about "comcast" alone.. ) only gets paid for the transport of the content.. ummm.. WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY DO NOW?? They're a consignment business... EVEN if they only get paid for the "transport" of the content, they're still going to make up a profit on that as well.. oi.
Of coruse, that could actually be a net positive for Comcast. Believe it or not, cable TV is not as hugely profitable as you might think. Let me correct your inaccurate statement. "BASIC CABLE" is not as hugely profitable as you think. Basic cable basically breaks even and pays bills. They make a good amount of money on the premium channels and PPV, but where they make their biggest chunk of video revenue is Ad Insertion sales.
A substantial portion of your monthly fee goes to the content companies already. Of the $55 you spend, Comcast nets maybe half after programming fees. Try again.  .. it's actually far less than that.
Compare with HSI, where Comcast gets to keep nearly the whole $42 minus a tiny cost for bandwidth. It's not really so "tiny" as you make it sound. It costs about $12 per month per subscriber. While that is about a 70% profit margin, where do you think so much of their system rebuild money comes from, and other expenses... ?
Both video and HSI incur network maintenance and build-out expenses, but since there aren't programming fees for HSI, I would bet that HSI actually nets Comcast more profit per subscriber than video. HSI does bring in more money per subscriber.. and there is maintenance for both products, yes. However, HSI does actually help keep other costs and expenses down. You'll notice that HSI ala cart generally costs about $10 a month more... which is about the cost I'd assume they figure it takes to maintain the line to the house.
So, the problem isn't really video customers switching to HSI. It's customers who already have video and HSI switching to just HSI. Ummmmm.. think about what you just said and think about the post you just replied to.. I think you totally missed the point. IF people are dropping video and now shifting a lot of their video to that HSI connection, not only will that drive up the amount of data used (which replaces the linear video) but they also are reducing the amount of income to the cable operator. You do that, they're going to need to make up for the loss in revenue elsewhere.. you think they're going to jack up the price of their phone to compensate for that? No... they're going to turn to the very product replacing television. Not to mention, I NEVER once said anyone was going to "switch FROM video TO HSI" now did I? So, this whole last statement of yours really was irrelevant... and, you also basically said what I already said. | |
bsoft
join:2004-03-28
Boulder, CO | With cable, two satellite carriers, and many more places having a 4th choice.. the monopoly term is a little outdated... Satellite is not an option in my area, and Qwest doesn't offer TV. I'm not sure how to describe Comcast being my only option for pay TV as being anything other than a 'monopoly'.
That's your fault.. WHERE you live is your choice.. neither the cable or satellite carriers tell you where to live.. If your argument is that there's competition because I could move, that's total BS. You might as well argue that the power company has competition because I could move to a different area with different choices.
When you look for an apartment next time, perhaps you should ask for a southern facing unit. Some of us aren't going to spend eons fighting the landlord to get a dish up. The fact that the FCC says it's legal doesn't mean that it's easy.
Also, no level of further excuse will work. You can't say there are no more available.. there's always other complexes or apartment buildings. So, what you're saying is that there's competition elsewhere, just not where I live. Which is exactly what I said.
Nothing new here... While basic cable is about $60 a month now, 10 years ago it was about $35 a month.. people bitched back then too about prices.. 15 years before that basic cable was about $25 a month and guess what, people bitched then too.. so what's going to change in 10 more years? Prices will still go up, people will still bitch. What's different is that there are a range of new alternatives today. It's hard to argue that Internet TV competes seriously with cable right now, but it's likely that it will become a stronger competitor in the future.
What's different is that Internet TV will most likely be ala-carte, with providers like Amazon or Apple/iTunes selling programs instead of one big subscription. The success of per-song music downloads and DVD box sets for TV indicate that there is at least a substantial market willing to pay for 'ownership' of a program instead of paying month-to-month for a subscription service.
Ummm... not enough to matter. What you're getting on the internet is basically the scraps.. left overs.. yesterday's stuff... and for many people, great... they are okay with that. The future of Internet Video is not 'free' content like Hulu - it's in paid downloads. That could happen as subscription services (e.g. like Netflix) or as pay-per-download (e.g. like iTunes or Amazon). It's also possible that both models will succeed.
And, while you may not want to pay $100 a month for TV and HSI, the fact is that as TV revenue decreases and is replaced by the internet, the price AND value of that internet will rise.. period. I agree that the amount people spend on TV + Internet will be relatively stable or even increase. The question is who will be getting that revenue.
And this is a GOOD thing? For real? You'd rather go direct to the "crooks" and pay them?? I mean, REALLY? There are a lot of problems with the content industry, but, yeah, I generally am OK with someone like Discovery or Viacom being paid for the programming they commission.
ummm.. WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY DO NOW?? They're a consignment business... EVEN if they only get paid for the "transport" of the content, they're still going to make up a profit on that as well.. Right now they negotiate with content providers and set rates for customers.
In the future, it's likely that consumers will interact with content providers directly. That gives Comcast less ability to dictate prices for transport because transport is a commodity. There are far more options for Internet than there are for TV; I have Qwest and Comcast, plus several local WISPs.
Let me correct your inaccurate statement. "BASIC CABLE" is not as hugely profitable as you think. Basic cable basically breaks even and pays bills. They make a good amount of money on the premium channels and PPV, but where they make their biggest chunk of video revenue is Ad Insertion sales. If you have a reference for this, I'd love to see it.
A substantial portion of your monthly fee goes to the content companies already. Of the $55 you spend, Comcast nets maybe half after programming fees. Again, references. Figures I have seen are far higher, although they were for Echostar which may not have Comcast's negotiating power.
It's not really so "tiny" as you make it sound. It costs about $12 per month per subscriber. While that is about a 70% profit margin, where do you think so much of their system rebuild money comes from, and other expenses... ? Pretty much any other business would kill for a 70% margin. Talk to your power company and ask what kind of margin they have, and they also spend a significant amount on maintenance and construction.
Also, where does your $12/mo figure come from? Is that all-inclusive, including plant maintenance, customer service, billing, and other incidentals? It is most certainly not a bandwidth cost figure unless Comcast is massively overpaying for bandwidth.
You do that, they're going to need to make up for the loss in revenue elsewhere.. you think they're going to jack up the price of their phone to compensate for that? It doesn't work that way. Companies don't figure out what their costs are, add some fudge figure, and make that their price. They charge what the market (or, in some cases, regulations) will allow them to charge. Comcast can't jack up HSI prices to compensate for lost video revenue unless their competitors do the same. And Internet is far more competitive than video service. There are more providers and there is less product differentiation.
Qwest isn't going to jack up their prices because of lot video revenue because they don't have much video revenue (only their deal with DirecTV). The local WISPs don't have video revenue either.
Historically Comcast has raised HSI prices far less aggressively than video prices. That's not because they're generous, it's because they're concerned that higher HSI prices could drive users to other services.
If Comcast can differentiate their HSI product by offering superior service to other services, they can probably command a price premium. But that won't hold up very well if they attempt to double the cost of HSI service. | |
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | The first half of your reply basically said nothing. The point is that YOU have a choice.. the choice is YOURS to make. I don't pity anyone that won't help themselves.
You DO have choices in TV... Satellite is available to anyone.. if YOU are not willing to live in an area or CHOSE a place where you can have satellite, then tough luck.. again, YOU have a choice. I'm honestly sick and tired of people complaining they don't have access to EVERYTHING available at EVERY address they CHOSE to live. When you chose to live in an apartment, you also have to accept that you're going to give up certain things that others can in fact have. And yes, living in an apartment is a choice.. maybe not a direct choice, but an indirect choice.. and before you go off on that, I'm sorry to say, the choices you make start WAY before you become an adult. (Think about that one)
And no, it's NOT "total BS" becuase you could move... the fact you CHOSE not to move is your problem, no one else's. Your argument on power doesn't even apply here. First off, power is a requirement and regulated by the government who also believes the price they charge you is okay. Second, you don't have to move to a different "area" to get satellite.. sometimes you just need a south facing view. And maybe not a 'different area' as in power, but across the street. Again, YOUR choice.
If you don't want to fight your landlord, don't rent from them in the first place. FIGURE IT OUT before you move in, how about that? Second, write the FCC.. it doesn't take long to set the LL straight.. again, YOUR choice. And, you STILL don't have the right to mount any dishes.. there are land based options that they can't even stop you from using. But, please, keep making excuses.
As for "competition elsewhere".. um... moving across the street, or down the road is not really talking about competition.. you can't be so narrow.. hell, there are people that live in HOUSES that can't get satellite becuase of trees.. again, that's not going to change anything on the large scheme as the "AREA" or "CITY" and often the "METRO" does offer you choice... find something that works for YOU.
As for "internet TV" competing with cable.. there is no competition becuase there IS NO internet TV.. there are video streams you can get.. it's not "TV"... there is a difference. The reason there is no "competition" right now is because there is no demand for it either.
I also disagree that the future of TV is in paid downloads... that's just about as strong as saying people "want to pay for the internet by the byte"... also, the main viewership of TV remains primetime TV.. that's now "downloadable" in the eyes of most people.. like I said, they want to watch those shows when they're still live.
as for agreeing with me that $100 is the amount people will spend on TV and internet.. you missed the point; not surprised tho. What's going to happen is that shrinking cable TV revenue will only drive up the cost of the broadband that will carry it... ADD ON TOP OF THAT your pay per view TV shows. People already hate paying for TV, that's clear.. you REALLY think people are going to want to pay per show they watch? REALLY? Think about it.. Basic cable is already about $60 a month... TV shows are certainly not going to cost $0.99 a show.. think more about $2 or more a show on an all PPV ala cart scheme. If people watch even 20 streams, you're at $40 a month.. already not a good deal.. That $60 basic cable fee looks like a better value to me and then I don't have to worry about hand selecting a TV show and finding out AFTER I purchased the VIEW of that show that it sucked.
You also think that cable companies somehow drive the costs of shows up.. you're wrong. There is something about buying in bulk that keeps costs DOWN... if one on one customers negotiate, I mean, have to buy directly from the source itself, there is NO predictability on future revenue in that model and yes, the prices will go up.. so I'm sorry to tell you, but cable and satellite in the mix, your costs is actually lower. See the last paragraph as to the why.
As for the statement I made on basic cable profits.. I am the source.. I used to work in the finance department of a major cable company.. I know the numbers. Anything else, you can do your own homework.
As for the amount of what goes into the content providers.. that's no hidden fact. The average BASIC cable channel ranges from $0.50 to $0.65 per channel. That's about $42 a month in costs. Take about $18 left over, factor in maintaining the plant and other expenses to caring for the customer.. it's about a break even expense. Its also clear you don't really follow the industry much becuase price per network is often discussed, even around here. SOME networks want more money, like Fox News wants $1.00 per customer while lifetime, for example, wants about $0.45 per customer. Again, you can do your own homework.
The $12 per month per customer on HSI? @home, when they went bankrupt, was very public about the fact it cost $9 per customer to operate and they were a third party carrier. The rest, again, you can figure it out.
Now.. the last thing I'm going to respond to, becuase this really is pointless - sorry... "Loss of revenue from a shift in the market"... You TOTALLY didn't read my point on my comments.. Companies have HARD costs they have to pay for things like their Network, staff, advertising, power.. etc. Those costs don't change. It still takes nearly the same amount of manpower to keep a plant running be it 1, 2 or 3 services running over it. With that said, they have to SUSTAIN (there is a term you need to understand better) a certain amount of revenue. IF HSI eats BIG into video, that means that the loss of video revenue has to be made up elsewhere.. and that IS going to come in play with the dominant product, in this case, HSI. YES, there will be some trimming back of expenses, but not a whole lot... some staff cuts, yes.. that's about it. I am totally aware of market bearing pricing.. however, you also make it sound like Comcast is going make a major change right now before others.. however, at the same time, Qwest, in your example, is NO WHERE NEAR able to keep up with what Comcast can as far as HSI.. their measly 1.5 DSL is not going to allow for what we're talking about - streaming TV. So therefore, that *say) $90 a month 200meg cable modem line that CAN stream TV will in fact be of value to people. You also forget that pay per video over the internet is LONG into the future.. a lot can change before then.
Sorry, no need to continue on.. your speculation (not based on anything really factual) isn't worth going over again.
Oh.. one last thing.. the reason Comcast has raised TV prices over HSI is becuase TV/VIDEO has a direct cost associated to it from the vendors they consign for.. that means when contracts go for renewal and their prices are raised, they're going to pass that on to the customer.. price increases from video vendors happen regularly.. HSI is another story. And comcast's HSI is quite honestly "superior" in the grand scheme to other providers.. they also will have DS 3.0 available to their entire footprint before the end of the year making them the largest operator with the fastest speeds available nationwide to more customers than any other provider... but please, continue to prove my points.. and your own. | |
bsoft
join:2004-03-28
Boulder, CO
1 edit | I'm not going to argue this more - it's pointless. | |
1 edit | reply to fiberguy
How do you have the time to endlessly argue things that simply aren't true? | |
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | ... and time to add you to ignore as well. I swear, I think you like to post and argue things you don't know much about just to post.. | |
|
