reply to nunya
Re: [HSI] What does everyone think of the new $200 activation fe
said by nunya:How are caps and $200 activation fees preventing a competitor access?
Actually, if you'll read the Sherman Act, they have no right to manipulate the market to prohibit access by a competitor.
Not even close. Online video is not even a real competitor to cable. The CONTENT owners are making sure of that. Charter's caps do not prevent you from accessing online video. I watch online video. How can that be I have a cap? Also if one really needs cap free internet you can always get a business account which doesn't have a cap.
All businesses want to, and try to, manipulate the market. Where Charter crosses the line is the caps. By instituting caps, they are driving people away from their newest form of competition - IP video.
You mean like they already have? You know how the 30 meg pla nis $8 -$15 cheaper than what it was depending if you owned or rented a modem.
Let's say Charter were to, oh I don't know, lower their prices
You really think ala carte will be much cheaper? Sure if you get 4 or 5 channels maybe. You think if they offered channels ala carte you be able to get access to those channels for 25 cents those channel currently get per sub. Here's the problem, if said channel only gets 1/10 the subs under ala carte then they will raise their fee by 10X. Thus you'd be paying $2.50 now. These networks are not going to take a 80%, 90%, 95% loss. Like ESPN? Be prepared to pay $15 for it.
or offer a-la-carte video services; those would be perfectly legal forms of competition.
while I agree they need to get with the times you are way off base on your theory.
Using (limiting) their ISP services to prop up their video services is where they get in trouble.
Plain and simple money grab
The interesting thing will be how many folks will bend over and accept the charge. I bet LOTS of potential subscribers for this service will say thanks but no thanks.
The new BOZO of a CEO at Charter, Tom Rutledge, seems to be at the root of all the IDIOTIC ideas over the past couple of months or so.
I ASSume he is trying to put his " mark" on the company.
What a jackass!
I think Charter should FIRE Mr. Rutledge and rehire Mr. Lovett!
I totally agree with you 1000%, horseathalt7
reply to horseathalt7
I'm sure the sweet spot is their 30/4 plan because it costs a good amount and those who don't need the speed will end up paying for it (Think grandma's who email and check weather paying $50 a month and using a few hundred meg per month.)
They can offer 100/5 but realistically if they deter people away from it with these stupid fees, then in the end it's more money for charter as their profit margin is probably best at the 30/4 range (also less worry about node overload and infrastructure issues.)
I have the 100/5 tier and it's $74.99 (must be some promo?)... I was paying $34.99 for 15/3...
I don't agree with anything the new CEO has done...
BF69 will tell you about modems being included... the thing you have to remember about that is that you now have a piece of charter equipment that you have to remember to return if you switch service/be responsible for. Should you forget to return it or your puppy chews the power cord, you're going to be paying a lot more for said modem than what you would have paid in store. I owned the same surfboard 5100 for over 10 years on 3 different cable systems and never had any issues. I have an SB6120 right now that's mine and love it.
Only offering two tiers? Well there you're either forcing people to pay $49.99 for internet or go without it... if you use it sparingly and don't need the speed, then you're forced to go with DSL (if it's available) which will happily provide nice slow speeds for a cheap price.
Finally... no promos... I was happy to sign a two year contract to get a decent price on internet! Charter then knew I'd be a customer for two years or would get money if I left. It was a win win for both of us... now however if there was a competitor who did come into the market with a better deal (highly unlikely for 100/5) I would switch.