 NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
 ·Comcast
 ·Callcentric
| Bundled services Bitch all you want. The fact of the matter is that bundled services have been going on for a long time. Phone companies do it if you get local phone service AND DSL for instance. Insurance companies do it if you get your car, home, and life insurance through one company. It is a bundled discount for buying multiple services through one company. The only reason why Comcast is getting bitched at is because they are doing it right now. If it was going on since cable modems came out, no one would think a second thought about it.
My opinion is this, if you don't like the price increase, then don't pay for it or get TV cable to make the price lower. Either that or find another ISP. Simple decision.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal |
|
| Pardon me, but what exactly is your point? She is locked in a contract with her satellite service and is going to be forced to pay more simply because she had existing service through another company (God forbid). Comcast couldn't just make an exception for her?
And what if she can't get any other broadband service in her area? She has to be held hostage because you and Comcast say "tough shit"? Isn't she in fact THE CUSTOMER?
Just because Comcast is too lazy or indifferent to accommodate their customers needs doesn't make it right. |
|
| reply to Nightfall
said by Nightfall:
My opinion is this, if you don't like the price increase...
No one likes price increases, but I think the real issue is that Comcast is not giving a price increase notification or even admitting to a price increase. They are claiming this is a price reduction for bundled customers: "It is to reward our best customers with a price break on services" Price increases are one thing, but it is a completely different beast when your price goes up due to price breaks. The same thing happened to me with Charter, and I ended up getting basic cable from them as the total cost increase was a wash. Yes, I am getting more value on the current structure, but I was paying less and getting what I wanted before the price breaks. If they came right out and said that this is a price increase, I would have less of an issue with it (none if cable had to have price increases approved by the PUC like phone services)
--
If it is not recorded, it simply does not exist. |
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | reply to Nightfall
Yeah, well hasn't Comcast done it ass-backward? This is just another price increase, albeit in disguise.
When you offer bundling discounts shouldn't you take the base price of all the bundled services then subtract the bundle discount as opposed to taking the base price and adding an "unbundled services" penalty.
Monopoly tactics like these raise support for regulation argument. |
|
 ameniteThe Soylent - It's PeoplePremium
join:2002-11-21
Ridgewood, NJ
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| said by lesopp:
Monopoly tactics like these raise support for regulation argument.
Or the Cable/Broadband as a public utility argument. Anything opposed so vigorously by big business can't be all bad 
--
Time is an abstract concept invented by carbon based life forms to monitor their constant decay.-Thunderclese |
|
vic102482Premium
join:2002-04-30
Upper Marlboro, MD Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to Nightfall
There are 10 insurance companies for every town
DSL has line sharing
THERE IS ONLY ONE CABLE COMPANY AND THAT COMPANY IS COMCAST(for all comcast areas).
You tell your argument to a town that only has comcrap and their shitty service as an ISP.
--
I tie a rope around my penis and jump from a tree, don't you wanna grow up to be just like me!!!! |
|
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI Reviews:
·Site5.com
·Comcast
·Callcentric
| reply to garagerock
said by garagerock:
Pardon me, but what exactly is your point? She is locked in a contract with her satellite service and is going to be forced to pay more simply because she had existing service through another company (God forbid). Comcast couldn't just make an exception for her?
And what if she can't get any other broadband service in her area? She has to be held hostage because you and Comcast say "tough shit"? Isn't she in fact THE CUSTOMER?
Just because Comcast is too lazy or indifferent to accommodate their customers needs doesn't make it right.
No offense, she has to take that up with her dish contract, not with Comcast. It would be nice if Comcast and every other company for that matter were to make exceptions but that doesn't happen. When you sign a contract for a year on any service, like a cell phone or a dish, then you are bound by the contract.
I really say, tough shit to this. If cable modem service is that important, than pay the extra and keep it. Then go with basic cable later. It isn't Comcast's responsibility to lower the rate for people because they are in contract. If they are responsible, lets start hammering other contracts until they make exceptions for everyone.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal |
|
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI Reviews:
·Site5.com
·Comcast
·Callcentric
| reply to lesopp
said by lesopp:
Yeah, well hasn't Comcast done it ass-backward? This is just another price increase, albeit in disguise.
When you offer bundling discounts shouldn't you take the base price of all the bundled services then subtract the bundle discount as opposed to taking the base price and adding an "unbundled services" penalty.
Monopoly tactics like these raise support for regulation argument.
This is just bundled services, but done at a later time. At least that is the way I see it. They are not raising prices across the board, just for people who have cable modem service and not at least basic cable. The only people not seeing it that way are people who have the cable modem service only.
As I said, bundled services have been going on for years anyway. This changes nothing. Either get both services or pay extra or cancel. Simple decision.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal |
|
|
|
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI Reviews:
·Site5.com
·Comcast
·Callcentric
| reply to Dezbend
said by Dezbend:
said by Nightfall:
My opinion is this, if you don't like the price increase...
No one likes price increases, but I think the real issue is that Comcast is not giving a price increase notification or even admitting to a price increase. They are claiming this is a price reduction for bundled customers: "It is to reward our best customers with a price break on services" Price increases are one thing, but it is a completely different beast when your price goes up due to price breaks.
The price goes up for only people with cable modem service. I just don't see the problem with that personally. They instituted a new price structure. Here is the price for the TV cable service, here is your price if you get cable modem service with that. If you just want cable modem service, here is your new price.
I guess I don't see the problem in it. No one bitches about getting their car, home, and life insurance through one carrier and getting a discount. Same with phone service and DSL discounts. Yet, this is happening and people complain because it is happening in midstream. While it may upset some people, it is very legal to do so and a lot of businesses have bundled services.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal |
|
 NPGMBR
join:2001-03-28
Arlington, VA | "I guess I don't see the problem in it. No one bitches about getting their car, home, and life insurance through one carrier and getting a discount."
Clearly you don't. Unlike cable companies, insurance companies don't have monopoly control of any particular area. As it currently stands, you can choose ANY insurance provider that serves your area.
With cable its different because your dealing with a company that has monopoly control in your area. This lady is upset because Comcast is essentially telling her that yes you can have our internet service but if you don't take our cable service along with it your rate will increase.
The problem here lies in the fact that when Comcast made that statement it reaks of anti-competitive behavior because its essentially giving the customer an offer that if they don't accept, will be penalized for. And when that customer accepts that offer it undercuts Comcast's competition because the customer cancels the account with the competition because they don't want to risk being penalized by Comcast.
Sure the customer can refuse but it means paying more or canceling their cable internet service altogether.
Hope that makes sense. lol |
|
| reply to Nightfall
I am not arguing the legality or even the right to raise prices. Companies need to raise prices sometimes. I take issue to the fact that from the article it seems that Comcast is denying that this is a price increase. Most customer will not see a difference in their bill as they have both internet and television or just television. Those with just internet will see a price increase. The new price structure does encourage bundled services (which I don't have a problem with). It just seems the company should word the situation as a price increase to the customers that are going to be paying more, or grandfather them into what they are currently paying if this really is not a price increase.
As a side note I think cable modem service price changes should be subject to the same rules as DSL price changes.
--
If it is not recorded, it simply does not exist. |
|
NPGMBR
join:2001-03-28
Arlington, VA | reply to Nightfall
I understand what your saying, and it does make perfect sense, however, if they raised prices for customers that have only internet service it would not be such an issue. Sure people would complain about a price increase but there would be no charge of anti-competitive behavior.
Comcast's executives know this, they aren't stupid by a long shot. But they are taking advantage of an opportunity to steal customers from satellite services hoping State's Attorney's General won't make a big stink over it. |
|
| reply to Nightfall
Comcast has been fairly steadfast that rates would not change for ex-ATTBI customers as a result of Comcast's acquisition of AT&T Broadband. It has become apparent that for a subset of ex-ATTBI customers (specifically non-CATV subscribers) that the rates have, in fact, changed.
Those that have been familiar with Comcast know that that the non-CATV internet rate has been around in specific locations for a while and was incorporated across the board (as well as standardized, as the non-CATV rate varied from system to system) in Comcast's historical systems during 2002. Personally, I would have been surprised if this was not implemented in the newly acquired systems. Whether it is a rate increase or policy implementation that effects rates for specific customers is moot when it comes time for the customer to pay the bill.
While I'll leave the legal discussion to others and agree that, in all likelihood, the consumer will be faced with a get both services or pay extra or cancel decision, it would be simpler for most effected subscribers if Comcast had been a little more up front about the $15 per month increase for non-CATV subscribers in the newly acquired areas. While mathematically it works out to be the same, the rate difference is coming across as a $15 premium for non-CATV subscribers versus a $15 discount for CATV subscribers. |
|
| reply to Nightfall
So basically what you are saying is too bad for the customer "just because"-contract or no contract, I find that inexcusable.
They are charging the customer more because THEY decided to bundle their services, not something the customer did or didn't do. What a crock.
Why defend this practice? She is right to file a complaint.
Again, she is the customer. So much for "the customer is always right"-oh, I forgot, monopolies don't give two shits about the customers as she may or may not have another choice in town, and they'll get their money anyways.
--
"The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted" James Madison |
|
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI Reviews:
·Site5.com
·Comcast
·Callcentric
| said by garagerock:
So basically what you are saying is too bad for the customer "just because"-contract or no contract, I find that inexcusable.
They are charging the customer more because THEY decided to bundle their services, not something the customer did or didn't do. What a crock.
Why defend this practice? She is right to file a complaint.
Again, she is the customer. So much for "the customer is always right"-oh, I forgot, monopolies don't give two shits about the customers as she may or may not have another choice in town, and they'll get their money anyways.
Uh, the customer signs a contract with a dish company for service for one year. Does comcast have to lower rates because that person is locked in contract with a dish company? It would be nice if it happened, but it doesn't happen that way. Sorry if you find that inexcusable, but that is the way it is.
If you sign a contract for a cell phone for one year, and three months later you find another cell phone company that offers twice as many minutes for the price, does the old cell company have to give you a break? Be careful what you sign.
What does "The Customer Is Always Right" have to do with the dish contract she signed? :P
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal |
|
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI Reviews:
·Site5.com
·Comcast
·Callcentric
| reply to NPGMBR
quote:
Clearly you don't. Unlike cable companies, insurance companies don't have monopoly control of any particular area. As it currently stands, you can choose ANY insurance provider that serves your area.
With cable its different because your dealing with a company that has monopoly control in your area. This lady is upset because Comcast is essentially telling her that yes you can have our internet service but if you don't take our cable service along with it your rate will increase.
Again, we are talking about bundled services. It doesn't matter if you have 10 cable companies or just one. That company has the right to do bundled services because they exist in other businesses. Yes, she has a choice. Either pay more for just cable modem service or get basic and save. What is the problem with that? You have that choice when you go with telephone service. Get DSL and spend more or get their local service and DSL and pay less for DSL.
quote:
The problem here lies in the fact that when Comcast made that statement it reaks of anti-competitive behavior because its essentially giving the customer an offer that if they don't accept, will be penalized for. And when that customer accepts that offer it undercuts Comcast's competition because the customer cancels the account with the competition because they don't want to risk being penalized by Comcast.
Sure the customer can refuse but it means paying more or canceling their cable internet service altogether.
Once again, we are talking about bundled services here. Sure, if the customer wants only one service, they are going to have to pay more for it than if they just bought both services. What is the problem with that? I guess I just don't understand the issue here. I have made my point, and you keep pointing out blanket statements that it isn't fair. Well, tell telephone companies, insurance companies, and so on to stop offering bundled services and this problem will go away. In fact, make bundled services illegal and then this issue will disappear.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal |
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | reply to Nightfall
said by Nightfall:
Either get both services or pay extra or cancel. Simple decision.
I'm sure this is their attitude. That is why I commented that monopoly tactics like these raise support for regulation argument, but will include as read from another thread that it also strengthens the coop broadband argument.
I am wondering if they raised the price for those subscribing only to cable or cable & local phone service? If not it would strengthen the antitrust allegation.
It would be completely different if they said, "buy cable and internet as a bundle and receive a 5% discount off the already established rate." What they have done is to tell their internet only customers to buy cable service from us and receive a zero percent bundling discount or pay an unbundled service penalty.
The people heading the Tri-City broadband project in Illinois should take this as an example of what cable monopolies routinely do, and run with it. |
|
 roamer1sticking it out at you
join:2001-03-24
Atlanta, GA | reply to vic102482
said by vic102482:
THERE IS ONLY ONE CABLE COMPANY AND THAT COMPANY IS COMCAST(for all comcast areas).
Wrong:
- Augusta GA (Knology)
- Panama City FL (Knology again)
- parts of Knoxville TN (Knology yet again)
- parts of Dunwoody, Roswell, and Woodstock GA (BellSouth)
- Acworth and Fairburn GA (city governments)
- etc.
-SC
--
No-Bull SE US Wireless Info: »www.sewireless.info/
Atlanta Apt/Condo Cable & Broadband Info: »www.atlaptcable.info/ |
|
| reply to vic102482
"You tell your argument to a town that only has comcrap and their shitty service as an ISP."
Who's holding a gun to your head forcing you to subscribe? |
|
dylking
join:2001-07-31
Saint Paul, MN | reply to Nightfall
If you sign a contract for a cell phone for one year, and three months later you find another cell phone company that offers twice as many minutes for the price, does the old cell company have to give you a break? Be careful what you sign. Actually, I think the argument would be that if you sign a contract fo a cell phone (sprint) for one year, and then your landline phone company (Qwest) comes and says "We're raising your rates, unless you get a cellphone with us"....that would be unfair.
That, in my opinion, is a valid analogy. |
|
