Bundling an Antitrust Violation? > Bundled services

reply to Nightfall

Re: Bundled services

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.

---

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

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.

---

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.

said by dylking:

---

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.

---

reply to Nightfall
It's pretty simple.

Comcast decided to "bundle" their services and raise her rates-even if she didn't want that portion of Comcast's service.

Your analogy is flawed as you assume she had something to do with Comcast's decision to "bundle" their services together-she did not, and she is right to file a complaint.

said by garagerock:

---

It's pretty simple.

Comcast decided to "bundle" their services and raise her rates-even if she didn't want that portion of Comcast's service.

Your analogy is flawed as you assume she had something to do with Comcast's decision to "bundle" their services together-she did not, and she is right to file a complaint.

---

Sooooooooooooooooo, the big bad business can do whatever it wants and no one can say diddly? Whatever.

And yes, your analogy is totally flawed. Whether it is illegal is not at issue with my point of view.

She had nothing to do with Comcast's decision, and therefore has every right to bitch all she wants. Your analogy assumes she just decided to ditch them in favor of cheaper service, which is not the case.

God, why are defending this so? This is business strong arming the customer-why is that right or good for anyone other than Comcast unless you work for them and can't stand anyone saying anything derogatory about the company?

said by garagerock:

---

Sooooooooooooooooo, the big bad business can do whatever it wants and no one can say diddly? Whatever.

And yes, your analogy is totally flawed. Whether it is illegal is not at issue with my point of view.

She had nothing to do with Comcast's decision, and therefore has every right to bitch all she wants. Your analogy assumes she just decided to ditch them in favor of cheaper service, which is not the case.

God, why are defending this so? This is business strong arming the customer-why is that right or good for anyone other than Comcast unless you work for them and can't stand anyone saying anything derogatory about the company?

---

quote:

---

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.

---

From reading all the posts, the position that most here are taking is simple: Comcast basically raised the rates for non-cable subscribers and called it a bundled discount by saying, We're raising ALL rates for cable internet. However, if you happen to be a cable customer of ours, the rate increase won't apply to you.

I don't know about anyone else, but personally I think that it's a "shady" loophole to use for this type of an effort- but I wouldn't go so far as to call it anti-competitive or illegal- as Comcast isn't doing it in an effort to prevent competitors from, well, competing. Offering an incentive or promotion to entice or convince customers into subscribing to a service isn't anti-competitive (even if the actual method is by raising prices for certain features instead of giving lower prices).

I would say that most here would be more comfortable if Comcast were to say, The price for cable modem service is $52.95. HOWEVER, if you subscribe to XYZ cable TV service package too, there is a bundled discount of $10 off the internet price. Comcast didn't say that, however- they said The price is raising for everyone, unless you are a cable tv subscriber- then it doesn't change.

The actual end result price-wise is the same in both situations; but the method of setting or resetting the price(s) to get there is different.

Boogie

said by boogie74:

---

I don't know about anyone else, but personally I think that it's a "shady" loophole to use for this type of an effort- but I wouldn't go so far as to call it anti-competitive or illegal- as Comcast isn't doing it in an effort to prevent competitors from, well, competing.

---

reply to Nightfall
You're right-it will end up a flamefest, if folks like you decide to defend Company X until the bitter end, no matter what they do.

said by garagerock:

---

You're right-it will end up a flamefest, if folks like you decide to defend Company X until the bitter end, no matter what they do.

---

reply to SRFireside

said by SRFireside:

---

said by boogie74:

---

I don't know about anyone else, but personally I think that it's a "shady" loophole to use for this type of an effort- but I wouldn't go so far as to call it anti-competitive or illegal- as Comcast isn't doing it in an effort to prevent competitors from, well, competing.

---

Maybe not anti-competitive, but it sounds like it can still apply as an anti-trust violation. If Comcast is the only cable broadband provider then technically it's a monopoly, better still if there are no other viable options like DSL or wireless. If they are the only game in town and are doing something "shady" like this then there could be a case for abusing their monopoly power.

---

reply to Nightfall
Oh come on now. Perhaps the "like you" was inappropriate, but my point is that people (as in, a generic term) defend the business practices of a company to the end, regardless of how those practices impact individuals.

Contracts are made to be broken-just ask any contract lawyer.

reply to boogie74
Lets see if the FTC and Justice Department investigate the matter and see what they say about it. Positive/Negative rewards aside if Comcast is the only broadband game in town they have to play by different rules than your average competitive environment would.
--
Love Science Fiction? www.spacestationzoom.com

said by SRFireside:

---

Lets see if the FTC and Justice Department investigate the matter and see what they say about it. Positive/Negative rewards aside if Comcast is the only broadband game in town they have to play by different rules than your average competitive environment would.

---

This thread is so far off that mark it is not even funny. If you want to see a legal analysis, go look at my thread called:

Bundling=Tying?

The rather mean-spirited uneducated conjecture of a few people on this thread (re: anyone supporting Comcast) is entirely unreasonable, and ignores the fact that this price hike was STRUCTURED to attack satt tv services.

If you need any more proof of that I have the notification letter, Comcast is so brazen that the letter includes an offer to BUY BACK your Satt dish RIGHT AFTER they announce the price hike.

The INTENT of Comcast here is to unfairly advantage themselves over Satt TV. That intent is plain as day. The only real questions here are:

#1. Does Comcast have enough market power with its cable internet service to raise prices in this fashion without suffering from a significant loss of market share. If not, then there is no anti-trust issue, and the market will punish Comcast for the price-hike with a significant loss of customers.

#2. Is a court willing to conclude that forcing consumers to pay a penalty if they do not accept a tying arrangement is close enough to classic tying to find a violation of anti-trust law. In a classic tying arrangement, Comcast would simply not allow you to have cable internet unless you also took cable tv. This arrangement allows you to have one without the other, but forces you to pay a significant penalty. If you paid only $5 more, I doubt Comcast would be in trouble, but we are talking $14 more: from $43 to $57, or in other words a penalty of about ONE THIRD the total cost of the service (32.5% more).

The fact that it is structured as a price hike instead of a discount is significant. If it was a discount, Comcast could claim that it was passing cost savings on to the consumer, which is the justification for bundling.

Also, the tying issue aside, a 32.5% price hike, which followed a 22.8% hike which took place about a year ago, could be an anti-trust issue in and of itself. Considering that cable has a state sanctioned monopoly, cable pricing can and should be regulated. A 62.8% price increase in the span of about a year is clearly unjustified.

reply to garagerock
I see it as defending freedom

The anti-trust laws are at best antiquated (some dating back to 1890 for crying out loud) and downright perverted at worst. Let's look at it:

A company can get in trouble for a) raising their price (proves they have monopoly power), b) lowering their price (predatory practices), and c) keeping the price the same (collusion). Dammed if you do . . .

The fact of the matter is that usually, anti-trust litigation is a way for an uncompetitive firm to use the law to do what they could not, bring down their competitor (Netscape/Sun V. Microsoft comes to mind).
--
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." —Ronald Reagan