lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | reply to Nightfall
Re: Bundled services 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 |
|
 NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·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 |
|
 NPGMBR
join:2001-03-28
Arlington, VA | 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. |
|
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. |
|
