how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to Nightfall
Re: Bundled services 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.
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.
--
Love Science Fiction? www.spacestationzoom.com | |
| 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.
An anti-trust violation doesn't apply here either- as Comcast didn't do this to people that subscribe to competitors as a punishment. The fact that this particular woman happens to use satellite (and her contract for it, no less) is irrelevent. If she used rabbit ears or if she didn't own a TV at all, she would STILL be in the same boat.
Her claim will fail because her claim is that Comcast singled her out because of her subscription to a satellite service and hence raised her internet rates as a result of it. This didn't happen though. Comcast didn't do anything that affects a competitor's ability to compete.
Offering incentives to customers is not illegal, immoral, anti-competitive or anything of the sort. The fact that this incentive happens to be a negative reinforcement rather than a positive reinforcement has nothing to do with it. For those that need definitions: Negative reinforcements are "rewards" for behavior by removing a negative stimulus- in this case, the "higher price" for cable internet service. Positive reinforcement "rewards" behavior by adding a positive stimulus- in this case, this would be lowering price for cable internet to attract current cable tv subscribers to buy the internet service too. Most companies use a positive reinforcement as a method of promotion. The fact that Comcast didn't do this doesn't make it illegal. Perhaps a poor choice of promo methods, but not illegal in any way.
Boogie | |
| 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.
I agree that this is best left to the judgement of the DOJ rather than the speculation of many on an online message board (especially those that have no other reason to be angry than the seemingly sadistic anger and hatred of any broadband provider that doesn't give them free internet service with guaranteed uptime, 10 static IP's, no TOS, no contract, etc).
I don't know that I would agree that a company with no immediate local competition should automatically have different rules to play by. If that were the case, every town of 200 people with a McDonalds, a gas station and one tavern in it (think REAL rural) should regulate the p!ss out of the price of Big Macs, Twinkies at the gas station and glasses of beer at the tavern- as there is no other viable competition for hundreds of miles in any direction.
But, I repeat, if there is really a case here, it's up to the DOJ to figure it out. I find it odd that so many here literally cheer and celebrate the demise (no matter whether the complaint/issue is valid or not) of ANY company and its employees. In the world we live in today, can't we all just cheer for the home NFL, NBA, NCAA, NHL, etc team? They're the ones playing the games that someone wins and someone loses. Businesses compete, yes- but not with the goal of complete obliteration of everyone else in the game- it's a win/win/win/win game for all.
Boogie | | |
|
 KaltesPremium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA | 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. | |
| said by Kaltes:
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.
Comcast/ATT Broadband has been running the Dish buy-back campaign for at least 2 years. They structured the price hike because they realized cable modem customers received basic cable whether they paid for it or not. Therefore, the ongoing dish buy-back campaign is not "proof" that the recent price hike is structured to attack satellite services. Not that I don't think the price hike seems a bit much, but your reasoning is flawed. | |
KaltesPremium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA | My point was that they included that offer in the notification letter immediately after announcing the price increase. It was the only offer included in the notification letter.
The fact that the dish buyback was juxtaposed with the price hike in this fashion is significant, and it reflects the intent of Comcast.
I know the Dish buyback offer is not new. I know cable internet customers get Tv service as well unless Comcast puts something on the line to stop that from happening. I plugged my cable modem feed into my TV to check, and it did not provide me with any TV service.
Your arguments in no way demonstrate that my point was in any way flawed. Comcast can easily prevent internet customers from receiving free TV service. Even if they couldnt, how is a layperson going to splice in a splitter to take advantage of it? | |
|
