how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 BrianDamageWe Are The Hounds From HellPremium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX | reply to Nightfall
Re: Jeez When the last time you paid $30 to supersize your BigMac, Nightfall?
If you are, then you are flagrant in your discretionary spending, and in no time, you will lose your car, house, etc......
Bad analogy. Not even close to comparable.
Look, why should one be forced to buy their TV service when all they want is a cable modem, and be penalized to such a degree?
I can understand, say, that their bundled service costs $100., and the TV service itself is say, $60. and the broadband is $40.00.
You get them both if you bundle them for that $100.
If you want TV service only, then you pay like $65.
You want broadband without TV, then you pay $45.00.
There is no excuse for the extortion they are perpetrating on consumers presently, though. Don't defend it.
However, I see it as being a trend. SBC is doing the same thing, and they have come under scrutiny recently.
I refer to the necessity in ordering local service from the incumbent before you can get DSL from the incumbent.
Why should one have to do that? They shouldn't. There is no technical requirement to bundle both services, although the RBOCs would lead you to believe that, both on and off these boards.
Surely, you must have heard SBC's radio commercials:
"If I order local service, can I order long distance, or DSL?"
"Sure, and you can tailor them in any fashion you want."
Then, the caller goes into wanting a dog that doesn't shed hair, someone to talk to when he gets lonely, breakfast in bed in the morning, etc.
Comcast is only doing what they have been granted the omnipotence to do. They are following Whitacre's lead.
Comcast takes over ATT Broadband and all of their service areas, thereby making them a large monopoly in the same fashion as SBC is.
It's a natural progression.
In my area, I have one choice for phone service-Verizon.
I have one choice for cable-(Now) Comcast.
Conversely, I am now out of Verizon's DSL range.
There are no other cable choices for broadband. The only other choice for broadband is satellite, and I already have DirecTV. However, DirecTV wants $90 a month for 400/128 service, which is LATENT as hell, and everytime it clouds over, I lose service.
But in order to get a cable modem from Comcast, I have to order their TV service? Why should I?
It's all about what consumers will accept as fair.
Nowadays, people are just sheep and will take whatever garbage that the providers will provide.
It's B.S.
People need to exercise consumer power (like they used to) and send a message to these companies that you can either offer what we want or we won't buy your wares.
This is the argument I use when dealing with the incumbent, entrenched telecom services providers, as well as other crooks like the RIAA.
You, on the other hand, are just willing to go "duh, okay."
--
The rich get richer, the poorer get the picture, the bombs never hit you when yer down so low...some got pollution, others evolution, there must be some solution but I just don't know....briandamage@dslr.net | |
 NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
 ·Comcast
 ·Callcentric
| Without quoting your entire post, I will try to discuss your points.
quote:
Look, why should one be forced to buy their TV service when all they want is a cable modem, and be penalized to such a degree?
Why should one by forced to buy their car insurance when all they want is home owners insurance, and be penalized to such a degree? First off, it isn't a penalty. It is a discount on bundled services. Sure, if you get your home owners insurance from company A, it is going to be more expensive than if you got home and car insurance at the same time.
quote:
I can understand, say, that their bundled service costs $100., and the TV service itself is say, $60. and the broadband is $40.00.
You get them both if you bundle them for that $100.
If you want TV service only, then you pay like $65.
You want broadband without TV, then you pay $45.00.
No offense, but last time I checked, you didn't own the company and dictate price of service. You call it extortion, I call it bundled services. You have to be blind to not see it happening at many companies to save anywhere from $1-$2 to $25-$30.
quote:
But in order to get a cable modem from Comcast, I have to order their TV service? Why should I?
Uh, you don't have to order their TV service to get broadband.
quote:
People need to exercise consumer power (like they used to) and send a message to these companies that you can either offer what we want or we won't buy your wares.
This is the argument I use when dealing with the incumbent, entrenched telecom services providers, as well as other crooks like the RIAA.
It is called not buying. Let your wallet do the talking. You do have choices. You just have preferences. In some situations, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you talk the talk, then walk the walk and go with another provider or go back to dialup. Exercise your consumer power.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal | |
BrianDamageWe Are The Hounds From HellPremium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX | Why should one by forced to buy their car insurance when all they want is home owners insurance, and be penalized to such a degree? First off, it isn't a penalty. It is a discount on bundled services.
No, it's extortion.
No one should be forced to buy anything they don't want, and by your logic, you imply that it's okay. I don't.
Additionally, one should not be forced into extortive terms because they have no "choice".
No offense, but last time I checked, you didn't own the company and dictate price of service. You call it extortion, I call it bundled services. You have to be blind to not see it happening at many companies to save anywhere from $1-$2 to $25-$30.
No, I don't own the company. That $1-2 or $25-30 dollars is coming at the expense of buying something that you don't need in order to get it. It's marketing.
However, the FTC should be looking into cases such as these, and they have done so on numerous occasions.
Uh, you don't have to order their TV service to get broadband.
True, but I can expect to pay almost twice what I would for it unless I order their TV service also, which I don't need or want.
Just because I don't want their TV service doesn't mean that the cost pf providing their broadband service increases over 30%. It's hogwash, and I call it extortion in lieu of competitive choice.
It is called not buying. Let your wallet do the talking. You do have choices. You just have preferences. In some situations, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you talk the talk, then walk the walk and go with another provider or go back to dialup. Exercise your consumer power.
Don't challenge my consumer power. I am not a sheep. I buy what I want, HOW I WANT IT, and not how some company chooses to offer it.
I am presently on dialup again, because I am out of range of DSL, and wouldn't order it from Verizon if I was in range, Comcast is my only cable option, and I think I have covered that pretty thoroughly, as I have with the wireless choice (or faux choice) that exists.
Additionally, in the other reference I made as an analogy, I haven't bought a CD from an RIAA-affiliated label since about 1999.
I encourage more people to exert their consumer power. There was a time when consumers DID dictate the market. Companies were forced to provide products and services PEOPLE wanted, and provide them the way PEOPLE wanted them.
That is not the case now, but people turn the other cheek.
"Sheep."
--
The rich get richer, the poorer get the picture, the bombs never hit you when yer down so low...some got pollution, others evolution, there must be some solution but I just don't know....briandamage@dslr.net | |
 JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Companies seem to have forgotten that they work for the CUSTOMER, not the other way around. When's the last time one of the monolithic corporations you do business with did the leg work to fix a billing or accounting problem and you didn't have to lift a finger? Obviously, the individual customer with the 2 drawer filing cabinet has more resources than the 20000 employee company. | |
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI Reviews:
·Site5.com
·Comcast
·Callcentric
| reply to BrianDamage
Ok, last reply in this topic for me. Don't take offense BrainDamage, but this could go on and on and I want to move onto other discussions. 
said by BrianDamage:
Why should one by forced to buy their car insurance when all they want is home owners insurance, and be penalized to such a degree? First off, it isn't a penalty. It is a discount on bundled services.
No, it's extortion.
No one should be forced to buy anything they don't want, and by your logic, you imply that it's okay. I don't.
Additionally, one should not be forced into extortive terms because they have no "choice".
There is no forced purchase going on here. Don't have other broandband options open to you? Move to dialup. My same arguement opens up if you have only one fast food restaurant in your small town. Should McDonalds be compelled to lower the price of its Big Mac to the price you get it when you buy the combo meal because there is no other alternative in the area? I think not.
quote:
No offense, but last time I checked, you didn't own the company and dictate price of service. You call it extortion, I call it bundled services. You have to be blind to not see it happening at many companies to save anywhere from $1-$2 to $25-$30.
No, I don't own the company. That $1-2 or $25-30 dollars is coming at the expense of buying something that you don't need in order to get it. It's marketing.
However, the FTC should be looking into cases such as these, and they have done so on numerous occasions.
Buying something you don't need? Well, if you already have car insurance and don't want to move to this new provider, then get home insurance and pay more for it. If you "need" something, then you will pay what it takes to get it. Now, if you want just one service and not both, but it costs more to just get one, then if you need it then buy it. If it costs $2.00 to get just the sandwich, and the full meal costs $3, you can't bitch because you can't get the sandwich discount when you don't buy the full meal deal.
If you want the FTC to look into this, then they should also look into every company that does a packaged deal or bundled services as well. I really would like to get that Chicken Sandwich I had for lunch for $2 instead of paying $3 like I did or buying the meal deal for $4. Extortion?
quote:
It is called not buying. Let your wallet do the talking. You do have choices. You just have preferences. In some situations, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you talk the talk, then walk the walk and go with another provider or go back to dialup. Exercise your consumer power.
Don't challenge my consumer power. I am not a sheep. I buy what I want, HOW I WANT IT, and not how some company chooses to offer it.
I am presently on dialup again, because I am out of range of DSL, and wouldn't order it from Verizon if I was in range, Comcast is my only cable option, and I think I have covered that pretty thoroughly, as I have with the wireless choice (or faux choice) that exists.
Additionally, in the other reference I made as an analogy, I haven't bought a CD from an RIAA-affiliated label since about 1999.
I encourage more people to exert their consumer power. There was a time when consumers DID dictate the market. Companies were forced to provide products and services PEOPLE wanted, and provide them the way PEOPLE wanted them.
That is not the case now, but people turn the other cheek.
"Sheep."
You have covered your points well, but so have I. You say, in lieu of competition, Comcast and other companies should not be allowed to have bundled services. Well, this is going to be a lot of fun because I pointed out the small town fast food example. There are other examples, but I don't see the need to ramble on and on.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal
[text was edited by author 2003-04-08 15:31:47] | |
BrianDamageWe Are The Hounds From HellPremium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX | I pointed out that I HAVE gone dialup.
Additionally, I think your fast food analogy is weak.
Lastly, you opinions reflect those of embracing big business over consumer needs and rights.
You protect business, and I promote the rights of consumers.
This is where we differ, and I agree that we probably won't agree on this issue.
However, I will continue to push my beliefs as I believe you will do with yours.
--
The rich get richer, the poorer get the picture, the bombs never hit you when yer down so low...some got pollution, others evolution, there must be some solution but I just don't know....briandamage@dslr.net | |
| Here's my take on this: this is the problem with the McDonald's/Burger King analogy: With the McDonalds combo, I can buy any or all the items seperately for a seperate price. There is no discount off one for buying the other. There is a bundle price for buying the entire group.
That is NOT how it works at Comcast. With Comcast, regular TV subs DO NOT get penalized for NOT buying internet. But Internet only subs DO. They don't have a true bundle. They have discrimination against the internet only sub. With Wide Open West (who I have), they have 1 price for cable, 1 price for internet, and another price (bundled) for both. Not a surcharge on internet for failing to have tv service. Granted, it used to be different ($10 more for HSI without TV).
And yes, VIABLE competition DOES matter here. Dial up is NOT viable competition. The products are vastly different. DSL would at least be close, but isn't widely available. It's not like going to the Burger King down the street. There is no VIABLE competition. Like being at a sporting event, we are a CAPTIVE audience. Re-regulation is needed
--
The larger the group, the lower their collective intelligence and common sense. | |
|
