how-to block ads
|
herdfan
Premium
join:2003-01-25
Hurricane, WV
| No problem with Bundling!
We buy things all the time bundled. Who has not bought a combo meal at a fast-food restaurant? We don't think anything about that. We buy options on our cars this way in the form of packages, we buy vacations bundled that include air & hotel and sometimes meals, we now buy computers bundled with CPU, monitor, sometimes printer and software. Who would want to a computer with no software and have to go purchases Windows to install on it.
Why should telco & broadband be any different. Bundles are created since the fixed costs of providing service are spread out over several products or services. Companies can then provide more services at a lower incremental price.
My parents currently pay about $15 for their cable internet service. This is the difference in the price of the package they are on vs. the same TV lineup without the internet service. I'm going to guess that the majority of people are happy with the bundling of services and the unhappy minority are the ones making noise.
--
DRS 3.0(Gray)G3C 1210 Host: Dell 4100 PIII 933mzh, 512, 40 XP Pro SP1, Clients: Dell 8250 P4 2.8, 512 1066 RDRAM, 120, XP Pro SP1 Sony Vaio Laptop, 1G Athlon, 256,40, XP Home(Never Again)Wireless thru Orinoco AP-200 to Orinoco Gold Card /Using DPC Manager | |
GerryB
join:2003-03-16
Manchester Township, NJ
| Why do you pro bundle guys always choose to compare telco's and cable companies to industries that are very competitive and have absolutly no monopoly control on customers?
It is always a fast food restaurant or cars and if memory serves correctly, the last time I drove on a major road I never saw a lone fast food restaurant, or a single car dealer without one right next to it. Now your adding computers into it? One if not the most competitive consumer industries right now? | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
 ·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Exactly.
Imagine if a fast food chain pulled this crap:
"We know you really want the burger the most, so..."
A burger will cost you $5.99, Fries $1.50, and a Drink $1.49, but if you get all three, you'll pay only $6.50! What a deal, what a deal!
No, what a ripoff. In no time they'd be out of business due to competition.
--
"When the day comes that anyone can bend our country’s laws and lawmakers to serve selfish, competitive ends, that day democratic government dies" -- Preston Tucker, 1948 (Yep, it's dead.) | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to herdfan
The bundling isn't being offered as a true price break, but as a way to forcing you to pay for what you don't want and to prevent you from using the competition.
If it was truly a price break, you'd get discounts on additional products added, irregardless of what order added.... Penalty pricing should be banned "Ie you will pay a lot more for this service IF you refuse the services you don't want." The first item should NOT cost any more in order to force you to add the second.
The simple solution: By law the primary product wanted as designated by the customer must be sold at the lowest rate offered by the company to the public.
--
"When the day comes that anyone can bend our country’s laws and lawmakers to serve selfish, competitive ends, that day democratic government dies" -- Preston Tucker, 1948 (Yep, it's dead.) | |
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| reply to KrK
said by KrK  :
Exactly.
Imagine if a fast food chain pulled this crap:
"We know you really want the burger the most, so..."
A burger will cost you $5.99, Fries $1.50, and a Drink $1.49, but if you get all three, you'll pay only $6.50! What a deal, what a deal!
No, what a ripoff. In no time they'd be out of business due to competition.
Ummm... they already DO that. McDonalds sells a Big Mac combo meal for $2.99. The Big Mac purchased separately is $1.99, the fries are $.89 and the drink is $1.10. But the meal is $2.99. You are calling this a ripoff?
What I find interesting is that no one is going after McDonalds (and every other bar and restaurant too) for having "no carry in" policies- so if I want to eat there, I can't buy my drink elsewhere- I'm stuck buying it there!
By your logic, this too is a ripoff...
Boogie | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Ummm... they already DO that. McDonalds sells a Big Mac combo meal for $2.99. The Big Mac purchased separately is $1.99, the fries are $.89 and the drink is $1.10. But the meal is $2.99. You are calling this a ripoff?
No, that is not like my example nor is it penalty pricing.
THIS would be penalty pricing:
A Big Mac is 1.99, but only if you add fries and a drink, but if you don't, then it will be $3.50 for the Big Mac alone. We'll save you money by bundling all of them for only $2.99!
So, all you wanted was the Big Mac, but that would cost you $3.50, so you take the fries and drink you didn't want and spend $1.00 more then you should of had too.
It's even WORSE when it comes to the cable/Telco examples because in that case you're being forced to pay for something you 1) Already have and have paid for, or 2) Absolutely do not want and can't use.
--
"When the day comes that anyone can bend our country’s laws and lawmakers to serve selfish, competitive ends, that day democratic government dies" -- Preston Tucker, 1948 (Yep, it's dead.) | |
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| said by KrK :
Ummm... they already DO that. McDonalds sells a Big Mac combo meal for $2.99. The Big Mac purchased separately is $1.99, the fries are $.89 and the drink is $1.10. But the meal is $2.99. You are calling this a ripoff?
No, that is not like my example nor is it penalty pricing.
THIS would be penalty pricing:
A Big Mac is 1.99, but only if you add fries and a drink, but if you don't, then it will be $3.50 for the Big Mac alone. We'll save you money by bundling all of them for only $2.99!
So, all you wanted was the Big Mac, but that would cost you $3.50, so you take the fries and drink you didn't want and spend $1.00 more then you should of had too.
It's even WORSE when it comes to the cable/Telco examples because in that case you're being forced to pay for something you 1) Already have and have paid for, or 2) Absolutely do not want and can't use.
Your example isn't what SBC is doing though. What does this have to do with SBC? Are you saying that since some companies do this and SBC also sells telecom, therefore SBC is guilty by association?
Boogie | |
|
