Bundling an Antitrust Violation? Marketing tactic continues to ruffle feathers Nancy Levine's monthly fee for Comcast broadband recently jumped from $42.95 to $56.95 because she wasn't a Comcast cable television customer (she was locked into a 1 year contract with Dish Network anyway). While Comcast calls the bundling tactic "a reward" for the company's best customers, there's plenty who see the tactic as simple extortion. Gene Kimmelman, director of the Washington office of the Consumers Union, plans to ask the FTC and the Justice Department's antitrust division to investigate the tactic, and determine whether Comcast is violating antitrust law. The Washington Post has additional detail.
|
  VericimaBeautiful But DeadlyPremium
join:2003-01-07
Manchester, CT
| At the cost of the consumer... quote: "Cable has employed a variety of tactics over the years in an attempt to thwart competition and choice, all generally at the expense of the consumer,"
My apartment complex has a contract with Comcast, I can't get anyone else. There is a company called Knology in my area that offers phone service as well. I tried to get them since I hate Bell South as well, but learned that I can't get anyone but Comcast. And the Funny thing is, I don't see any sort of price break or better service for this so called deal!
[text was edited by author 2003-03-26 09:40:44] | |
|  | Reviews:
 ·Verizon Broadban..
| Re: At the cost of the consumer... You might want to check out the router watch »/badrouters
about Knology. Their network is always either yellow and red for packet loss. If you are really looking for just phone service get a Vonage line.
ym | |
| |  roamer1sticking it out at you
join:2001-03-24
Atlanta, GA | said by Vericima:
My apartment complex has a contract with Comcast, I can't get anyone else. There is a company called Knology in my area that offers phone service as well. I tried to get them since I hate Bell South as well, but learned that I can't get anyone but Comcast. And the Funny thing is, I don't see any sort of price break or better service for this so called deal!
Exclusive contracts between apartment owners/condo associations and cable (and to a much lesser extent, phone) companies aren't at all unusual. Some apt. complexes even contract with companies other than the "local" cable company (Comcast, TWC, etc.) to provide "cable" service; this has caused some complexes here in Atlanta to have no broadband despite the area surrounding the complex having broadband. See the second URL in my sig for some examples...
At any rate, such contracts are 100% legal, and the FCC has taken a quite hands-off attitude toward dealing with them. 
-SC
--
No-Bull SE US Wireless Info: »www.sewireless.info/
Atlanta Apt/Condo Cable & Broadband Info: »www.atlaptcable.info/ | |
| |  Rom1
@dsl.sntc01.pacbell.n | Well Comcast lost a customer to SBC Yahoo and I saved 12$ per month !
Too bad guys, going from 42 to 56$ is tactically not smart.
Don't take customers like sheep ...
I hope many other previous comcast or ATT customers will do so ... | |
|
 BoogeymanDrive it like you stole itPremium
join:2002-12-17
Panama City, FL
 ·Comcast
| bundles Its wrong for them to raise her monthly fee because she doesnt have cable from them. Now if they told her she would only be charged $40 or so a month if she also signed up for cable. I have cable from a small company here in FL called Knology, if I also got cable internet and phone service from them, I would pay about $15 or so less than if I had them all seperatly. I think bundles like that is a good business practice, but if I had internet from them, and then they told me I would have to pay $14 more next month if I didnt get cable from them too, I would cancel my service and tell them to go screw themselves. Its just wrong for any comapany to raise prices for customers who dont get everything they offer. Microsoft doesnt even charge like that.
--
what doesn't this button do? | |
| | | | | Re: Bundled services 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. | |
| | |  NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
·Comcast
 ·Callcentric
| 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.
No offense, she has to take that up with her dish contract, not with Comcast. It would be nice if Comcast and every other company for that matter were to make exceptions but that doesn't happen. When you sign a contract for a year on any service, like a cell phone or a dish, then you are bound by the contract.
I really say, tough shit to this. If cable modem service is that important, than pay the extra and keep it. Then go with basic cable later. It isn't Comcast's responsibility to lower the rate for people because they are in contract. If they are responsible, lets start hammering other contracts until they make exceptions for everyone.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal | |
| | | | | | Re: Bundled services 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 | |
| | | | | NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI Reviews:
·Site5.com
·Comcast
·Callcentric
| Re: Bundled services 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.
Uh, the customer signs a contract with a dish company for service for one year. Does comcast have to lower rates because that person is locked in contract with a dish company? It would be nice if it happened, but it doesn't happen that way. Sorry if you find that inexcusable, but that is the way it is.
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.
What does "The Customer Is Always Right" have to do with the dish contract she signed? :P
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal | |
| | | | | | dylking
join:2001-07-31
Saint Paul, MN | Re: Bundled services 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. | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | 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. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Bundled services 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? | |
| | | | | | | | | NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI Reviews:
·Site5.com
·Comcast
·Callcentric
| Re: Bundled services 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?
I agree, she has the right to complain all she wants. As for ditching her service, you might want to read your first post on it. You said....
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.
She is locked into her contract her her satellite service and has to pay more to Comcast to keep her cable modem simply because she is getting satellite TV. My question is, why should comcast make an exception? You still haven't answered my question on it. Better yet, why shouldn't all companys make exceptions for all people? I want my local phone company to offer me cheaper local service because I don't have DSL but have a cable modem. It just doesn't make sense!
Why am I defending this? I feel it is legal and other companies have been doing this for years in this industry and others. What makes this different is that Comcast is doing it in midstream, which is going to upset some people. However, if people don't want to pay it, then go elsewhere. Simple decision. You think it is business strong arming the customer when in fact it is a price change for everyone across the board.
No, I don't work at Comcast either.
Obviously, there are a lot of upset people about this. I apologize that my views differ with the rest of you. This is my last post here because I could go on and on and it wouldn't get us anywhere except to a flamefest.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | 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 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Bundled services 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 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Bundled services 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 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Bundled services 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 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Bundled services 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 | Re: Bundled services 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. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Bundled services 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 | Re: Bundled services 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? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | 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. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Bundled services 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. | |
| | | | | | | | | |  LegoPower77AbecedarianPremium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA | Re: Bundled services 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 | |
| | | | | | | | | | KaltesPremium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA | Re: Bundled services ""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 . . .""
a) They ONLY get in trouble for raising prices *IF* they would not risk a loss of market share by doing so. That is market power: the power to hike prices without losing customers.
b) If they lower prices in the short term and take a loss with the intent of destroying competitors, that is a BAD THING. It wouldnt be easy to prove, you'd have to search thru all their memos and emails and hope to find a smoking gun that said 'hey guys lets take a loss so we can put Joe out of business'.
c) Keeping your prices the same isn't collusion. Fixing prices in conjunction with the competition is a bad thing. Price fixing is a per se violation: no excuse will get you off the hook. Not only that, but people go to prison for even attempting it.
""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).""
Oh and you don't think Netscape could have competed with IE fairly? IE didn't kill Netscape because it was better. MSFT abused its monopoly on the OS to leverage Netscape out of the market for browsers. I read the appellate opinion in the MSFT case.
Anti-trust safeguards capitalism. Monopoly is the antithesis of the free market. Monopoly is what you have in communist countries, and heavily socialist 'democracies'. Do you think that America would be better off following the example of the USSR?
****************************************************
If you believe in freedom, democracy, the free market, capitalism, consumers, and apple pie, you should naturally support vigorous anti-trust enforcement.
If you believe in the exploitation of the many at the hands of the few, then you would probably be naturally opposed to anti-trust laws.
*****************************************************
""The anti-trust laws are at best antiquated (some dating back to 1890 for crying out loud) ""
Most felony criminal laws, like murder, rape, etc have been around in most every society for thousands of years, does this make them less relevant? I suppose the nature of capitalism and the free market have changed since the late 19th century?
Anti-trust keeps bullies from beating up the little guy. The only person who wouldnt like anti-trust are the bullies themselves. (and their lackeys) | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Bundled services quote:
a) They ONLY get in trouble for raising prices *IF* they would not risk a loss of market share by doing so. That is market power: the power to hike prices without losing customers.
I don't know that I would agree that setting prices (or raising (your word was "hiking") them to the point where you lose the least number of customers or risk losing a market share is anti-competitive action. ALL companies do this. Market conditions aren't dependent of 85,000 competitors of the same size, quality and price.
What most seem to want competition to be defined as is not really competition. Most here (by the posts, that is) think competition is multiple providers of identical products whereas each competitor offers the same exact product with absolutely no advantage over a competing product- at the same exact price, with the same exact terms. For example, many here would like to believe that DSL competition means that ALL companies (ideally, this is) offer the identical speeds at the identical rates and no company can offer any service or product that the others don't happen to offer too.
This isn't competition, though. Competition isn't defined as multiple companies offering the identical products across the board. Good, profitable and long standing companies continuously strive to innovate and change their product lines to keep an edge over the competition and to constantly offer something that the competition doesn't. This is in an effort to attract customers. This isn't anti-competitive. A good example of this is the fast food industry. After McDonalds came out with the Egg McMuffin, suddenly Burger King came out with the Bacon Croissandwich. Does this mean that McDonalds was anti-competitive? No. Does this mean that Burger King held out on selling breakfast food to the "starving morning crowds" to increase profits on Whoppers at 11:00am? Not in the least either. Another fast food example is Howard Johnsons. HJ used to be #1 (decades ago) in the fast food industry. They lost it. How?? They didn't keep up with the competition. They didn't innovate their products and change their lines to keep up. Now, they are more into hospitality. In the soft drink industry, PepsiCo never offered a "cherry" flavor until Coca Cola did it first. Coke came out with Surge to compete with Mountain Dew. Did Mountain Dew make PepsiCo anti-competitive because Coca Cola didn't offer a high caffiene citrus drink too? Not in the least. But high caffiene "users" will buy LOTS more Mountain Dew than Surge. And if PepsiCo wanted to, lets say, double the price of Mountain Dew, they would lose market share- but it wouldn't be illegal- no matter HOW bad Surge tastes.
Take this into the telecom field and you have the DSL issue. Many here would like to believe that the Bells "held out on DSL to punish those consumers (I still have trouble with this one) that subscribe to T1's in their homes." The fact is that the Bells had bigger fish to fry and made the choice not to invest in DSL because they never thought broadband would sell to the masses (and it's still not selling like it should) until cable came out and started offering cable internet services.
In the case of Comcast, their "ace in the hole" is that they can offer a better internet service than the satellite services can. Satellite Tv services hold the cards of price and in many cases quality of service. Do you think many would argue that cable held out on digital music channels to make people buy CD's (another "overpriced" item in the eyes of many here) until satellite tv started offering music audio channels first? How about the theory that cable held out on digital video and dolby 5.1 delivery until satellite offered it first?
Innovation and deployment aren't the same in any case- it's got to do with how much money is available to spend, what the competition is doing and whether you want to gamble on "making your move" to get an "up" on the competition this time or next time.
At any rate, competitors will ALWAYS be looking to "gain the advantage" to attract customers. This isn't illegal or anti-competitive- it's business.
Boogie | |
| | | | | | | | | | KaltesPremium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA | Re: Bundled services ""Competition isn't defined as multiple companies offering the identical products across the board.""
First, you identify the relevant market. Equivalents are part of the market: so all broadband services that can effectively provide for residential use would be a market. This means that DSL and Cable compete in the same market. Unfortunately, there are geographic considerations, and while in some areas in the USA Cable and DSL might compete vigorously, in other areas, only 1 of the 2 might be available.
""PepsiCo never offered a "cherry" flavor until Coca Cola did it first. Coke came out with Surge to compete with Mountain Dew.""
Umm, in all your examples you clearly indicate situations in which 1 party came out with a product first, then another company later released a product which was equivalent. Having a monopoly is not in and of itself wrong. As long as anyone else can make a cherry flavored drink, Cherry Coke can be a monopoly. If Cherry Coke was alone in the market, and then had its price increased to $5 a can, and many people still bought it (because it was the only cherry drink), many other companies would make their own cherry drinks to take away marketshare from Cherry Coke. That is capitalism. Comcast is not Cherry Coke. Comcast does not have to worry about some new company appearing tomorrow and laying a national copper/fibre/cable network. It cannot be done. So, the threat of competition cannot properly deter Comcast. Because of this fact, anti-trust steps in to prevent Comcast from abusing its position of unchallengable strength.
Satt internet is not an equivalent to cable broadband, just like dial-up is not an equivalent to broadband.
If Cable internet is superior to satt, but satt Tv is superior to cable, then we should all be watching satt tv and using cable modems. | |
| | | | | | | | | | LegoPower77AbecedarianPremium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA | Re: Bundled services said by Kaltes:
""
Comcast is not Cherry Coke. Comcast does not have to worry about some new company appearing tomorrow and laying a national copper/fibe/cable network. It cannot be done. So, the threat of competition cannot properly deter Comcast. Because of this fact, anti-trust steps in to prevent Comcast from abusing its position of unchallengable strength.
You had it but lost it. Over the long term, there will be competition to Comcast. Monopolies do not last. Nature does not like inequality and so even if Comcast was the only game in town, the windfall profits it makes —assuming it prices to make them (see my other post here)— would attract someone to lay the fiber. This sort of thing happens time and time again and there's no reason to expect the Internet to be any different.
--
"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 | |
| | | | | | | | | | KaltesPremium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA | Re: Bundled services ""Nature does not like inequality and so even if Comcast was the only game in town, the windfall profits it makes —assuming it prices to make them (see my other post here)— would attract someone to lay the fiber.""
Even if someone decided TODAY to 'lay fiber' they could not begin to compete with Comcast for possibly years., if ever. Look at how much BS tri-city broadband is putting up with. Tri-city wont be available for quite a long time, and that proposal is something like a year old already. The threat of market entry does not exist for Comcast. If it did, Comcast couldnt hike prices to $57/month when it was already making substantial profit at $43/month. This new price is plain and simple gouging. It is also a tax on our freedom to choose whatever TV service we want.
Also, what is to stop Comcast from gouging now, then taking a loss once competition starts up, running the 'enemy' out of business, then resuming gouging? Anti-trust.
Im not spouting off emotion here, Im making well-reasoned arguments.
""When the market is open, i.e., not encumbered by barriers to entry""
There are a large number of practical barriers to entry with cable and dsl. There is 1 infrastructure. Creating a duplicate infrastructure would be an exceedingly difficult if not impossible endeavor, and in any event it would take years to get off the ground.
As for your posts regarding monopolies reducing prices... I have to laugh. Anyone who has taken high school economics can see through your argument. If a monopoly drastically lowers prices, it is only temporarily to kill whoever dares attempt to enter their market.
Since you brought up Microsoft, maybe you'd like to explain to me how their 600%+ profit margins on their OS and office software is a GOOD THING for anyone but MSFT? | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Bundled services You're expecting too much of giants like Comcast (or any of the Bells) if you wish them (or anyone else that large, for that matter) to turn on a dime and compete at the snap of your fingers.
There is MUCH more involved in this equation than you give credit for. There is no reason that a company (or municipality) can't lay fiber and compete within a few years of continuous deployment and growth. It's already been done with many companies and several municipalities.
What you are asking for, though, is for competing services in the type of service that YOU would like to subscribe to- all at the price that YOU would like to pay- EVERYWHERE. And your claim seems to be that since that can't be done instantaneously, it must be the opposite end of the spectrum and impossible to do in less than a century.
I ask you this as well... while there is technically nothing to stop Comcast from "gouging until competition comes, then give it away till competition is gone- only to gouge again," Comcast (and any other company) will ALWAYS be in that cycle if they choose this- and they will have ZERO long term customers, a TERRIBLE reputation, a bad credit rating for investors- as no rating service will see the constant gain and loss of customers along with ZERO revenue overall as a good business plan. So Comcast won't be doing that- as they probably prefer to be in business and prefer that investors buy their stock.
Telephone service is the same- but with different rules. What regulators are trying to do is to "manufacture" competition by encouraging consumers and businesses to choose to purchase their telecom products ANYWHERE but a Bell by limiting the Bells ability to innovate, deploy and market new (and some older) technologies. The regulators are sort of playing the game of "let's increase costs, lower revenue and prevent the Bells from competing for a while" in order to "force" the public to go elsewhere- even if they are COMPLETELY HAPPY with their phone service.
By following the equation of "innovation is an effect of competition" (it's not ONLY caused by competition, but it is a possible effect of it), one only need "solve" for competition to realize that competition can be achieved by limiting innovation from one competitor and allowing other competitors to be more marketable and attractive. This is akin to preventing Burger King from offering french freedom fries to get more people to go to McDonalds instead. And it works- at least in theory. The problem in telecom regulation is, however, that the new market entrants are dependent on the incumbents- meaning that if the incumbents are prevented from innovating, the new entrants won't survive either. The equation needs tweaking that encourages new entrants to gain independence from the incumbents. The reality is that the incumbents aren't thrilled at all to be required to support the new entrants- and it shows. The incumbents aren't going to innovate if they are required to allow the new entrants back stage too. We are now at gridlock.
So what is the answer? No one knows yet- but long term time will solve all current problems- and create new problems- but isn't that what keeps people employed?
Boogie | |
|
| | | | | | | | | LegoPower77AbecedarianPremium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA | Let me ask you something, you say they rip off the consumers, are the consumers forced to buy their product? Are they? No, they contract with the ISP presumably because they want to have internet access. Both parties gain from trade otherwise rational people would not do it. You are at odds with one of the fundamental assumptions of economics here. I suggest we all back off the emotion and look at it.
ISPs do have some level of monopoly power —but by no means are they a pure monopoly. Even if they were, (funny how I have to use a plural for monopoly) they still can't just arbitrarily set their prices. It's not as if Ebenezer Scrooge can just wake up one day and say, "gee i think I'll raise prices today." No, even monopolies have to compete for resources and the effects of costs.
The only eeevil of the monopoly is that they face a sloped demand curve meaning they can set a price and have a corresponding number of people willing to buy (as opposed to the wheat farmer who faces a horizontal demand curve and can only sell what the market dictates). When the market is open, i.e., not encumbered by barriers to entry (read: regulations), firms try to set their price as close to what a perfectly competitive market would be as possible, otherwise, the windfall they make from a high price would attract others to enter the business. This is why we see things like Standard oil in 1870 selling refined oil at $26.4/bbl and having a 4% market share. By 1911, they had brought the price down to $4.7/bbl and had 69% market share. Same scenario for Alcoa. In 1887 a pound of aluminum sold for $5-8, by 1941 it was down to 15¢/lb. the same thing for almost any “monopoly” you want to bring up (and don’t give me the government created ones like the Bells or the Post Office, or something —the education system is a particularly egregious one). What a way to screw the consumer. Just like Microsoft did with its Virtual Machine. Now I have to go to Sun's website to get java, what a hassle.
As Friedrich Hayek points out in his essay The Meaning of Competition, “Enthusiasm for perfect competition in theory and the support of monopoly in practice are indeed surprisingly often found to live together” (emphasis added). The reason for this is that people get so caught-up in trying to make everything “competitive” that they end up distorting the market by excessive regulation, which drives high-cost producers out and discourages would-be competitors from entering (not to mention discouraging innovation because of limiting profits). Regulation makes people beholden to a politically connected commission (eeevil lobbying) and leads them down the road to serfdom. Whatever good the aims of regulation are, it always ends up maintaining the power of the planners themselves. A society that cedes its development to an organized commission will always be limited by what the minds of the planners can grasp.
Q.E.D.
--
"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 | |
|
| | | | | | | | |  ieolusSupport The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA | The Bill of Rights are antiquated too (dating back to 1789 for crying out loud).
Just because a law or laws are old, does not make them irrelevant. Especially the anti-trust laws. Although some in high positions in the government today would love to be back in the Standard Oil days of the late 1800s.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp | |
|
| | | | | | Heck you have the right to shove a bottle up your ass. I would not do it, but you have the right.
And Comcast has the right to change their pricing plans.
Go Figure. | |
|
| | | | Oh that's great, make an exception for her, just this one time, but not her neighbor? Comcast raised the price on their internet service, period. It's not that they're out to charge single service customer's only, but to offer a discount to those who have or subscribe to other services. Like any other utilties service (subscribe to three-way calling and caller ID, save $3, sound familiar) Quit whining, you could always go back to dial-up. We won't miss ya. | |
|
| | | said by Nightfall:
My opinion is this, if you don't like the price increase...
No one likes price increases, but I think the real issue is that Comcast is not giving a price increase notification or even admitting to a price increase. They are claiming this is a price reduction for bundled customers: "It is to reward our best customers with a price break on services" Price increases are one thing, but it is a completely different beast when your price goes up due to price breaks. The same thing happened to me with Charter, and I ended up getting basic cable from them as the total cost increase was a wash. Yes, I am getting more value on the current structure, but I was paying less and getting what I wanted before the price breaks. If they came right out and said that this is a price increase, I would have less of an issue with it (none if cable had to have price increases approved by the PUC like phone services)
--
If it is not recorded, it simply does not exist. | |
| | |
See 12 replies to this post | |
| lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | 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 Online DSL
| Re: Bundled services 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 | |
| | | | | | |  NPGMBR
join:2001-03-28
Arlington, VA | Re: Bundled services 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. | |
| | | | | | 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 | 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. | |
|
| vic102482Premium
join:2002-04-30
Upper Marlboro, MD | There are 10 insurance companies for every town
DSL has line sharing
THERE IS ONLY ONE CABLE COMPANY AND THAT COMPANY IS COMCAST(for all comcast areas).
You tell your argument to a town that only has comcrap and their shitty service as an ISP.
--
I tie a rope around my penis and jump from a tree, don't you wanna grow up to be just like me!!!! | |
| | | roamer1sticking it out at you
join:2001-03-24
Atlanta, GA | Re: Bundled services said by vic102482:
THERE IS ONLY ONE CABLE COMPANY AND THAT COMPANY IS COMCAST(for all comcast areas).
Wrong:
- Augusta GA (Knology)
- Panama City FL (Knology again)
- parts of Knoxville TN (Knology yet again)
- parts of Dunwoody, Roswell, and Woodstock GA (BellSouth)
- Acworth and Fairburn GA (city governments)
- etc.
-SC
--
No-Bull SE US Wireless Info: »www.sewireless.info/
Atlanta Apt/Condo Cable & Broadband Info: »www.atlaptcable.info/ | |
| | | | | "You tell your argument to a town that only has comcrap and their shitty service as an ISP."
Who's holding a gun to your head forcing you to subscribe? | |
| | | | vic102482Premium
join:2002-04-30
Upper Marlboro, MD | Re: Bundled services said by Agent 86:
"You tell your argument to a town that only has comcrap and their shitty service as an ISP."
Who's holding a gun to your head forcing you to subscribe?
Internet access is a nessescity for some.
--
I tie a rope around my penis and jump from a tree, don't you wanna grow up to be just like me!!!! | |
|
| |  brianhn1Sup Brotha
join:2003-01-26
Jacksonville, FL | said by vic102482:
THERE IS ONLY ONE CABLE COMPANY AND THAT COMPANY IS COMCAST(for all comcast areas).
So what if there is only one cable company. You can still get internet from your phone company or some wireless provider (eg. Clearwire). Personally I think problems with Comcast internet comes from the user unable to understand how to keep their internet service running. Imagine if you ordered a T-1 line to your company and suddenly it goes out for one week (very rare). If you didn't know what was wrong you would just complain that the service is bad and start bad mouthing them.
--
Yep | |
| | | | | [QUOTE= vic102482  ]THERE IS ONLY ONE CABLE COMPANY AND THAT COMPANY IS COMCAST(for all comcast areas).
[QUOTE]
Totally untrue. Opinions are fine, such as the service being poor, but Comcast is not the only cable company in all Comcast areas. Maybe a little research before you post.... | |
|
| | | said by Nightfall:
Bitch all you want. The fact of the matter is that bundled services have been going on for a long time. Phone companies do it if you get local phone service AND DSL for instance. Insurance companies do it if you get your car, home, and life insurance through one company. It is a bundled discount for buying multiple services through one company.
That's fine. I don't have a problem with them charging non-TV customers more. Like you said, you get more than one service, you get a price break.
But even though I already had cable TV when I signed up for cable internet, and the higher rate doesn't affect me, I still think a 25% price difference is excessive. | |
| | | | fact of the matter is: IF THERE IS NO CHOICE, IT'S EXTORTION (UNLESS YOU CONSIDER BOYCOTTING A CHOICE)
fact of the matter is: IF THERE IS NO CHOICE, IT'S A MONOPOLY (UNLESS YOU CONSIDER BOYCOTTING A CHOICE)
fact of the matter is: IF THERE IS NO CHOICE, IT'S A SCREWING (UNLESS YOU CONSIDER BOYCOTTING A CHOICE)
I CAN'T GET ANY BROADBAND INTERNET EXCEPT COMCAST. IF I WANT IT I HAVE TO PAY, THEY KNOW THAT. I SIGNED UP FOR THEIR SERVICE AND THEY KNEW AT THAT TIME THAT I HAD DISH NETWORK, UNDER 1 YEAR CONTRACT.
AT LEAST THE PHONE COMPANY DOESN'T CHARGE AS MUCH, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE THE MONOPOLY AT MY WORK. THE PRICE THERE IS $39.95.(PIGGY BACKED ON AN EXISTING TELEPHONE LINE) , A FAIR PRICE FOR THE SERVICE. NOT THE SCREWING THAT COMCAST IS MAKING US TAKE AT $59.95 | |
| | | | said by Nightfall:
Bitch all you want.
We will, and once Gene Kimmelman, director of the Washington office of the Consumers Union points this out to the FTC and the Justice Department's antitrust division to investigate the tactic I believe we will see some pretty fast changes. You have neglected to see the obvious fact that she did not choose to go with the bundled pack and that they are extorting her for not doing so!
said by Nightfall:
The only reason why Comcast is getting bitched at is because they are doing it right now.
Wrong! Comcast is getting bitched at because they chose to take advantage of the bundled package from the back end. They are charging the bundled package to those that are not opting to use it at a raised price in attempt to move those customers to their cable service as well. Obviously as in the original post, it is a tactic of simple extortion.
said by Nightfall:
My opinion is this, if you don't like the price increase, then don't pay for it or get TV cable to make the price lower.
Although you are entitled to your opinion it is painfully obvious this is extortion and I for one hope they burn, just my opinion.
--
thegrinch "the price of mortality is death." | |
| | | | Sounds like you work for the cable company!
This is extortion, anyway you look at it. It is one thing to offer a discount for choosing the bundle, but to raise rates on EXISTING customers simply because they won't spend MORE MONEY to buy UNWANTED SERVICES is total BS.
If your home owner's insurance policy provider suddenly raised your home owner's insurance rates simply because you would not also buy your auto coverage from them, even though you had been their customer for years, would be WRONG, (legal or not.) I personally have never heard of insurance companies running this SCAM, what makes cable suppliers think this is acceptable policy. This is not the way an ethical company treats it's customers!
If the government won't stop this practice, maybe some class-action lawsuits against the perpetrators will! | |
|
kaila
join:2000-10-11
Lincolnshire, IL Reviews:
·voip.ms
| Kind of reminds me of............. About ten years ago or so some gas stations (Amoco?) began charging a 4~6 cent per gallon "premium" when a customer paid for their gas by credit card. When a government body attempted to pursue legal action over this practice, the stations quickly removed the wording "credit card premium" and switched it to "cash discount". End result: legal challenges dropped, and nothing changed for the consumers.
I suspect there are enough loopholes for Comcast to skirt this one, regardless of the ethics (or lack thereof). | |
| | brianhn1Sup Brotha
join:2003-01-26
Jacksonville, FL | Re: Kind of reminds me of............. Yes Comcast can somehow easily shrug it off. Lots of companies do this bundling and they do it because it is more cost effective. Selling stuff in bundles at cheaper prices makes them more attractive.
I agree that the discrepancy between the bundled package and the cable internet only service is rather large. They might as well just sell the bundle to make people happier(or not for those loud mouths). The majority that are complaining are ones that never had this pricing imposed on them before (eg. ex-AT&T Broadband customers).
--
Yep | |
|
| | Isn't Comcast justifying a move to DSL? Most people have land lines (not all, some just use a cell phone). But if I were in this person's shoes, I'd cancel my cable modem AND cablevision service, get a dish, and get a DSL line installed. The dsl line would be cheaper than the fee for the cable modem.
Ultimately, Comcast wouldn't have ANY of my business. | |
| | vfpguyAlias Dotnetguy
join:2001-07-21
Wayne, NJ | Re: Isn't Comcast justifying a move to DSL? Assuming of course that DSL is available to her. | |
| | | vic102482Premium
join:2002-04-30
Upper Marlboro, MD | Re: Isn't Comcast justifying a move to DSL? said by vfpguy:
Assuming of course that DSL is available to her.
And thats the provlem for most people:(:(
--
I tie a rope around my penis and jump from a tree, don't you wanna grow up to be just like me!!!! | |
|
| | | Yeah I"m about ready to jump ship .. waiting to see how bad comcast butchers the ATT stuff (newsgroups mainly).
Just dont see how they expect to gain customers with a pricing of $56. Keep it under $50, morons. | |
|
| | Nothing New I get a 5% discount on my Homeowners insurance because I buy my auto insurance from the same company.
I get a discount, compared to individual prices, on my phone bill because I buy a package that includes caller id, call waiting, call forwarding etc. I get an additional discount because both of my land lines and both cell phones are all on the same bill.
I get a discount on my dry cleaning because the same place does all my work shirts.
Nothing new. It is one of many ways used by companies to get you to purchase additional goods and services that you might have purchased elsewhere or not at all.
--
Dave
I'd rather be fishing!
Speakeasy, Covad - Not fast enough. | |
| | | | Re: Nothing New The problem isn't that they give a discount on internet service to people who also subscribe to the tv service. Giving a discount would be dropping the cable modem service 10% like $4.25 for people who subscribe to TV. Not jacking up her cable modem service more than 25% for not subscribing to cable TV service. Time-Warner use to have a similar pricing policy, although it was like this from the beginning the service was offered. You knew that if you didn't get cable tv you would have to pay an extra $10 more per month for cable internet. Luckily TW-RR realized that it was a bad business practice, and have since discountinued it in the Tampa Bay area. | |
| | | | | Re: Nothing New In my city it was $40 more if you didn't have cable TV service. They got harassed and terrorized out of this practice. | |
|
| echoes
join:2002-01-11
West Harrison, NY | You're close but using your own words:
"I get a 5% discount on my Homeowners insurance because I buy my auto insurance from the same company."
I can see a maybe a 5% or 10% difference between bundled and unbundled service but 25% as in this case is the work of an arrogant monopoly. I'd like to see them try this if they had some competition like your insurance company and dry cleaning service. | |
| | | | | Re: Nothing New I live in Comcast territory.
There is competition for some of us.
Covad DSL 2 years ago because high speed cable internet was already at least 6 months late.
Comcast cable was replaced last fall by DirecTV when they wanted to raise my rates from $38 to $53 for the family cable package. DirecTV is $40 plus it has more channels.
For those who cannot get DSL I feel sorry but you can get Satellite Internet but I don't think it is as fast as 1.5MB DSL but package it up with DirecTV to get the "bundled rate" at it is not so bad.
--
Dave
I'd rather be fishing!
Speakeasy, Covad - Not fast enough. | |
| | | | echoes
join:2002-01-11
West Harrison, NY | Re: Nothing New It's great when you have a choice so that when one company suddenly raises their rates an insane amount, you're able to switch to someone else as you did going from Comcast to DirecTV. Unfortunately, the choices aren't always there when it comes to broadband internet connections.
I looked into Direcway satellite broadband for our office in Chicago a couple years back when we couldn't get DSL and I remember the upfront costs being very high, the was speed relatively slow (up to 400K) and there were latency issues. For many, it's just not a practical solution.
I believe the best way to show your displeasure with your service from a company in any industry is to go someone else (a competitor). If you don't have that option and you feel the company is acting unfairly then you have to look to the government to protect the consumer. | |
|
ATLHSI
join:2003-02-13
Roswell, GA | The Bells Play the Same Game but Worse! Try getting DSL at all with a Bell company if you have someone else for phone service! They won't serve you period unless you get their landline phone service.
This is definitely true of BellSouth, and I assume for the rest! BellSouth also ties their advertised rate for DSL to a specific (most expensive) package.
Quit whining! It's Business 101 that multiple services cover the high fixed costs of the network better than single services. The price of cable TV covers most of the cable network costsand overhead. When a customer gets Internet only, those costs have to be covered by only the Internet. Hence the discount on multiple services. | |
| | brianhn1Sup Brotha
join:2003-01-26
Jacksonville, FL | Re: The Bells Play the Same Game but Worse! I agree it should be time that we settle the Comcast whining.
--
Yep | |
|
 jtudorXm 60's On 6 FreakPremium,MVM
join:2002-12-07
Morganton, NC | Whats the Difference? What is the difference between this tactic, and the BellSouth DSL pricing model? BS offers DSL for 49.95, unless you are a Complete Choice customer, then you can get DSL for $45.00.
I have no problem with discounts offered to those who take additional services. Providers of all kinds of services offer bundle pricing, and it is not considered an anti-trust violation.
Where I would have a problem with this is like this situation appears to be, that the price and policy was changed midstream. Customers should be given ample notice that changes are in the making, and offered the opportunity to change their service.
At least she was not treated like the lady in New England who had internet without cable and fought a two year court battle with @home who claimed that she was stealing Cable television service. I tried finding the link to the story but could not find it in about 10 minutes on Google.
--
"Do, or Do not, there is no try!" Yoda | |
| | ATLHSI
join:2003-02-13
Roswell, GA | Re: Whats the Difference? The difference is that you still have the option to get Internet without Cable. With BellSouth, you cannot get DSL unless you have the landline service from them. If you have MCI neighborhood, forget it. You can't get DSL from BellSouth (and I believe from any other provider that rides on their network.) | |
|
| | $56.95!!! WOW WHAT A DEAL!!!! Time Warner was charging us $84.95 if you were a non-cable customer, until they could no longer deal with the harassment. | |
| | | bundling regulated and non-regulated? Because most Cable TV systems have a monopoly in the areas they serve, Cable TV service is regulated. However, as an information service, high-speed Internet service is not regulated.
I wonder if anyone has challenged the legality of offering a bundling discount when the "required" component is regulated and the "discounted" component is not. Hmm... | |
|  jasqidFiber In Your Diet?
join:2002-04-02
East Palestine, OH | Guys, this is a price increase - sort of Look. Comcast calls it a discount when it isnt. And here is why:
Internet (HSD) is $42.95 and Basic Cable in my area here is $10.50
The way it has been was if you were an HSD customer only you paid $42.95. Either because you didnt want TV service or that you are a satellite subscriber.
I have some older neighbors that have TV only. They dont own a computer and they only get Basic Cable because they are on a "fixed" income (Aren't we all..?) and they pay $10.50
So why then if it's a "bundled discount" is the bundled price $42.95 + $10.50 on my bill???????
If it was a discount wouldn't it be something like $39.99 + $10.50?
I only took the Basic TV because it will save me $3.60 a month than if I had HSD alone. HSD alone in this market for CM owners is $57.99 My new total bill is $54 and some change with the fees. | |
| | jasqidFiber In Your Diet?
join:2002-04-02
East Palestine, OH | Re: Guys, this is a price increase - sort of My point I was trying to make with my neighbor was that he doesnt pay more because he isnt bundling with anything else.
It seems they always go after the broadband customer. | |
|
 extreme50Formerly TwoKDialupPremium
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI | The real question... Comcast should be asking itself why customers like Nancy are purchasing satellite dishes.
Whether it is programming choice, picture quality or price, Comcast could easily remedy the problem.
--
Earthlink/DirecWay SRS | SatMex 5-990 | |
| | jasqidFiber In Your Diet?
join:2002-04-02
East Palestine, OH | Re: The real question... You are right. The 2 biggest things I like my dish over cable here is the picture quality it 10 fold better than theirs. And I get more channels for a few bucks less. | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| extortion, plain and simple This is extortion. I have been paying the higher, non-catv price for comcast internet since I have had it. Comcast has simply decided that they are going to charge the equivalent of basic cable TV service to all of their customers, both TV and internet. The increase is exactly equal to the cost of basic cable in whatever area we are talking about.
I have been called by a comcast rep and encouraged to get basic cable - I was told that I would essentially get basic cable for "free", because the combined cost of basic cable plus cable internet was exactly the same as what I was already paying for internet.
Yes, I do want high speed internet.
No, I don't have any other choice (no DSL for me, no cable competitors in my area).
This is the kind of behaviour you get with an unregulated monopoly. | |
| |  InseyInsey
join:2001-12-12
Fort Washington, PA | Re: extortion, plain and simple I signed up for basic cable just to get the discount. I now have cable tv, satellite tv, and cable modem. All for a low $150 a month!
--
Visit my site with pictures of my comps: »www.insey.com (Note: It's on an OC-3 now!) | |
| | | | i am in the same boat with Comcast. I started with at&t and now Comcast came in and bought them out of the cable biz. Now they are trying to extract more money out of me too. This should be illegal. | |
|
 MPScanPremium
join:2001-08-24
Boston, MA | Wow, huh? Even though you may not like it, it's simple business.
You want a meal at McDonalds, you pay $3.99 for the value meal with fries, a Big Mac, and a coke. You just want the Big Mac.. that will be $2.99. You don't like it, don't buy the Big Mac. | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
| | Comcast will lose customers. Pricing change from $45 to $56 dollars is no joke. They're counting on us to just sit there and take it.
Just like there is a separation of church and state, I personally see cable internet service as having nothing to do with cable TV service. Sure it uses the same line, but I can think of a billion analogies that would help to differentiate the two. Basically, the company that acts as the ISP should be different than the physical cable provider, and in this case I would suggest all cable subscribers to move to Earthlink cable, where they still have reasonable pricing.
I am glad that DSL Reports still has the balls to bring to the forefront these types of problems. After all, what is a voice when its not heard? Look at all of our ISPs on here.. they're slowly dropping like flies. We're losing the war on choice and competition and our wallets are being raped.
Those of us that have sattelite service are always being given the shaft, when it comes to where/how we can install the dish, and now this crap. Its obviously an attempt by Comcast to reduce sattelite subscribers by strong-arming the ones that have their internet service. Whoever came up with this sad scam needs a swift punch in the face. | |
| |  MikePremium,Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA
·Verizon FiOS
Host:
W.O.W.
FairPoint
World of Warcraft
Alltel Axcess
Site Tools
| Re: Comcast will lose customers. I plan on bailing soon on Comca$t.
They flooded every station anti-satellite propaganda.
I'd much rather mount a dish on my roof and have it blow over (seeing I'm going to mount the damn thing properly, house is going to tip too) rather than every time it rains the signal goes dead for the entire block.
More money, less services. Comcast.
--
root sounds cooler than administrator anyhow
What this country needs is a good five dollar plasma weapon. | |
| | | | | Re: Comcast will lose customers. Heh, reminds me of my dish situation.
My apartment manager sent me a notice saying I could not have it drilled into the building. So I fabricated a platform upon which I placed 100 lbs of weights and screwed the dish into that. It really does work fine and has sustained lots of wind and stormy weather with no problems.
I would consider dropping comcast but there are three reasons why I am not:
A) 2000/256 cant be had on my Remote Terminal line (unless I pay $175 for 6000/384 from pacbell)
B) My land-line has developed lots of static lately and I dont want to have to deal with the dsl hassle
C) I know that my current newsgroup service is far better than that of SBC, and most likely that of other providers that use SBC's lines | |
|
| KaltesPremium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA | Many customers of Comcast live in areas where DSL service is not available. Even densely populated areas like the greater DC area lack DSL.
In those cases, you cant ditch comcast no matter what, unless you want to go back to dial-up, which is unacceptable for many people. | |
| | | | I gave the heave ho to Comcast this Last Friday. I now have a much more reliable SBC DSL line. Its overall throughput may not be as fast, but it appears to have a much more stable connection.
If I had been told that "hey if you also sign up for Cable-TV we will discount your internet"....that I could understand.
DSL will grow by this. Demand for the service will enhance the increase of RT's (remote Terminals or Gateways). | |
|
 damonlabPremium
join:2001-05-02
Detroit, MI | The wave of Internet bundling has already begun... DSL is already bundled with a land line phone over in ILEC land.
Cable Internet has already started to get bundled with cable T.V. in some areas. It will spread to the rest.
Power line Internet will be bundled with an electric bill once that catches on.
And I find it easy believe that wireless Internet will be bundled with cell phone plans in the near future. | |
| | | What do you know? It's happening everywhere... even in Southern California. I got mine last Friday (3/21/2003), and it's the same darn thing. Comcast is covering their a$$es whether you are a cable TV subscriber or not. You pay $43 / month for cable modem access with almost > $20 a month in a simple cable TV service (ie. local plus a very few cable channels) which is equivalent of the same monthly service fee of $57 / month if you DO NOT subscribe to their crappy cable TV channels. I'm all for DirectTV as they have not raised their fees since I got them for 3 years now. BTW, the crap that they give for that extra $14 / month is by in large you can get for free on the Internet. For that extra $14 / month I'll gladly pay for a reliable download speed of at least 3Mbps and 1Mbps upload. I hope this gets stopped before the other monopolistic businesses start doing this sort of thing as a regular business practice. | |
| ycats
join:2003-01-05
Carver, MN | Call it what it really is.... Everyone knows that Comcast is losing video customers to the dish. This is a way for Comcast to show wallstreet that they are slowing their video customers from leaving, by forcing people to subscribe to basic.
Comcast doesn't care about their customers. All they care about is their profit. I called to cancel my internet service as soon as I received my price increase letter and they begged me to stay by offering me 39.95 for the next six months (with out video service). I stayed. When the six months are up if they haven't changed either their price or increased their upload/download speed, they will lose me as a customer. I am fine with that because I have a choice of either DSL or Comcast. I will be choosing DSL.
I have found that the technical support on the telco side is far above that of Comcast. | |
| | joshj
join:2001-10-30
Antelope, CA | Re: Call it what it really is.... said by ycats:
Comcast doesn't care about their customers. All they care about is their profit. I called to cancel my internet service as soon as I received my price increase letter and they begged me to stay by offering me 39.95 for the next six months (with out video service). I stayed. When the six months are up if they haven't changed either their price or increased their upload/download speed, they will lose me as a customer. I am fine with that because I have a choice of either DSL or Comcast. I will be choosing DSL.
I called to cancel right away too and they didn't give a shit. They said "OK" and then tried to tell me that I would have to be home when they disconnected it. Fat chance.
I later decided to keep it, and the reason is because I'm going to soon dump the local telephone service entirely and go to Voice over IP telephone with Vonage.
I sent an email to Senator Boxer today encouraging her stance on this issue. The way I see it, Comcast is forcing consumers to take their inferior cable television service in order to have their high speed Internet.
This is an old antitrust trick from way back - if you want to buy a pound of fresh strawberries you also have to buy a pound of my overripe bananas (an inferior product). Same here - if I want their cable modem service I also have to buy their inferior television service. I suppose I should feel grateful they are even willing to keep sell it to me at all -- since there really isn't anything out there that would require that. | |
|
| | | The bottom line is... The cable people are NOT offering a better service! If they were "rewarding" their bets customers they would give a discount to those who signed up for both tv and internet service, not charge an "access fee" for those who do not want their tv programing. Ponder that for a moment... | |
| |  Combat ChuckToo Many CannibalsPremium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA | Re: The bottom line is... Yippie horray,
Let the misinformation fly.
--
So it begins. | |
|
| |
|
|
Bundled services
