 
draven
Premium,Mod
join:2002-02-20
my bunker
Host:
General Questions
No, I Will Not Fix..
| Hmmm... ... why isn't the government doing anything about it? Poor economy... Big business... Making profits... borderline unethical practices... I don't seem to see a correlation between this and the track record of the administration...
[/SARCASM]
--
"He tells me to reboot modem. I suggest he reboot Comcast." - ctbarker32
I'm a broadband communist!
[text was edited by author 2003-04-08 11:11:40] | |
|  | 
Bumpin1ohm
Bumpin1ohm
Premium
join:2002-07-15
Aurora, CO
clubs: | Re: Hmmm... yet another monopoly screwing the consumer
--
You say dis is indo? smell mo like outdo | |
| | 
DHRacer
Fire Survivor
join:2000-10-10
Lake Arrowhead, CA
 ·Charter Pipeline
 ·Verizon west (ex G..
| Only because Comcast, and every other company, gets away with murder because this administration is pro big business.
Look at this administration, it wouldn't be here if it weren't for another big business: oil.
So, in order to foster good feelings between those in office, and those who paid to put them there, the kid gloves are on when it comes to handling these situations.
Can't upset the wealthy board members, now can we? | |
| | | 
72276539
Premium
join:2001-01-19
Atlanta, GA
| Re: Only because said by DHRacer  :
Look at this administration, it wouldn't be here if it weren't for another big business: oil.
Kinda funny you mention that.... you want to know where Al Gore's daddy got all his money from..... you guessed it, OIL! So using your logic I guess Al would also have been pro big business for oil. | |
| | | | Rammer
Premium
join:2001-03-06
clubs:  | Re: Only because al gore aint in office so where his daddy got his money is his concerns | |
| | | | | | | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
| And I suppose the consumers who blindly write checks while complaining in silence bear no responsibility in shaping how broadband is delivered. The consumer holds the ultimate trump card. If enough people cancel the capped or metered "unlimited always on service", the provider will get the message.
I don't want to go back to dialup, but if my broadband became metered or capped there would be no other choice. I will never get sucked into paying for something I did not order or want.
After all, whatever happened to the customer is always right. | |
| | | | fuzydice
join:2000-12-18
Sunnyvale, CA
| Re: Only because lesop wrote
"And I suppose the consumers who blindly write checks while complaining in silence bear no responsibility in shaping how broadband is delivered. "
uhh try complaining to comcast, threatening to cancel the service, and have their rep say "ok, i can cancel your account. There its cancelled. thank you for calling comcast" .... thats how they work. they dont care. I used t hear of people who would threaten to cancel and get 6 months half off, or a month free.... not so anymore. Comcast knows you have no choice. You pay or you get dropped--its a monopoly. i have no other option (believe me ive tried).
not many can just cancel. i work from home, i need something faster than dialup.
Next time, think about ppl other than yourself. kthx.
--
[referring to the RIAA...] These guys buy congress people like M&Ms | |
| | | | | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
| Re: Only because Boycotts are more effective when there is organized participation, otherwise your voice just won't be heard. Try looking at www.comcastsucks.com (I haven't actually looked).
I did the work from home thing, two days a week, using dialup. Yes Outlook sucks in the worst ways on dialup, but it works. Telnet worked fine, rlogin worked fine, vpn worked fine anything requiring grapics was slow, but they all worked.
In the context of my original remarks, sacrifice is necessary to meet the objective.
If you can't or won't make the sacrifice your only other course would be to support re-regulation of the cable industry. Make your local franchise authority aware of your complaint and when they cannot help pass it along to your elected federal officials. | |
| | | | | 
dacndar
@sony.com
| Re: Hmmm... I signed up for high speed internet in February based on a postcard I received offering it for $19.95 per month for 6 months. They didn't put this rate on the work order when the tech showed up to install it so he told me to call the business office on Monday. I did but two billing periods later and I am being charged full price and Comcast claims they can't do anything about it. I believe this is deliberate and I've seen other companies do it. Its like a bait and switch. This is unethical and should be stomped on. | |
| |
draven
Premium,Mod
join:2002-02-20
my bunker
Host:
General Questions
No, I Will Not Fix..
| This problem could exist with either Gore or Bush, the point wasn't to start a war of parties. It was to exemplify why it's a problem to begin with, that the country is currently being run by someone (who could be anyone, republican or democrat) who cares not about these types of practices.
--
"He tells me to reboot modem. I suggest he reboot Comcast." - ctbarker32
I'm a broadband communist! | |
| 
macyh
Ex-Isp
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-24
Medina, OH
·Armstrong Zoom In..
| What about forced telco bundling? It's not just cable co's that are using bundling to force their services down your throat...and freeze out competition at the same time. The ILEC's are doing the same thing, and they are being even more two faced about it than the cable co's.
All ILEC's are willing to package residential and business ADSL with local dial tone and (where available) long distance for a discount, but won't give you any discount without local service dialtone..or ADSL after a "trial" contract. Don't forget, the ILEC's are also about to do away with line sharing so you can only get ADSL on your line from them, to boot. So they really do have monopoly on essential local dial tone for ADSL broadband users.
These are the same monopolies that are telling regulators:
- We lose money on residential dial tone, we can't discount it.
- We can't make any money on ADSL if we make it any cheaper.
- We won't roll out any more ADSL if we can't have a monopoly.
Simply put, by using the same bundling tactics, the ILEC's get to to have it both ways. And you get less choice as a result. So, why aren't the ILEC's being taken to task for this same issue?
--
Macy Hallock APK Net, Inc. Cleveland, Ohio
"640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates (1955-Present) in 1981 | |
| | 
David
No,there is another.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
clubs:
 ·DIRECTV
 ·magicjack.com
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: What about forced telco bundling? said by macyh :
It's not just cable co's that are using bundling to force their services down your throat...and freeze out competition at the same time. The ILEC's are doing the same thing, and they are being even more two faced about it than the cable co's.
All ILEC's are willing to package residential and business ADSL with local dial tone and (where available) long distance for a discount, but won't give you any discount without local service dialtone..or ADSL after a "trial" contract. Don't forget, the ILEC's are also about to do away with line sharing so you can only get ADSL on your line from them, to boot. So they really do have monopoly on essential local dial tone for ADSL broadband users.
These are the same monopolies that are telling regulators:
- We lose money on residential dial tone, we can't discount it.
- We can't make any money on ADSL if we make it any cheaper.
- We won't roll out any more ADSL if we can't have a monopoly.
Simply put, by using the same bundling tactics, the ILEC's get to to have it both ways. And you get less choice as a result. So, why aren't the ILEC's being taken to task for this same issue?
Guy, as much as I hate to say this I think you are the only telco person in here, I thought this was about cable...
--
I am always running around. Catch me if you can... The Hammer.. Year To Date Stats: Current weight: 339lbs, total loss: 245!! | |
| | |
72276539
Premium
join:2001-01-19
Atlanta, GA | Re: What about forced telco bundling? All he is simply saying are the ILEC's get ripped a new arsehole for the same thing by all the anti-big business/anti-ILEC members yet cable gets a free walk in the park. ILEC's doing this is bad, cable doing it is ok. | |
| | | | | | 
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | They should be. I believe I've seen indications of rumblings to do so as well. | |
| | rachelhunter
join:2003-04-08
Pensacola, FL
| I have no problem with bundling: I get Complete Choice, DSL, Unlimited Long Distance for about $115 a month. The argument here is that Comcast raised rates 33% for non-cable High-Speed customers. Isn't it $55 for non and $40 for cable customers? It is only $5 difference for DSL with my Telco (but I have to have the package to get true unlimited long distance so don't mind it.) If anything, I think Cable needs some regulation. As far as Telcos sharing their DSL, why should they? Cable has far more subscribers and IS the competition. I'll go with the local Bell everytime. Do you really think, if I wanted it, I would have some bozo install a T-1 line in my house without a Bell sign on his uniform? No, I don't think so. I don't have Comcast, but think most cable outfits are getting to be a rip-off. I found Dish to be a far better deal. | |
| 
jipper
join:2001-01-04
Stanton, MI
| just an answer is needed Question it would seem to me that the cable company if they put a modem in would not be able to stop the broadcast basic packages they offer thus the customer gets that for free. Can anyone tell me if that would be true or not and if so how do they do that with a trap? | |
| | vic102482
Premium
join:2002-04-30
Upper Marlboro, MD
| Re: just an answer is needed What do you mean?
Cable is scrambled above a certain challen (15?) and cable modems use MAC address authenticication. So you really cant get anything for free. Now there are ways around that (evil hehehe) but......I dont wanna get banned frmo the board.
--
I tie a rope around my penis and jump from a tree, don't you wanna grow up to be just like me!!!! | |
| | | 
JPuppy
Java Heathen
Premium
join:2002-11-24
Honesdale, PA
clubs:
| Re: just an answer is needed I'm not following what you're trying to say, so let me explain. The cable modem needs two ranges of frequencies for communication with the headend - one for upstream, and one for downstream.
Upstream is always within the 5-42MHz range. That's for all devices on the cable networks, not just the modems. Set top boxes also use this for the upstream.
Downstream in the cable plant is 54MHz and above. All your TV channels and the modem downstream use this. For the most part the analog channels will go from 54 ~ 400MHz. Above 400MHz, it's all digital. The cable modem downstream will fall somewhere in the digital range.
So basically, the cable tech can install a notch filter, that blocks out everything from 54-400MHz. This means all the analog channels are blocked. Digital channels still pass through with no problem, but since you aren't a TV subscriber (and thus have no digital box) you still can't view these channels.
Now the cable modem can communicate freely, and you don't get to watch cable TV.
--
-Jaded doesn't begin to describe it | |
| | 
J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI
| A trap can be used to prevent an internet-only customer from receiving CATV signals (one of the things that led to the infamous Get A Cable Modem......Go To Jail »www.geocities.com/flutocracy/cablemodem.htm scenario was that either Comcast or @Home neglected to install a trap on the customer's line). If the question is whether the technology exists to prevent an internet-only customer from receiving clean CATV signal, the answer is Yes. | |
| 
KlanXX
Premium
join:2003-03-19
Hamtramck, MI | I Had it Well It worked for me. I had Cable internet from Comcast without the TV sub. But also got all channels for free.
But I'm off Comcast since they raised the pricetag. | |
| | 
jmo9
join:2001-11-17
West Bloomfield, MI
| So did I... Paid for internet access only, got all the analog channels for free, and HBO. Previous owner never had cable hooked up, so Comcrap had to send a truck to drop a line to house, drill thru wall, and even install a jack (no inside wiring). Left a hell of a mess of insulation on the floor, and had to weatherseal the hole they made thru the siding.
When the promotional period was up, simply cancelled rather than pay $50 for that crap they call high-speed, and then next day had service hooked back up in wife's name (may as well take advantage of their "generous" offer). They didn't even have to send a truck, as everything was still hooked up from previous service, but this time they remembered to install the "notch" filter, thus ended the bonus CATV. Time to find a good DSL provider + the DISH.
--
It's not what they take away from you that counts. It's what you do with what you have left. | |
| | | 
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX | Re: Jeez We'll what the FCC says about it. Hasn't somebody put it in front of them yet?
--
Love Science Fiction? www.spacestationzoom.com | |
| | 
tomsprat
Draw Me A "Cold One"
Premium,ExMod 2002-04
join:2000-11-03
Fort Lauderdale, FL
clubs:
| quote:
Some people see this as a rate hike while others see a discount. I personally see this as a discount.
It would be a discount if the existing price for bundled services was lowered, however, the existing price for basic services increases by 33% unless additional services are purchased. This would be tantamount to Burger King raising the price for a basic Whopper by 33% unless you bought a combo meal, which would be an increase in price. Reducing it's basic price, accordingly, if you chose a combo meal, is a discount.
--
Anything that ever was, was once a dream... | |
| | 
Vericima
Beautiful But Deadly
Premium
join:2003-01-07
Manchester, CT
| I would see it that way too except that they are not lowering the price for people with CATV, they're raising the price for people without. I'm pretty sure when the people that have both heard that Comcast was calling this a discount they said, "Discount? That's funny, I'm not seeing a discount." Now if Comcast gave them a discount instead of raising rates for the single service people I, as well as many others would agree with you.
--
AHHH! You're wasting CPU cycles, Go crunch something! | |
| | KONG4
join:2002-04-05
Tampa, FL
| Your thinking is correct and wrong at the same time. I can understand the bundled savings. As a consumer am I for volume purchase discounts. But there discounting is done BassAckwards.
For illustration purposes lets say that internet only is $50 a month and Cable tv only is $50 a month. The correct way to do this would be that if you have both bundled the price is discounted to $85 a month. The shady way of doing things is like they are doing now. Your internet has been raised to $65 a month. If you want you same price on internet you have to buy the TV service too. And then your bundled price will be the current price of $100 for both services.
There is no savings. There is only a price hike and extortion to a market that prolly on the whole does not have another choice. | |
| | | | | 
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
| 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 | |
| | |
See 6 replies to this post | |
| PersonelDaze
join:2003-03-04
Sharon, MA
| It is a matter of perspective. If you are a new customer looking at the difference between seperate internet & cable charges, a bundled package is a discount. If you have had the broadband service and the rate is raised to encourage you to purchase the cable TV package that you do not currently have nor want, then it's a raise in fee...
Maybe it isn't against the law. But after having rates raised in this manner for broadband customers who were with AT&T, I wouldn't be too happy if I stayed on with the Comcast merger & had this happen yet once again...and not everyone has the choice of switching to DSL or another cable provider in their area. Dial-up access has its limitations, which is why there is a broadband market in the first place. This is why monopolies may be favored by the stockholders, but not the comsumer... | |
| | | 
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| Re: Jeez said by PersonelDaze :
It is a matter of perspective. If you are a new customer looking at the difference between seperate internet & cable charges, a bundled package is a discount. If you have had the broadband service and the rate is raised to encourage you to purchase the cable TV package that you do not currently have nor want, then it's a raise in fee...
Maybe it isn't against the law. But after having rates raised in this manner for broadband customers who were with AT&T, I wouldn't be too happy if I stayed on with the Comcast merger & had this happen yet once again...and not everyone has the choice of switching to DSL or another cable provider in their area. Dial-up access has its limitations, which is why there is a broadband market in the first place. This is why monopolies may be favored by the stockholders, but not the comsumer...
I agree with your statements.
As you said, it depends on your point of view. If you are a new customer, do you get both cable TV and internet and get a discount or do you just get internet and pay more. The problem is that Comcast is doing this in midstream, which is just pissing everyone off. Probably, the way to handle the situation is to make ALL new customers who want just internet to pay more. If you have both services currently, and you cancel cable TV, then the new pricing should take effect. The issue is a lot of people have cable internet, but not cable TV and are using a dish. Therefore, it is a rate hike to them.
I just don't see it as a hike personally.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal | |
| | | | 
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| Re: Jeez ***********************************************************
by nightfall:
#1.
Some people see this as a rate hike while others see a discount. I personally see this as a discount.
#2.
The issue is a lot of people have cable internet, but not cable TV and are using a dish. Therefore, it is a rate hike to them.
I just don't see it as a hike personally.
***********************************************************
Thanks for completely undercutting your own argument. You flat out admit that this *IS* a rate hike, depending how the consumer is situated. You do not have cableHSI+Satt so the rate hike DOES NOT AFFECT YOU, but that does not mean it is not a hike. Comcast is selectively raising prices. Your previous arguments are like saying that, because property taxes doubled, and you own no property, therefore there was no tax hike. That kind of reasoning is nihilistic and fallacious.
And please don't try to compare it to bundled DISCOUNTS like fast food. If McDonalds kept the combo meal prices the same, then raised their $0.99 menu to be a $1.33 menu, that would be a price hike too.
In the end it is very simple: a discount rewards people who buy something, it does not punish people who fail to buy something. There is the carrot and the stick, and you are confusing the two. Comcast employed the stick, not the carrot. The two are not the same.
It is a rate hike, and it affected myself and MANY others. I was forced to buy basic cable for $9.95 in order to mitigate my losses, even though I don't even own a TV.
Comcast wont tell you about $9.95 cable though. I called them and asked them what the cheapest cable plan I could get was, and they told me digital for like $52, then I asked "what about analog?" and they said "oh thats about $40 but we are phasing that out." So then after asking again if they were sure there was nothing cheaper, I said "I read that there is some kind of $10 service, why can't I get that??" and the salesperson says "Oh yes we offer that too."
So people, YOU HAVE TO ASK FOR IT SPECIFICALLY. I'm sure all you well-informed people in this forum know about $10 basic cable, but most of my friends didn't know it even existed. I would not have known myself if I didnt read BBR forums. There is no mention of it for sale on Comcast's website. | |
| | | | |
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| Re: Jeez quote:
Thanks for completely undercutting your own argument. You flat out admit that this *IS* a rate hike, depending how the consumer is situated. You do not have cableHSI+Satt so the rate hike DOES NOT AFFECT YOU, but that does not mean it is not a hike.
Thanks for taking my words out of context. I said, it is a rate hike to them, but I just don't see it as a hike personally. I never said it was a rate hike in my opinion. In fact, I said "I don't see it as a hike". I never said I use cable TV and not a dish so I don't know where you are getting that information. Sorry, but taking what I say and mixing it around then posting it to try to prove your point upsets me. It would help if you would read my posts.
quote:
And please don't try to compare it to bundled DISCOUNTS like fast food. If McDonalds kept the combo meal prices the same, then raised their $0.99 menu to be a $1.33 menu, that would be a price hike too.
To you who are buying just the Big Mac for $2.00. If they raise the price to $2.50 for just the sandwidch and the price for the value meal has stayed at $3.50. Is that a rate hike? To you maybe. To me, it is buying in the bundle to save money. Even if you consider it a hike to you, McDonalds or Comcast has a right to price their product accordingly. If you don't want to buy the bundle, then spend a little more and get the one service you do want. Simple decision.
quote:
In the end it is very simple: a discount rewards people who buy something, it does not punish people who fail to buy something. There is the carrot and the stick, and you are confusing the two. Comcast employed the stick, not the carrot. The two are not the same.
Uh....
A discount rewards people who buy multiple services or products. You want to call it punishment when someone just wants just a Big Mac but not the meal and gets charged more for it? Hint, this happens everywhere where you purchase bundled services. You have a choice. Either pay for one, or pay a little more and get your package deal.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal | |
| | | | | | | | | PersonelDaze
join:2003-03-04
Sharon, MA
| Thank you for concurring. But I'm afraid that you have missed much of my point. Maybe you don't see it as a hike as it may not directly affect you. I suspect that the people who are affected see it differently. Here we have a change in price structure that results in people who do not have or likely not even want an additional service (e.g., cable TV)asked to pay more for a service that is already being provided, after experiencing a number of previous hikes under AT&T. This policy is essentially penalizing existing customers (& those who have no other broadband options)in favor of new customers who would likely have ordered both anyway. In terms of the problem of "lots of people who have cable internet but not cable TV", I can think of at least a dozen family & freinds who have cable TV, but only one who has cable internet (& also has the cable TV as well). Cable TV has been around & established for quite some time, so I am not quite clear on your reasoning here. Increasing prices may be an unfortunate fact of life (due to inflation, etc.), but if business wants to justify them (& decreasing regulations on their industry), they need to be fair, especially where they are the only show in town... | |
| | vic102482
Premium
join:2002-04-30
Upper Marlboro, MD
| said by Nightfall :
If you just want plan A, then prepare to pay more.
Pay MORE not standard price right?:)
Normally saying goes, yeah we will knock 20 bucks off here or there, but in this particular situation is, you either pay STANDARD or MORE, there is no discount.
Only standard or more are your only two choices.
--
I tie a rope around my penis and jump from a tree, don't you wanna grow up to be just like me!!!! | |
| |
72276539
Premium
join:2001-01-19
Atlanta, GA | Any type of insurance has no bearing on this argument... you can call up any insurance company and do business. You can't do that with cable, in order for me to get a new cable provider I have to move. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Re: like a kick in the crotch... Better than the lame-assed McDonalds and car analogies:) | |
| |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| In the normal situations like this, the prices start off at a certain base price, and getting extra services makes the base price go down (even though you're paying more for extra services, but it USUALLY balances out). The way Comcast is doing it, they're starting off at a base price, and if you DON'T get another service, they'll charge you more. That's what the "rage" is about. For example: I'm paying $19.95/month for digital cable (get basic for free form apartment complex). Comcast comes along and tells me "If you don't get cable internet service, your cable TV rate is going to go up to $29.95. If you get cable internet service, you'll be able to get cable TV at $19.95. What a deal!". So, I would have to pay extra for a new service to keep the existing service I have at the same monthly cost that I had been already paying? This is not a "discount" offer.
[text was edited by author 2003-04-08 15:01:18] | |
| 
Sr Tech
Premium
join:2003-01-19
New Fairfield, CT | CABLE $$#$# I still refuse to get cable tv as it is too exspensive. I would never pay 45.00 a month for basic and never will. There should be a movment where Everyone should start cancelling there subscribtions. See what would happen then. | |
| | | shaggy192
join:2002-07-26
Vancouver, WA
| Re: Consumers need to do more I'm with you, no cable TV, no broadband, no land line at home.
The cost of goods and services are what people are willing to pay, not what you think it should be. As long as there are enough people to pay then these business will continue to charge.
I personally don't think that most of these services are worth the money so I choose not to purchase. If enough people agree that it's not worth the cost, these companies will be forced to change or go out of business.
I've chosen to read, exercise, and spend time with family and friends.
I suggest an experiment for all you couch potatoes out there. Go without TV for one full week. You may be pleasantly surprised with the outcome. | |
|
J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI
| Food for Thought When the FCC, FTC, DOJ, etc. reviewed Comcast's purchase of AT&T Broadband, Comcast already had in place for their existing subscriber base a dual rate system where one rate was for CATV customers and a second rate was for non-CATV customers. The following thread, which started in March 2002 is linked for reference: »Just found out about Rate Increases
While application of this approach is new to former AT&T Broadband customers is new, Comcast's approach of charging non-CATV customers a higher rate for Cable Internet is not. | |
| 
linicx
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2002-12-03
United State
·CenturyLink
| And the loser is??? I didn't learn what lousy programming and inept service was until I moved to Missouri a few years ago. After a few long months of bad excuses I installed a big dish. I quickly learned most of the programming I had been paying for was free; most of the pay channels cost less than 50 cents a month; and I could create my own "cable" package that included all National stations ABC, PBS, C-SPAN, etc., major national channels like WGN, four news feeds including CNN and HNN plus seven HBO channels for $20 a month. The feeds from Mexico, Canada, and Germany were free as were the hundreds of radio stations that were offered. I certainly was not limited to the poor choices currently offered in the digital scheme.
When I moved to Oklahoma and our outstanding neighborhood system was sold, I learned what how really bad cable programming can be and I installed a small dish only to learn it was nothing more than expanded cable offered at twice the cost of local -- and most of that programming was free on the big dish too!
Now cable subscribers are faced with the digital act that is supposed to be completed in the next couple of years. I have COX CABLE. They handled this roll-over problem so sweetly we never noticed until some programs we regularly watched were no longer available to analog subscribers. HBO is very much available to every analog subscriber in the US. Of this I am positive, because I see scrambled feeds 24/7 at home. COX will only deliver it to digital subscribers. They SAY it isn't available any other way. I say they are liars. It IS available. They won't remove the block to a $10 program as long as they can force residents to buy a $60 package.
ATT and SWB have a death grip where I live. They are bullies just like Saddam and bin Laden. FCC and its rulings don't have any more effect on CLEC and Telco than the UN and its resolutions has over rogue nation thugs.
Neither the UN, FCC, or USSC wants to take responsibility, but they all want pay checks for doing nothing more than resolving small issues. Thus while these do-nothings issue empty threats, the big business thugs reach deeper and deeper into our pockets. Nothing will change until the people who have the power to enforce their own rules, regulations, and resolutions FIND THE GUTS to do it.
Until then it is a moot subject. The only winner is the company with their name on the front page. Even negative commentary is free advertising.
We got what we wanted. Now either put up with it quietly, or do something about it. DSL Reports would be a good place to start a petition, and you can bet it would get a lot of support nationwide. Congress cannot ignore hundreds of thousands of 'complainants' when presented together. Digital media is just as valid as its paper counterpart if prepared properly by a member of the legal community.
If we continue to do nothing more than whine, the real loser is you and me. | |
| 
DualCPU
join:2001-02-01
Fairfax, VA
|  What does the merger have to do with this?
I don't see what Comcast's size has to do with anything. It's the lack of choice that's the problem. | |
| |
draven
Premium,Mod
join:2002-02-20
my bunker
Host:
General Questions
No, I Will Not Fix..
| Re: What does the merger have to do with this? Don't you think the lack of choice could perhaps be influenced, if not now, then in the future, by the fact that Comcast is slowly extending its tentacles across the entire US? It's the same reason why mom-and-pop stores don't open up next door to the Big K-Mart..... competing is a just plain losing cause.
--
"He tells me to reboot modem. I suggest he reboot Comcast." - ctbarker32
I'm a broadband communist! | |
| | | 2farfromCO7
join:2000-10-14
Farmington, MI
| Re: What does the merger have to do with this? No, I actually think it's the opposite. If I'm going to be serviced by a monopoly, I'd at least rather be service by a large efficient monopoly. Large monopolies can't get away with anything. Here in Metro Detroit, Time Warner serviced 4 suburbs while Comcast serviced everthing else in SE Michigan including Detroit. When Time Warner screwed up, it was on the cover of the Farmington Obsverver(local suburban paper). When Comcast screwed up, it was on the cover of the Detroit News and Detroit Free Press, and the top story on the 11 o'clock news. That gives accountability. I have always said that if there was only 1 cable company nationwide, MOST OF US WOULD HAVE LOWER PRICES!!!!! The exception being the lucky ones with competition(who cares about them). The government would probably control them and force universal pricing like Dish/Direct and that's makes more visible competition. Can you tell me what my cable rates are here? Of course not. So how would you know if you're getting ripped off or not. If everybody knew what everybody paid, prices would be pushed down. | |
| | | |
draven
Premium,Mod
join:2002-02-20
my bunker
Host:
General Questions
No, I Will Not Fix..
| Re: What does the merger have to do with this? said by 2farfromCO7 :
I have always said that if there was only 1 cable company nationwide, MOST OF US WOULD HAVE LOWER PRICES!!!!!
I think you're expecting a little too much from businesses, who's sole purpose is to show net profit  But I sort of see where you're going with your statements.
--
"He tells me to reboot modem. I suggest he reboot Comcast." - ctbarker32
I'm a broadband communist! | |
| | |
DualCPU
join:2001-02-01
Fairfax, VA
| said by draven :
Don't you think the lack of choice could perhaps be influenced, if not now, then in the future, by the fact that Comcast is slowly extending its tentacles across the entire US? It's the same reason why mom-and-pop stores don't open up next door to the Big K-Mart..... competing is a just plain losing cause.
There has always been a lack of choice ever since cable first started. Whether it's MomAndPopCableCo or Comcast, it doesn't matter since they are my only choice. Your analogy isn't quite valid since MomAndPopCableCo would be guaranteed customers since a local government has guaranteed them a franchise. It wouldn't matter if Comcast was right next to them since people can't choose like they would with a mom and pop store vs. K-mart.
Lack of choice is a severe problem, but the problem didn't become worse just because Comcast enlarged. (The only way it could be a problem would be if Comcast bought out Verizon in my area or vice versa.) Lack of choice is a problem due to the monopoly nature of how phone and cable service is currently done. | |
| 
WhyADuck
Premium
join:2003-03-05
| Class action lawsuit In my opinion this will go on until some well-heeled law firm starts a class action lawsuit against Comcast, Charter, and any other company that does this sort of bundling.
You can't really compare this to other industries (such as insurance companies that offer multi-car discounts) for the simple reason that if those other companies have obnoxious terms that you don't agree with, you can search for a competitor. Another thing with regard to multi-car insurance discounts is that you're not being forced to buy two different products to get the discount. This would be more like saying you have to buy homeowners insurance and auto insurance from the same company to get a discount - well, what if you have a home but don't drive, or you drive but live in an apartment? You might not need one of those kinds of insurance (granted some companies may in fact offer discounts that way, but you always have to option to deal with one that doesn't). A multi-car discount, on the other hand, would be like saying your first 50 cable TV channels are $40 and for 50 more channels you pay only $5 or $10 more - it's just more of the same product. But broadband Internet and cable TV are two DIFFERENT products - not everyone who watches TV wants Internet access, and not everyone who wants broadband needs Cable TV (they may get all the TV they want from an antenna on the roof, for example).
So in my opinion, forcing people to buy two unrelated products or pay a premium rate goes over the line in any case, but especially when people don't have any choice of providers (as many people who have cable broadband do not, because the phone companies have been so pokey about implementing DSL - and anyway, they are just as bad in that they generally require people to have basic dial tone from them in order to get DSL, unless you go with a business-grade DSL service). So the consumer is getting shafted, and what surprises me is that none of the attorneys that specialize in class-action lawsuits seem to have picked up on this yet.
If anyone has even a little bit of legal background, maybe you could consider something like this. At the very least, you could go to a web site like »www.bigclassaction.com/ and enter a complaint (you can use a form at »www.bigclassaction.com/submit_form.html to do so - but please understand that I only found this page by doing a Google search on class action lawsuits, so I don't know anything at all about the folks running this page). In case you're wondering why I don't do this, the biggest reason is that I'm not a customer of any of these companies and therefore wouldn't have "standing" to be part of such a suit. | |
| | rody_40
join:2002-04-14
Quakertown, PA
| Re: Class action lawsuit they havent picked up on it because they wouldnt have a case. they dont miss much and this isnt anything new its just new to at@t broadband users. comcast subscribers had tryed starting class action law suits last year and everything else being discussed only to find out there is nothing wrong with what comcast is doing. if you dont like it simply dont subscribe to the service. simple as that | |
| | |
WhyADuck
Premium
join:2003-03-05
| Re: Class action lawsuit said by rody_40 :
they havent picked up on it because they wouldnt have a case. they dont miss much and this isnt anything new its just new to at@t broadband users. comcast subscribers had tryed starting class action law suits last year and everything else being discussed only to find out there is nothing wrong with what comcast is doing. if you dont like it simply dont subscribe to the service. simple as that
How would you know that they don't have a case when it hasn't even gone to court? Right now we are simply stating personal opinions, and in my opinion there's at least a 50-50 chance that this sort of lawsuit would be successful, for the simple reason that many users simply don't have the option to not subscribe to the service if they need broadband (of course you could argue that no one "needs" broadband, but I think you are going to find that as time goes by, Internet service becomes more and more considered a functional necessity of life, much like telephone service, whereas cable TV service will always be considered "entertainment" and therefore not a necessity. Anyway, that's one of the reasons you can't be sure how a court might rule, but if you can demonstrate that children need Internet access to not be seriously disadvantaged compared to their classmates - and that's not a difficult case to make at all - then you may well be able to convince a court that Internet service is a necessity that requires far more oversight in regard to price regulation).
Also, while other class action lawsuits have been filed against Comcast, I don't think many have been decided yet. For example, there is a pending lawsuit based on the assertion that "Approximately one million Comcast Internet customers had their Web surfing habits tracked by Comcast earlier this year. Comcast admitted that for a period of six weeks it had been recording information such as the IP (Internet protocol) address of customers' computers as well as Web pages they visited, but discontinued the practice following news reports and customer complaints" (see »www.bigclassaction.com/class_act···ast.html and/or »zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-923285.html ).
One thing we all know is that there are no guarantees in the law. This is the type of case where even various circuits around the country could disagree with each other, and the case could potentially wind up at the supreme court.
All I'm saying is that I'm just surprised that none of the law firms that specialize in class action lawsuits have looked into this. To me, this seems to be a much bigger deal that six weeks of tracking what web sites their customers visited (although I'm not minimizing the notion that it was wrong of Comcast to do that). | |
| XknightHawkX
join:2003-02-13
Morton, IL
clubs:
| Plain and simple , it is a rate hike Let's make this simple to understand. The price went up so it is a price rate hike. Then they strongarm ya and tell you that you can have that price back if you purchase more service.(which means spending more money then you are spending now) Now you could call it a discount if they would have said they would give you the service cheaper if you would order other service. But here is the problem. I don't want the extra service so that means my price shouldn't go up, it should stay where it's at. And maybe I am only paying for this service cause I don't have the money for the rest of the service. this service is more important to me and they know it so they will raise the price and tell me it will go back down if I order the other service I didn't want. which means spending more money. If some people don't understand I will try to break it down more later or someone that does might break it down more. | |
| |
tomsprat
Draw Me A "Cold One"
Premium,ExMod 2002-04
join:2000-11-03
Fort Lauderdale, FL
clubs:
| Re: Plain and simple , it is a rate hike I can make it very simple. If you had basic service with AT&T, and don't choose a bundled package, it's an increase, period. Those who switch from DirecTV to Comcast may realize an overall initial savings, but will ultimately pay for it in the long run, when Comcast no longer has any competition.
--
Anything that ever was, was once a dream... | |
| 
radem
join:2001-05-31
Hanover Park, IL
|  Bundling "Discount"
That means that they raised the Cable Internet price 33% for all of the their users shortly after the takeover of AT&T Broadband. Doesn't sound like it was a very good deal for the customer. Most mergers aren't. | |
| 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| bundling They wouldnt be doing this if they knew their service was the best available so they penalize the person going with the best values/service. the costs are fixed on how much it costs to maintain the system and thats factored into the price of the cablemodem service.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
|
Badger26
@attbi.com | Broadband costs money! Actually,Your share of the bone and Ip addy costs a whopping $3.50!!! The remainder of the bill is moneychanging! There is no content here! Just a bare ass
naked connection to the net! | |
| WolfJaguar
join:2003-03-20
Portland, OR | errrr. no? Bandwidth does cost money, even on the last mile connections to our homes. 3.50 a month? Hell, I'd start my own company for that. | |
| fuzydice
join:2000-12-18
Sunnyvale, CA
| directv.. if more people would try out directv satellite theyd never ever understand why they used to pay anything for "digital" cable thats not even 100% digital. seriously, for much less than you pay with cable (any cable provider, not just comcast) you get more channels, *all* in digital (even local channels, and now i get *all* the local channels, even the spanish/foriegn languages in digital quality), the possibility to order more movie channels than digital cable can offer and more PPV. oh did i mention u can install the dish yourself in about 30-40 minutes? wow.
there's no reason to pay more for less. its obvious comcast/cable providers dont want to compete price-wise with satellite (cuz they cant touch satellite's value or quality), why not just bust a monopoly maneuver and screw over the consumers who havent heard about satellite? there ya go... monopolies win everytime, especially when they own the president and all of your local officials in office :/
United States of Big Business!
--
[referring to the RIAA...] These guys buy congress people like M&Ms | |
| 
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
| If Comcast is just now getting away with murder my cable operators customers were shot years ago because they (Insight Communications) have done this since day one
with RoadRunner.
No cable TV..your RR costs 54.95 per month
with cable...44.95
Although it sucks to be a comcast customer and find yourself in this position with such a large increase,
their new pricing for internet only is competitive with most other Broadband only options. And, for many people these days, there are other choices available with
DSL and the specials they frequently run.
SBC's 1500k package for DSL only here in town is now 44.95
which certainly is competitive with RR..except it's 10.00 less per month right now.
Personally, I think it's fair when a company does something like this. Buy more from them and pay them more, and they give you a better deal. That has been standard business practice for many companies for years, and why it should be any different for this..I just can't see it.
Also, consider it in the reverse. Why should Comcast or any other cable company customers in effect be subsidizing non cable customers to allow them to get the same price?
And lastly, I just don't see ANY comparison to the situation Microsoft had going as the author of this BBR story makes. Microsoft TIED in their own browser to a monopoly product such as windows is...forcing consumers to take it..and effectively shutting netscape out of the market. There is no forcing anyone to do anything here.
With the competition cable has with Satellite, I don't see that as a monopoly product..and no one is being forced to sign up for broadband.
While I am NO fan of AT&Tcast...and am sympathetic to
those customers who just got caught up in this price increase..I do think their pricing is in line with others now and they do have the right to do this.
--
The life you help save just might be your own Team Discovery | |
| | | |
|
|
·
