'Tried and True'
Non-TV price hike complaints continue
Stories continue to pile up from non-cable TV customers angry that their monthly Comcast broadband fee jumped from $46 a month to $60, while Comcast continues to tell customers they're being rewarded for loyalty (or a lack thereof). The story doesn't change, even though the news outlets running them are all different. Users complain
that Comcast's decision to raise rates
for those who don't sign up for television service is a slap in the face
. Comcast continues to argue that the bundle discount is their special way of saying 'thank you'. "We're rewarding people who take more services from us,
says one spokesman in this latest 'complaint story
'. "Just like other companies. It's a tried-and-true concept.
191 comments .. click to read
|reply to halfband |
My point is...
When combos tie a service for which there is no competition, to a service for which there IS another choice, it's abuse, coercion, unfair pricing, anti-competitive.
It's what we're supposed to be protected from!
|reply to Dezbend |
Re: I guess I am with the minority
Why do people think raising prices are un-ethical. The vast majority of Comcast internet users had cable cable service already. Comcast isn't driving up Internet profits by raising prices on non-cable customers, they are attempting to raise revenue by getting people to sign up for cable TV. Making money is what American society prides itself on.
This has nothing to do with Comcast being evil, they are trying to maximize profits. I can guarantee 100% that they expected some people to cancel their service by hiking the price, but the benefit of having people sign up cable TV outweighs that.It may be poor customer relations, but it's good business.
newviewEx .. Ex .. ExactlyPremiumReviews:
My email to the author, Michael Bazeley
I just read your article entitled "Comcast's Net-only rate draws ire". California and Bay Area residents are not the only ones upset by this blatant price gouging by Comcast. But . . . California is the only state that has a Senator who has publicly stated that she also finds this an "unlawful tying arrangement", and has asked for an FCC investigation.
Also, there are more than a "very, very, very small" number of users on the Comcast Forum of DSL Reports (»www.dslreports.com) that also find this to be an outright penalty for Comcast High Speed Internet subscribers who choose to NOT subscribe to their cableTV. In fact, in a recent poll of 2021 DSLR users, over 60% indicated that they regard this types of "bundling" as Anti-Consumer Monopoly Tactics.
Perhaps your fine publication would be interested in a follow-up to the original article pointing out that Senator Barbara Boxer also regards this bundling as a "troubling threat to the burgeoning competition for cable TV service from satellite providers." Perhaps your readers could be invited to take an online poll sponsored by your publication?
As a DirecTV subscriber, which I consider a superior service, I am incensed that Comcast can require a subscription to one service in order to receive the ADVERTISED price for another. This appears to be in direct conflict to the spirit of the new Federal Provision of the 1992 Cable Act of October 2002 that said that cable operators can no longer require subscribers to buy multitier packages of programming to get pay-per-view events and premium channels, such as as HBO, Starz, and Showtime. Comcast has simply transferred this provisionary practice to a pricing scheme centered around HSI and cableTV. What's more, there is NO technological reasoning behind requiring this bundling to receive the advertised price. It's greed, pure and simple.
The Rules of Spam | Maryland's New Anti-Spam Law
Where are we going? And what's with the hand basket?