Cable Execs Say They're Worried About Poverty, Not Netflix Which is Why They Raise Rates and Impose New Fees Bi-Annually? At The Cable Show conference this week there has been a lot of talk by Netflix and cable executives about how Netflix complements -- instead of threatens -- traditional TV. Even if that's not really true, the rhetoric apparently gives comfort to both sides in this increasingly fascinating mating dance. A significant impact by Internet video on cable TV and ad revenues is still several years away by any reasonable measure, and cable executives like Cox President Pat Esser say they're more worried about poverty and the housing market at the moment. "We have to be sensitive in making sure we have a product that consumers can afford," said Esser at The Cable Show. "There clearly is a growing underclass of people who clearly can't afford it," he said. "It would serve us well to worry about that group." Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt (and his modest $17,422,329.00 in annual compensation) this week also paid similar fleeting lip service to "the growing underclass," stating "it would behoove us to work together to meet the needs of that population.” A place to start? Slowing down the bi-annual rate hikes, only a portion of which can be blamed on the ceaseless upward march of programming costs. As Internet video, telcoTV, satellite and smartphone video competition rises -- cable may ultimately have to do the unthinkable: actually compete on price. So far, companies like Britt's Time Warner Cable have only paid empty lip service to lower cost offerings, offering discount tiers that lack value and are packed with conditions. For example, users who subscribe to Time Warner Cable's $40 "TV Essentials" cable television tier can't use a DVR, only get this discounted pricing for a year, can't bundle the tier with additional services, and won't get popular major networks that should be part of any base bundle (Fox News, MSNBC). That doesn't exactly scream "concern with the less-affluent customer." Neither does the ever-growing bevy of new fees charged to such customers if they'd like to pay their bill via telephone or in person. Neither does Mr. Britt's long history of wanting to charge consumers $2-$5 per gigabyte in an age of constantly-dropping landline bandwidth costs. So while cable executives say they're concerned with lower-income customers and price, their actions have consistently suggested otherwise.
|
 | | More Lies unbelieveable I say.These execs must think the world except them are morons with no brains.
They care about poverty ?
FUCK OFF !!!
raising rates
capping accounts
shoddy services
no compettion
sure you can find more things | |
|  | | | Re: More Lies What does capping accoutns have to do with poverty, | |
| | |  XoX
join:2003-08-19
Qc, Canada
 ·TekSavvy DSL
| Re: More Lies said by ZombiGamer8:What does capping accoutns have to do with poverty,
If you go over your montly quota you have pay more for the service. That mean more money for them and less for you. | |
|
| elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | said by gorehound:unbelieveable I say.These execs must think the world except them are morons with no brains.
They care about poverty ?
FUCK OFF !!!
raising rates
capping accounts
shoddy services
no compettion
There is a huge market amongst the poor, and it can be rather profitable.
From the check-cashing/prepaid-card industry to MetroPCS, Boost, Walmart, Western Union and all the fast-food industry, there is money to be made, and Cable Execs want a piece of it.
Profitability depends on the amount of disposable income the poor have, and the margins retailers can charge. That's why you've seen Walmart forecasting lower profits - the poor have less leftover after they pay for gas and food.
Cable wants to sell to the poor, but content contracts push "basic" cable rates well past $40/month. Without legislation mandating un-bundling / ala-carte content, the situation isn't going to change much, and even then, last-mile facilities still have a basic overhead cost you can't erase.
As for your rant - cable has competition in virtually every location it serves. "Shoddy" service varies with the franchise - in our sample, cable service from Time Warner, Comcast, Cox and Charter is remarkably good these days. Rates will go up with content, sorry. Caps, well, that's a temporary phenomenon, which will go away, unfortunately, so do don't worry so much. | |
| | | | | Re: More Lies said by elray:said by gorehound:unbelieveable I say.These execs must think the world except them are morons with no brains.
They care about poverty ?
FUCK OFF !!!
raising rates
capping accounts
shoddy services
no compettion
(..snip..) As for your rant - cable has competition in virtually every location it serves. "Shoddy" service varies with the franchise - in our sample, cable service from Time Warner, Comcast, Cox and Charter is remarkably good these days. Rates will go up with content, sorry. Caps, well, that's a temporary phenomenon, which will go away, unfortunately, so do don't worry so much. i cant stop laughing at that statement, competition in every market huh? yeah, ok, my choices.
cable - $140 a month (phone/net/tv) if i get basic tv and "intro" (3mbps) broadband with phone itl still cost me $90 a month
dsl - $30 for the line + another what $30 for data so $60 for 1.5Mbps if im lucky
satilite - $80 just for 1.5Mbps "broadband"
dialup - $10 + phone line
yeah thats some amazing competition there.  | |
| | | | | | Re: More Lies So you've got choices, what are you complaining about? This stuff ain't as cheap as some other countries make it out to be, unless you prefer paying extra to live in a nanny state.
Look, the thrust of the article is valid. Times are indeed tough, and if we learned anything over the last few years it's to avoid living beyond our means. Cableco's are right to concerned about households making some tough choices. | |
| | | | |  ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 | Re: More Lies said by JasonOD :So you've got choices, what are you complaining about? Because all the alternatives are either way below sub-par and/or financial rape?
Honestly, this is like telling a mob shakedown victim to quit complaining since they were offered a choice of broken limb. | |
| | | | |  NPGMBR
join:2001-03-28
Arlington, VA | Actually you have no "choice" if you live in an apartment building that has a long-term contract with Comcast. | |
| | | | | |  ThespisI'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.Premium
join:2004-08-03
Keller, TX | Re: More Lies Didn't one make a "choice" to live in that building?
--
Fast. Cheap. Safe.
Pick two... | |
| | | | | | | NPGMBR
join:2001-03-28
Arlington, VA | Re: More Lies Wow thats a fairly simplistic response. Yes I did have a choice in moving into this building and guess what, when I moved here Comcast was the ONLY cable televison provider in the area.
Today, we have satellite providers; Direct TV and Dish however, because there really is no attractive place to put the dishes for each resident that wants one building management does not allow it.
In addition, Verizon ran FIOS past this building five years ago but because the building management has a contract with Comcast we are locked in till it ends.
I have already request that management consider allow Verizon into the building to provide residents with choice thus creating another option for porential residents to chose to live here.
However, at the moment we have NO CHOICE but Comcast if we want more than just over the are services. | |
| | | | | | | | ThespisI'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.Premium
join:2004-08-03
Keller, TX | Re: More Lies said by NPGMBR:Wow thats a fairly simplistic response.
Well, it's a fairly simple problem. Life is full of choices, and all of them have pros and cons. It's a matter of priorities. If choice of TV providers is at the top of your list of priorities, it will dictate where you sign a lease or make the areas where you can place a dish more "attractive" (building management cannot stop you from placing a dish in an area under your complete control, ie. a balcony).
--
Fast. Cheap. Safe.
Pick two... | |
| | | | | | | | | NPGMBR
join:2001-03-28
Arlington, VA | Re: More Lies So please identify where I stated in either of my posts that this particular issue was "at the top of your list of priorities". | |
| | | | | | | | | | ThespisI'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.Premium
join:2004-08-03
Keller, TX | Re: More Lies I guess you missed that "if" at the beginning of the sentence you quoted.
If it's not at the top of your priority list, then you made your choice of where to live based on other factors and chose to live with the cable TV agreement made by your landlord. You still made a choice and choices are full of trade offs.
I'm honestly not trying to be a cable shill, but there are no victims here. There are other options.
--
Fast. Cheap. Safe.
Pick two... | |
| | | | | | | | | | NPGMBR
join:2001-03-28
Arlington, VA | Re: More Lies Yes I made a choice yet that choice had nothing to do with knowing what televion service provider was available in the building. Matter-of-fact the Commonwealth of Virginia does not require landlords to notify potential residnets of such agreements.
I love everything about where I live but I'd love it a lot more if i had the option of choosing between a satellie provider, Verizon's FIOS or Comcast and at the moment my only option is Comcast and thats a fact. | |
| | | | | | | | | | ThespisI'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.Premium
join:2004-08-03
Keller, TX | Re: More Lies You do have another option. Cancel and live with OTA and dialup. Comcast doesn't have something you need; they have something you want. The option to cancel may not be appealing, but it is in fact, an option.
I understand that you won't agree with this. That's OK. That's what discussion forums are all about.
--
Fast. Cheap. Safe.
Pick two... | |
| | | | | | | | | | NPGMBR
join:2001-03-28
Arlington, VA | Re: More Lies Yes, I do have the choice to live without Comcast, however, that choice does not provide me with the channels I like to watch i.e. Showtime, History, Science, AMC, TNT and so on.
If what you are suggesting is the correct path, then OTA and dial-up would provide all the channels and internet speeds that I currently have. As such, I have no competitive choice! | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | said by Thespis:You do have another option. Cancel and live with OTA and dialup. Comcast doesn't have something you need; they have something you want. The option to cancel may not be appealing, but it is in fact, an option.
I understand that you won't agree with this. That's OK. That's what discussion forums are all about.
i would love to see you come set up an antenna in my home to get OTA, because since the digital transition its not going to happen. doesnt matter that i live in the city if i want to pick up OTA i need an outdoor antenna. and i dont care what the FCC says about them, you set one up and your landloard dont like it, nothing says they have to renew your lease.
and before some one spews that "tv is entertainment and not needed" tell me that when NOAA can provide 100% WX coverage in the area, because my weather radio only works on clear days (kind of defeats the purpose of having one) so local stations are my life line. and since i cant get them on OTA because i cant set up an antenna,, yeah you see where im going with this. frankly basic cable shouldnt cost more than $10 a month for the "local" stations. (mines about $40 after "tax" ) | |
| | | | | | | | | | ThespisI'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.Premium
join:2004-08-03
Keller, TX | Re: More Lies Again, life is full of choices...
--
Fast. Cheap. Safe.
Pick two... | |
|
| | | | | | | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | said by NPGMBR:Yes I made a choice yet that choice had nothing to do with knowing what televion service provider was available in the building. Matter-of-fact the Commonwealth of Virginia does not require landlords to notify potential residnets of such agreements.
I love everything about where I live but I'd love it a lot more if i had the option of choosing between a satellie provider, Verizon's FIOS or Comcast and at the moment my only option is Comcast and thats a fact.
If you're moving into a new abode, be it a multifamily dwelling or a single-family residence, and you don't do your due diligence to check on the local facilities (ask the neighbors, inspect the building, call the city!), do you really have the right to complain when you find you don't like your choices, after the fact? | |
| | | | | | | | | | NPGMBR
join:2001-03-28
Arlington, VA | Re: More Lies When moving to any structure my primary focuse is location, amenities and value. While the cable service provider was not on my list of amenities, that does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that I should not try to bring competition to the building!
I have accepted that Comcast is the sole provider in my building and I reward them with paying $106 bill in advance every month. At the same time I've also written building management and inquired about allowing Verizon to enter the building with FIOS to bring competiton to Comcast thus providing CHOICE for tenants and bringing yet another option for potential residents to chose our building as their new home.
So yes, I have the right to do my best to bring change to the building where I pay 1400 in rent each month. | |
|
| |  coldmoonPremium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC
·Windstream
| Re: More Lies and time to go à la carte said by elray:said by gorehound:unbelieveable I say.These execs must think the world except them are morons with no brains.
They care about poverty ?
FUCK OFF !!!
raising rates
capping accounts
shoddy services
no compettion
There is a huge market amongst the poor, and it can be rather profitable. From the check-cashing/prepaid-card industry to MetroPCS, Boost, Walmart, Western Union and all the fast-food industry, there is money to be made, and Cable Execs want a piece of it. Profitability depends on the amount of disposable income the poor have, and the margins retailers can charge. That's why you've seen Walmart forecasting lower profits - the poor have less leftover after they pay for gas and food. Cable wants to sell to the poor, but content contracts push "basic" cable rates well past $40/month. Without legislation mandating un-bundling / ala-carte content, the situation isn't going to change much, and even then, last-mile facilities still have a basic overhead cost you can't erase. As for your rant - cable has competition in virtually every location it serves. "Shoddy" service varies with the franchise - in our sample, cable service from Time Warner, Comcast, Cox and Charter is remarkably good these days. Rates will go up with content, sorry. Caps, well, that's a temporary phenomenon, which will go away, unfortunately, so do don't worry so much. Actually the problem is that there is no choice in what the customer can really purchase. Force the cable co's to allow subscriptions based on selective customer channel and content choice and you will see the average monthly cost go down as the superfluous channels forced on the subscriber no longer come into play. Then when times get hard, the customer can simply drop a couple of those channels they get and can continue getting and PAYING for services.
That would make too much sense though I suppose...
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC | |
| | | | | Re: More Lies said by elray:As for your rant - cable has competition in virtually every location it serves. "Shoddy" service varies with the franchise - in our sample, cable service from Time Warner, Comcast, Cox and Charter is remarkably good these days. Rates will go up with content, sorry. Caps, well, that's a temporary phenomenon, which will go away, unfortunately, so do don't worry so much.
Not sure where you live. But every municipality in which I have lived, ONE cable company is given EXCLUSIVE rights. | |
| | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Re: More Lies said by NWTSCL:said by elray:As for your rant - cable has competition in virtually every location it serves. "Shoddy" service varies with the franchise - in our sample, cable service from Time Warner, Comcast, Cox and Charter is remarkably good these days. Rates will go up with content, sorry. Caps, well, that's a temporary phenomenon, which will go away, unfortunately, so do don't worry so much.
Not sure where you live. But every municipality in which I have lived, ONE cable company is given EXCLUSIVE rights. Not sure what planet you live on, but in most every municipality, where cable has a franchise, there are competitive options for broadband, i.e. DSL, and video, in the form of satellite and telcoTV.
In addition, in most towns, cable is NOT given an exclusive franchise; there is nothing to prevent overbuilders from placing a parallel cable network, except subscribers unwilling to pay the market rate. | |
| | | | | | | Re: More Lies said by elray:Not sure what planet you live on, but in most every municipality, where cable has a franchise, there are competitive options for broadband, i.e. DSL, and video, in the form of satellite and telcoTV.
In addition, in most towns, cable is NOT given an exclusive franchise; there is nothing to prevent overbuilders from placing a parallel cable network, except subscribers unwilling to pay the market rate.
No need to start a flame war with insults. I said this is true of every municipality in which I have lived. If things are different in your area, that's great! | |
| | | | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Re: More Lies said by NWTSCL:said by elray:Not sure what planet you live on, but in most every municipality, where cable has a franchise, there are competitive options for broadband, i.e. DSL, and video, in the form of satellite and telcoTV.
In addition, in most towns, cable is NOT given an exclusive franchise; there is nothing to prevent overbuilders from placing a parallel cable network, except subscribers unwilling to pay the market rate.
No need to start a flame war with insults. I said this is true of every municipality in which I have lived. If things are different in your area, that's great! Yeah, sorry, poor choice of words/inference.
But I remain confident that you're mistaken; your former town(s) do not prohibit overbuilders. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: More Lies elray, they may not openly prohibit, but they can--and do-- prevent which enables exclusivity. Here's one example of a city I picked randomly: Mountain View, California. Google's hometown. Read their Municipal Code and other documents such as City Council reports and so forth.
I quickly found this. It is talking about the approval of applications for cable communications. Notice how Sec. 2.56.1 of Part II, Chapter 2, Article III says "When and if the city council, in its sole discretion, determines that it is in the public interest to entertain applications".
»library.municode.com/showDocumen···D=1#hit1
So they do give themselves the power to limit providers. I'm sure you could find more if you dig deeper. Give City Hall a call and ask why they don't have other cable providers. | |
|
| | | | | | | said by NWTSCL:said by elray:Not sure what planet you live on, but in most every municipality, where cable has a franchise, there are competitive options for broadband, i.e. DSL, and video, in the form of satellite and telcoTV.
In addition, in most towns, cable is NOT given an exclusive franchise; there is nothing to prevent overbuilders from placing a parallel cable network, except subscribers unwilling to pay the market rate.
No need to start a flame war with insults. I said this is true of every municipality in which I have lived. If things are different in your area, that's great! Satellite TV covers all of CONUS. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: More Lies said by fifty nine:Satellite TV covers all of CONUS.
I lived in a house that had a tree that blocked the satellite signal. But from what I read, this article discussed cable options. Have you ever watched Netflix through satellite internet? | |
|
| | | | | So how many cable companies do you need? One is enough. | |
| | | | | | | Re: More Lies said by jeff17:So how many cable companies do you need? One is enough.
One is enough ... for anyone who is willing to pay whatever price this one provider charges and put up with whatever lack of service this one provider gives. Yes, you are right in that regard. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: More Lies oh. Well I should have multiple water companies, and a choice over who picks up my trash, and 2 or 3 different electric companies. I want more choices!
In my town, I can get FIOS, DLS, Cable, Sat, 3G, 4G and some odd WiFi service. Yikes.
--
"It's fair to say that the Bible contains equal amounts of fact, history, and pizza."
— Penn Jillette | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: More Lies said by jeff17:oh. Well I should have multiple water companies, and a choice over who picks up my trash, and 2 or 3 different electric companies. I want more choices!
In my town, I can get FIOS, DLS, Cable, Sat, 3G, 4G and some odd WiFi service. Yikes.
all of which are utilities and are regulated. cable companies are not, how ever, they should be. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: More Lies You don't think cable companies are regulated? that's funny. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: More Lies said by jeff17:You don't think cable companies are regulated? that's funny.
the basic cable rate is set by the franchise authority, beyond that all other prices are set by corporate to make their greedy investers happy.
if they where regulated we would have a-la-cart right now instead of being forced in to "bundles".
power company wants to raise my bill, they have to ask the state utility commission and prove they need to raise the rate.
water company wants to raise my water rate, they have to ask the state utility commission and prove they need to raise the rate.
cable company wants to raise the rate, they just do it. | |
|
| | | | | | | | said by jeff17:oh. Well I should have multiple water companies, and a choice over who picks up my trash, and 2 or 3 different electric companies. I want more choices!
In my town, I can get FIOS, DLS, Cable, Sat, 3G, 4G and some odd WiFi service. Yikes.
jeff17 would you fill me in on how that is relevant to how this article and the municipal code that I quoted are specifically for cable? Because I'm not seeing it at all.
NormanS how'd you miss the municipal code that I quoted? That city is just up the road from you. | |
|
| | |  NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by NWTSCL:Not sure where you live. But every municipality in which I have lived, ONE cable company is given EXCLUSIVE rights.
I don't think that is the case anywhere in California. At one time, AT&T overbuilt Comcast in San José; but bailed when they couldn't come to terms with the City. San José was willing to franchise AT&T, but expected similar concessions as they got from Comcast. AT&T's response was to sell their cable subsidiary (AT&T Broadband Internet) to Comcast. Not too many years later, they sold themselves to SBC.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1 | Profitability They are concerned about the impoverished and lower income households, but this interest only applies to how it will impact their bottom line. The ceiling has to have a limit. | |
| | | | Re: Profitability said by jmn1207:..The ceiling has to have a limit.
Not in the US, there are no limits to success. If, as you seem to believe, companies are currently abusing their position, the free market will brutally correct the behavior. | |
| | | | | Re: Profitability said by JasonOD :Not in the US, there are no limits to success. If, as you seem to believe, companies are currently abusing their position, the free market will brutally correct the behavior.
Except exclusive rights given to cable companies by the government to provide the service isn't a free market. | |
| | | | | said by JasonOD :said by jmn1207:..The ceiling has to have a limit.
Not in the US, there are no limits to success. If, as you seem to believe, companies are currently abusing their position, the free market will brutally correct the behavior. And you have evidence to back up your assumption? Because everything I see about the state of broadband in the U.S. suggests that the trend is to consolidate. Look at recent news items (Centurylink/Qwest merger, Time Warner acquiring New Wave customers) from this site and others and you'll find that instead of getting more diverse, the trend is to consolidate. Consolidation leads to less competition and less competition leads to higher prices. It's bad enough that most of us are living with a duoploy for TV and internet (cable and telco, I don't include satellite which is only competitive in TV, not broadband for various reasons). Basically, the rich are getting richer at our expense.
Worse still, the politicians elected to represent the people either A) mistakenly believe the peoples interests and a corporations interest are one and the same, B) are too stupid/lazy/disinterested to do their own research and buy the lobbyist reasoning hook line and sinker, or C) are indebted/dependent on their corporate masters for their campaign contributions or jobs after they leave office.
The "free market" you speak of is a dream when it comes to this industry. You want to see an example of a free market then look at the auto industry. You have a choice of automobiles to purchase and dealers to purchase from. Better yet, if I want a Honda Accord there is not just one but four dealerships within 20 minutes of where I live that sell the same damn car. And it gets better when you look at used car sales. There are literally thousands of choices between dealerships, independent lots and private sellers.
It all comes down to choice. If one dealer won't give you a deal then another may. But with broadband most of us only have two choice at best. Each knows what the other offers and they tend to keep the cost/value to customers the same. Price only becomes competitive when one of the two offers something exceptional (as happened with Verizon and Comcast/Time Warner when FIOS launched. But that only lasted until Comcast/Time Warner boosted their speeds, then we were locked back in the same cycle). They have the the advantage and they know it. | |
|
| | | said by jmn1207:They are concerned about the impoverished and lower income households, but this interest only applies to how it will impact their bottom line.
And they should care otherwise because...? | |
| | | jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1 | Re: Profitability said by fifty nine:said by jmn1207:They are concerned about the impoverished and lower income households, but this interest only applies to how it will impact their bottom line.
And they should care otherwise because...? I was simply pointing out that their concern for the plight of the poor was not genuine. Like most investors, the adapted culture for measuring success within a corporation is largely myopic in scope, with little concern for decisions that might negatively impact the surrounding business landscape or community.
Perhaps I should have just kept it simple and stated that they were full of shit? | |
|
| | Ya what BS Thats almost funny... So funny we cancelled our TV service last month. Anything we need or care to watch is available on Netflix or the web. Netflex is awesome not to mentioned ten times cheaper. | |
| Reviews:
 ·voip.ms
 ·Comcast
| Laughs my a** off Really?
Seriously?
I've hear of some wild PR spins... But this one is so sad, pathetic, sickening, and yet some were in there is got so crazy... All I could do is laugh.
Comcast "claims" to have $10 plan for Internet... For those on very low, fixed income (the elderly for example or maybe the unemployed).
Good luck getting it though. I know a few who could use it, but no one seems to have that information or how to sign up.... I'd bet money that it doesn't really exist and if it does... Comcast employees signed themselves up for it.
And while we're on the subject......
The poor... The real poor people. Are not worried about what TV stations they have. Maybe Internet, but only so they can get jobs. Even McDonald's has gone paperless for employment.
--
HP Pavilion a6750f (tweaked)
Windows 7 Ultimate 64 * Mac OS Snow Leopard
»www.SociallyUncensored.eu - Tired of feeling censored? | |
| | rody_44Premium
join:2004-02-20
Quakertown, PA | Re: Laughs my a** off Why would comcast employees sign up for it. They get free service. | |
| | | Reviews:
·voip.ms
·Comcast
| Re: Laughs my a** off said by rody_44:Why would comcast employees sign up for it. They get free service.
Not all Comcast employees get free service.
But it was a general statement... Assume they signed up their friends or family if you like.... My point was that the plan most likely does not exist or if it does, those who could use it the most... Do not get it.
--
HP Pavilion a6750f (tweaked)
Windows 7 Ultimate 64 * Mac OS Snow Leopard
»www.SociallyUncensored.eu - Tired of feeling censored? | |
|
| | | said by OldschoolDSL:.... I'd bet money that it doesn't really exist and if it does... Comcast employees signed themselves up for it Why would Comcast employees pay $10 for internet when they get it free? That's laughable. | |
|
Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon FiOS
| triple play no longer viable? Single and Dual Play options should be on the table in these markets.. and stop making such a small price difference between these options. $65 for dual play and $30 for siingle play are quite affordable, but these tend to be introductory offers which eventually the cable companies grow tired of offering such low rates and they raise them over 50% in some cases. | |
| Reviews:
·AT&T Yahoo
·Comcast
| This is the.... free market at work... The 1st company that can deliver low cost internet service, etc... will dominate, unfortunately most companies are squeezing every dime they can out of their customers, this is what is causing people to drop services for cheaper alternatives, not just Nexflix.. These companies are NOT going to give us the speed that MOST countries have, why should we pay the higher costs that they charge? Once everyone goes to 3.0, there should be NO need to charge for infrastructure costs, that should help, but I am NOT holding my breath..... | |
| | | They're telling the truth! When you make ~$10 million last year, it's hard to get by on the same amount the next year! 3rd beach houses, replacement yachts, obscure artifacts cost a lot and you always have to buy more than the previous year? Without getting those massive raises every year, execs, movie stars, tv stars, sport players, and anyone else in the entertainment industry could never aford those NECESSITIES of life.
/sarcasm with touch of truth | |
| | | | Re: They're telling the truth! lol cable company think people are idiots ? If you cared soo much about the poor start offering ala cartel tv and you will have soo much more $$$$$$$ | |
|
| | | Executives should try keeping more jobs in America. That would stop this fast. | |
| | | status of ips in usa third world service and speeds with caps on bandwidth?
cable companies do not operate in a free market, there is
no free market regarding the internet and no real choices
are available for anyone wanting first tier service at a
reasonable price.
Any one claiming different, is a paid stooge for the cable
companies promoting disinformation and lies. | |
|  pnjunctionTeksavvy ExtremePremium
join:2008-01-24
Toronto, ON
kudos:1 | Of course They don't care how they get their customers money, ripping them off on TV or Internet, as long as they can still get it.
Also many customers won't even look for ways to save money until they start feeling the squeeze. The moment someone even starts carefully looking at their bills and thinking about how to reduce them is where the trouble starts. Before then most customers will simply remain ignorant about or lack the motivation to move to cheaper alternatives. | |
| QLR
join:2009-06-23
Tallahassee, FL Reviews:
·Comcast
 ·Verizon Wireless..
| I hope they are worried about the "poor" Most Comcast users I know have the $12 limited basic cable or the older expanded cable packages. And the plans being pushed be Comcast are pitiful (due to lack of competition)... just 3 packages advertised: $12, $57 (sometimes $30 on promo), or $75.
I bet more folks would adjust their packages if they advertised their $30 Digital Economy. This is the plan I am on and I love it since it is at the right price point; sure it has some "negatives", like no on demand and stripped down sports, but I won't cry.
All in all, I think if the cable cos revamped their price points, they would be making more money... For now there is no need since they can recoup "losses" with the internet and/or extra fees for not having multiple services | |
| Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| viscious circle the housing econimic & housing decline/crisis have been used to justify everything from broadband caps to delayed implementation of docsis 3, to high prices & few, if any significant infrastruture improvements. meanwhile millions are spent to keep out competitiors. also, we're not talking about the fear of hundreds of wired criss-crossing telephone poles and rights of way underground and across people's land, just one or two more competitors who are viable alternatives to keep in check AT&T and Comcast, CentruyTel).
would the oil industry welcome a parallel industry of ethanol production? hell no! hydrogen? nope!
consumers don't have as much free time for video as they used to.. they typically work longer hours for less pay. so, unless you can get paid for watching tv consumers will demand less and that keeps prices in check more than consumers saying screw you cable companies I'll just stream everything I want over the internet for free (aka piracy). we agree on one point... eventually these stressors will cross a line and they'll have to give serious consideration on what to do about "cord cutters" who go the 'piracy'/download/streaming only route | |
| Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA | It's easy to make it affordable. For example, users who subscribe to Time Warner Cable's $40 "TV Essentials" cable television tier can't use a DVR, only get this discounted pricing for a year, can't bundle the tier with additional services, and won't get popular major networks that should be part of any base bundle (Fox News, MSNBC). Let's say instead of useless TV, they were talking about Internet. Then, it would be easy: $10 per month for having service at some medium rate (pays for regular maintenance of it being available), and current real rates (not inflated rates) for per-byte usage, prepaid (not postbilled), cut off when the prepayment runs out. That would be very affordable: have as much as you want, but pay as you go, at reasonable rates. Obviously $2 per gigabyte isn't reasonable. Let's just round it to a dollar, and have the amount per dollar go up or down with the market: so, for example, right now I am paying around $1 per 10,000,000,000 bytes (or 100,000,000,000 bits). Tomorrow, it could be $1 for 14,000,000,000 bytes, and so on. And the prepayment is easy: until you send a deposit on future use, you can't use it. As soon as there's a future use deposit balance, the spigot is opened, until you've used up whatever your deposit is for. The next day, you'd get more per dollar. Generally, the market would give you more per dollar with time. It might jump about a bit. But that would make it very affordable.
But what about earning more from richer subscribers? So, the problem is this low-cost tier is available to everyone. Well, then adjust the dials slightly: first, don't offer the fastest service available for the affordable tier (say, around 12Mbps). Second, charge a slight premium per virtual byte over the average richer subscriber (let's say businesses usually use 2 terabytes a month at $100/month for their 25Mbps/5Mbps tier: so that'd be 20 gigabytes per $1, but for the prepay system, you can adjust the cost up to around 15 gigabytes per $1 or even 9 gigabytes per $1, but certainly no higher). That way, richer subscribers would have to pay a higher monthly fee for a faster baseline service, and their cap or lack thereof would allow them far more use per dollar than the poorer subscribers. Other incentives could be used, as well. It's hard to really split the tiers that easily, but there are ways to mostly do it, that end up with a decent return on investment and allow a lot to participate and revenue from everyone who chooses that company.
So, there are ways to pay more than lip-service for poor consumers, with Internet. I'm sure they could find a similar prepayment system for TV, even with DVRs (especially with DVRs), such as how many shows you can watch per $1 (1? .5? .3? 12? I don't know how much TV poor people watch, and some shows are more expensive than others).
But you may be overlooking one main thing: they already serve poor consumers quite well, in their opinion: all they want is revenue. So, for the most part, in a monopoly situation, they just turn off service periodically when the poor people can't pay. The poor people don't have service for a while. Then, when they amass enough money to pay for service again (i.e., someone else moves in whose identity isn't in the company's records yet), they get and pay for service again. So, it's TDMA for cable service: they don't always have it turned on. What the cable exec is saying is what he didn't say: that the periods in which the service is turned off, the consumers now have a slightly non-monopoly situation to look at for turning service back on again when that guy or girl with the new identity shows up, and they might go back to telco, satellite, or some other thing, rather than cableco. So, the cableco execs are basically saying, in a coded way, hey, investors, we're going to start looking into this in the product selections we sell so that we can recapture these consumers when they come back on board to the marketplace, so that you can feel assured that the revenues being generated will be by my company more often, not just by any company. I think that's more of what's going on. | |
| | | | Re: It's easy to make it affordable. No offense to the execs, and not just telco or cable execs.....never once are they worried about poverty, the collect millions, they keep raising prices and dropping wages. Pretty soon there will be the rich and powerful and the people in poverty. Poverty can be at different levels however the middle class is slowly being removed.
Pretty soon everyone at the poverty level will be legal slaves to put food on the table while the execs eat out and enjoy their pay cheques and laugh at the people working 8x harder than they did. | |
|
| | ESPN... ESPN has gotten a 20% price increase PER YEAR from the cable industry over the last few years.
And Broadcasters force the cable industry to add poor to useless channels as bargaining positions for Must carry requirements.
Netflix realizes it's popularity depends on old and inexpensive content, and that eventually most people that use it will be more pissed at rate increases to HSD caused by the strain Netflix themselves have added to the internet, and they worry about the backlash that will have on sales in the future.
If I where Netflix, now that I'm as big as I am, I'd be working out content labeling deals with cable companies for ondemand cable box streaming of some of my content.
Would take the strain off the HSD/Internet, use a bandwidth friendly streaming network the CableCo's have built, keeping them happier, and give Netflix a friend instead of a competitor. | |
| | | ummm All Provider sare it it to make money Bottom line no matter who it is ATT, Cox, Comcast or verizon are all in it to make money. You take away specials and bundled pricing at the all are pretty much the same.
Most that complain honestly have a choice, even if you say you don't. Do you really have have TV, Internet,etc? All Luxuries in life so if you don't want it don't buy it.
other than that get use to providers in it to make money.
"There's no such thing as a Free lunch."
I spend mor emoney on gas monthly then do I with my cable bill.. Lets Talk GAS prices lol | |
|
| |
|
|
Competition would change Execs tune.
The broadband execs would be talking out of the other side of their mouths if there were true competition in the broadband service market. In the days of dial-up internet access, ISP's had to constantly upgrade their networks or have customers leave in droves. In a truly competitive market the first ISP to introduce caps would the first to loose their customer base. Once there was enough competition in the dial-up internet access market AOL was forced to offer unlimited service at a reasonable price. Without regulation of broadband ISP's American Citizens are screwed.