Comcast CFO: Broadband Pricing Will 'Evolve' Of course his definintion of 'evolve' might not match yours.... Tipped by caco 
Speaking at an investor conference this week in Florida, Comcast Chief Financial Officer Michael Angelakis informed investors that broadband pricing will "evolve" as broadband use grows. According to this Dow Jones Newswire report, Angelakis wouldn't get specific about what he meant, only stating that this change would occur as broadband "eclipses pay-television as the cable industry's core product." According to Angelakis, this vague broadband pricing evolution "will end up being positive for the company." We asked Comcast for a clearer definition of what Angelakis was hinting at, but have yet to hear back (we'll of course update this post if/when we do). Angelakis could be referring to the desire among broadband executives to migrate the U.S. broadband market from flat-rate pricing to a system of caps and per gigabyte overages. That's a model that's become very common in other countries like Canada, but hasn't taken root yet here in the States due to backlash from consumers, most of whom ( correctly) believe they already pay a premium for bandwidth. The model is usually presented under the guise of "fairness," but its real benefit is that it allows carriers to retain control in the face of Internet evolution, charging a premium for bandwidth to help counter losses elsewhere. You'll notice that as smartphones evolve and mobile VoIP and push IM clients begin to erode SMS and mobile voice minutes, wireless carriers are looking to constrict and more heavily monetize each mobile bit. It seems more than likely that as Internet video nibbles away at TV revenues, you'll see terrestrial carriers embrace this same concept under pressure from sector investors (which is what Angelakis appears to be hinting at). Several carriers have conducted trials (including AT&T and Time Warner Cable), but they've found the effort to be an expensive one to implement and support. It's also an extremely unpopular concept among U.S. consumers, who've grown used to the simplicity of flat-rate pricing. Some carriers, such as Cablevision, have acknowledged that the metered billing model confuses customers, and creates a paradigm where the carrier may even be discouraging use of their product. While Comcast has yet to implement an overage system and have made no official statement indicating they would like to, they did impose a 250 GB monthly cap on all residential user tiers last October. They're also slowly pushing out a bandwidth measuring tool on a market-by-market basis. Comcast has gone through the trouble of having this tool independently tested for accuracy, so if the time comes where Comcast wants to impose metered billing -- they're certainly in a position to.
|
 | | I have a feeling... Metered service or overage charges? | |
|  |  1 edit | Re: I have a feeling... Yep... every broadband CFO's wet dream: metered billing and overage fees (aka "money for nothing" -- "they" do nothing they weren't already doing, and "you" pay more for the privilege of using their service) | |
|  |  | | I have that same feeling and it's not a tingling of my leg rather a grab at my wallet. | |
|  |  knightmbEverybody Lies join:2003-12-01 Franklin, TN | I think it would never get big here because people like me who run an all you can eat ISP would slowly put them out of business. 
Every week we get new customers who were upset about the bandwidth limits of their Satellite Internet ISP or wireless cell Internet (AT&T, Verizon, etc. 5GB per month, LOL)
So while it's something technical that most users don't know/care about, enough of those that do care will eventually get the word around to the less technical people. -- Fight Insight Ready (Was NebuAD) and the like: Click Here to pollute their data | |
|  |  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 | Re: I have a feeling... said by knightmb:I think it would never get big here because people like me who run an all you can eat ISP would slowly put them out of business. So then what happens when all those "all you can eat" hungry people move to your network, often the ones that WILL use ALL THEY CAN EAT (ie: very large data hungry people) and you see an increase in data demand.. then what? You going to raise your rates? You going to take a loss?
The customers you're likely to get ARE the ones that WILL use a lot of data.. the majority of people that use on average of 20gig or less, as a safe number I chose for this, will likely stay with who they have and not worry.
In other words, those that would NEED to leave someone like Comcast or other capped services would likely do so since they'd be hitting those caps.. and with TV/Video over the internet, and those so called "heavy Linux distro downloaders" being your main customer.. seriously.. then what? You think you can keep offering all you can eat, sustain your throughput, and keep your business in the black with those people as your core customers? | |
|  |  |  |  openbox9 join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA kudos:1 | Re: I have a feeling... But his WISP does have a cap. Right from his front page.100,000,000,000 gigabytes per month . Oh but wait, that's not correct, because his FAQ has this.Q. How much does each download speed tier cost? Basic Service $9.99 / Month -- (316 GB / Month) Basic Plus $12.99 / Month -- (632 GB / Month) Standard $15.99 / Month -- (949 GB / Month) Performance $18.99 / Month -- (1,265 GB / Month) Primo $21.99 / Month -- (1,582 GB / Month) Maximum $24.99 / Month -- (1,896 GB / Month) Or is it this.Q. How much does each upload speed tier cost? Upload Tier 1 - 15 GB / Month -- (Included with all services) Upload Tier 2 - 30 GB / Month -- (Additional $1.50 / Month) Upload Tier 3 - 45 GB / Month -- (Additional $2.00 / Month) Upload Tier 4 - 60 GB / Month -- (Additional $2.50 / Month) Upload Tier 5 - 75 GB / Month -- (Additional $3.00 / Month) Upload Tier 6 - 90 GB / Month -- (Additional $3.50 / Month) Upload Tier 7 - 105 GB / Month -- (Additional $4.00 / Month) Upload Tier 8 - 120 GB / Month -- (Additional $4.50 / Month) Upload Tier 9 - 135 GB / Month -- (Additional $5.00 / Month) | |
|  |  |  |  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 1 edit | Re: I have a feeling... So wait... HIS model is where everyone is going to flock?? .. to an ISP that not only charges for the download, but also the upload?? AND has a cap??
I will give him ONE thing... I like the idea of being able to pick both download AND upload speeds separately... that's kind of a nice concept... but, based on what you just said, he's no better than what he's complaining about as well.. says one thing and does another.
niiiiiiiice....
By the way, I LOVE his tag line on his profile.. "Everybody Lies"... | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: I have a feeling... said by fiberguy:So wait... HIS model is where everyone is going to flock?? .. to an ISP that not only charges for the download, but also the upload?? AND has a cap?? I will give him ONE thing... I like the idea of being able to pick both download AND upload speeds separately... that's kind of a nice concept... but, based on what you just said, he's no better than what he's complaining about as well.. says one thing and does another. niiiiiiiice.... By the way, I LOVE his tag line on his profile.. "Everybody Lies"... I'm seriously starting to wonder if you and openbox are the same person with 2 different ID tags. You two always reply in unison. It's kind of pathetic.
As for his post, he wasn't "complaining". He mentioned his customers complaining about the paltry 5 GB caps their former ISPs enforced. Your quip about his customers using up everything is asinine, because he's obviously STILL in business.
The fact that he offers such incredibly low-cost tiers ($10/month?) which caps that are far, far bigger than Comcast's, without having the massive size and economy of scale as the incumbent ISPs (as well as their own self-built middle mile backhaul), speaks to how much the incumbents price-gouge.
Your defense of your corporate overlords at the expense of the smaller competitors is repugnant and disgusting. I hope you look at yourself in the mirror one day and realize your flaws. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  openbox9 join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA kudos:1 | Re: I have a feeling... said by sonicmerlin:I'm seriously starting to wonder if you and openbox are the same person with 2 different ID tags. You two always reply in unison. I seldom reply to fiberguy . If anything you should accuse ThrowDemsOut and me of being the same person since we appear to have a lot of similar business beliefs  said by sonicmerlin:The fact that he offers such incredibly low-cost tiers ($10/month?) which caps that are far, far bigger than Comcast's, without having the massive size and economy of scale as the incumbent ISPs (as well as their own self-built middle mile backhaul), speaks to how much the incumbents price-gouge. You do realize that his "caps" are because he most likely throttles his download tiers at approximately 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 Mbps and his upload tiers at 45, 90, 135, 180, 225, 270, 315, 360, and 405 Kbps. So, for about $30, I get roughly a 6/512 DSL connection that I could pay AT&T ~$34/mth for over two years. Not too awfully inspiring...especially since I won't have access to WiFi with AT&T on the go.
Where's that truth in advertising and everyone around here seems to crave? How can knightmb possibly have a 100 exabyte cap, when his maximum tier appears to top out at 2,031 GB/mth? I want to download my 100 exabytes for $30/mth. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 | Re: I have a feeling... sonicmerlin is paranoid... MAR_03_2002 and I are not the same person. But, he can believe what ever he wants at night to make himself sleep better.. his choice.
Even as you say about the "caps"... which he clearly has some.. I'd think that many users here would be, as usual, upset that someone is saying that have an "all you can eat" service when clearly he doesn't... Yet, sonicmerlin follows up with low-cost tier pricing as his rebuttal as well as "price gouging"... As capitalism states, you price your product at what the market can handle..
I am also one that agrees that different services can offer different advantages.. but again, as you point out, DSL is comparable to the WISP here.
And I will throw something in as well... if the internet costs about $10 or so per month per subscriber, I don't necessarily believe that it needs to be priced as a certain percentage above the actual cost.. I find an INCREDIBLE value at $42 a month for my 16/2 internet service considering the fact that just 10 years ago, it was about $50 a month for dial up and extra phone line (much of what went to taxes and fees) and was good for just one computer.. with today's broadband, I have about 20 devices hooked up to my one connection, have a gazillion times more bandwidth than dialup, and I pay far less than what I used to. So for me, this works. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  openbox9 join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA kudos:1 | Re: I have a feeling... Agreed. In 1994, I paid ~$29/mth for a dial-up connection theoretically capable of 28.8 kbps. Today I pay $38.99/mth for a 12/2 Mbps connection, that consistently clocks in at 13/3 Mbps with PowerBoost and a sub 35 ms latency. I'll take that increase in value any day of the week. Similar to you, I currently have 14 IP devices on my network with no bandwidth constraints. | |
|
 jus10 join:2009-08-04 Sterling, VA Reviews:
·Comcast
| Well it's all conjecture ... at this stage.
My guess is that Angelakis can't elaborate on what he means in detail as he and no one else has a crystal ball. I'm guessing he just told investors that Comcast will respond to changing business conditions in the future to keep making a profit. That's pretty much exactly what I would expect them to do.
In terms of caps and overages, ah well. They already have a cap and that's fine. If they're charging overages, I want the option to opt out. If I hit 250gig for the month, drop my connection. Something is wrong with my setup if I'm pushing that kind of data.
I'll deal with whatever changes they make when they happen; no sense in stressing about something which may never happen. | |
|  n2jtx join:2001-01-13 Glen Head, NY Reviews:
·Optimum Online
1 edit | My Theory "eclipses pay-television as the cable industry's core product."
"will end up being positive for the company." This means cable broadband will suddenly incur some of the industries stupid fees such as "premium outlet fee". Also, expect to see annual price increases of 5% to 9% just like with video.
That is my take on what he is saying. -- I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|  ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium join:2002-03-03 Mullica Hill, NJ kudos:4 1 edit | Comcast will modify business plan if TV moves to internet
If Comcast's core business(providing cable TV) moves to an IP based internet system and away from broadcast channels, then it makes sense they will switch billing to recoup the lost revenues. After all, their costs(to DELIVER content to show) won't go down. They still have to provide cable maintenance; equipment; customer service; etc. And all those dozens of 6 mhz channels will have to be re-purposed to deliver internet access instead of TV channels. | |
|  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 1 edit | Re: Comcast will modify business plan if TV moves to internet ... stop making sense.. 
I don't really want to be FORCED to metered billing.. I like flat rate bills.. it's why my electric and gas bills are the most hated of them all. I even subscribe to unlimited calling plans for cellular service even if I go below many times becuase I like predictable billing.
However, I figure I'm going to pay about $100 a month for my Video and Internet - been a reasonable price for me now since the year 2000. So, if video goes down, I'm okay with more on the internet side if that's replacing my video option..
However, people see HSI as a way to REDUCE the cost of video.. and that's not going to happen.. that's not how business works.
Topics like this always give me a visual picture of a bunch of chickens running around with their heads cut off, OR the old black and white movies of the angry townsmen with their pitchforks.. either way, its kinda funny to see people work themselves up over something that may, or may not, happen.. and either way, they're not going to change it... when there is change, it's not just one sided.. I guess mom saying "there's give and take" never stuck with too many folk around these parts. | |
|  |  |  bsoft join:2004-03-28 Boulder, CO | Re: Comcast will modify business plan if TV moves to internet However, people see HSI as a way to REDUCE the cost of video.. and that's not going to happen.. that's not how business works. In a near-monopoly situation like Comcast is in many areas (my options for TV are Comcast or satellite, and satellite is out because I'm in an apartment and can't see the southern sky), Comcast will charge what the market will bear. Well, more specifically, they'll charge the profit maximizing price, which is more than some customers will pay and less than some other customers will pay.
The question is whether customer tolerance for high prices will decrease. Many of us are now accustomed to the idea of getting video online for free, which might make subscribers less willing to pay $100/mo for TV + HSI.
Moreover, there's a risk that Comcast gets paid only for the transport of the content, and the content producers themselves (Discovery, Viacom, Disney, Fox, etc.) get paid directly for the content itself.
Of coruse, that could actually be a net positive for Comcast. Believe it or not, cable TV is not as hugely profitable as you might think. A substantial portion of your monthly fee goes to the content companies already. Of the $55 you spend, Comcast nets maybe half after programming fees. Compare with HSI, where Comcast gets to keep nearly the whole $42 minus a tiny cost for bandwidth. Both video and HSI incur network maintenance and build-out expenses, but since there aren't programming fees for HSI, I would bet that HSI actually nets Comcast more profit per subscriber than video.
So, the problem isn't really video customers switching to HSI. It's customers who already have video and HSI switching to just HSI. | |
|  |  |  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 | Re: Comcast will modify business plan if TV moves to internet said by bsoft:However, people see HSI as a way to REDUCE the cost of video.. and that's not going to happen.. that's not how business works. In a near-monopoly situation like Comcast is in many areas With cable, two satellite carriers, and many more places having a 4th choice.. the monopoly term is a little outdated... (my options for TV are Comcast or satellite, and satellite is out because I'm in an apartment and can't see the southern sky), That's your fault.. WHERE you live is your choice.. neither the cable or satellite carriers tell you where to live.. When you look for an apartment next time, perhaps you should ask for a southern facing unit. Also, no level of further excuse will work. You can't say there are no more available.. there's always other complexes or apartment buildings. And, before you try "but this one was the one I wanted".. well, people also often move a lot when they live in apartments so a move is guaranteed in your future as well.
Comcast will charge what the market will bear. Also - when talking about their pricing of the product, they don't price it based on a few apartment dwellers that can't see the southern sky... they DO have to compete with satellite VERY aggressively.. Comcast is no exception as they paid customers up to $400 to convert.
Well, more specifically, they'll charge the profit maximizing price, which is more than some customers will pay and less than some other customers will pay. ok.. and? They charge a profit is all I got out of that.. and this is wrong why?
The question is whether customer tolerance for high prices will decrease. Nothing new here... While basic cable is about $60 a month now, 10 years ago it was about $35 a month.. people bitched back then too about prices.. 15 years before that basic cable was about $25 a month and guess what, people bitched then too.. so what's going to change in 10 more years? Prices will still go up, people will still bitch. And, you say something further in your post which I'll address too..
Many of us are now accustomed to the idea of getting video online for free, which might make subscribers less willing to pay $100/mo for TV + HSI. Ummm... not enough to matter. What you're getting on the internet is basically the scraps.. left overs.. yesterday's stuff... and for many people, great... they are okay with that. But, there are still many shows that people WANT and they want them when they air.. not next week.. not next month, and not a crappy boot leg version either.. they want the real deal. The only thing that people REALLY (the masses) are going to accept (and really won't care about the tech behind it) is streaming video over the internet of live television. And like I said, most people don't care HOW it gets to their TV so long as it does.
And, while you may not want to pay $100 a month for TV and HSI, the fact is that as TV revenue decreases and is replaced by the internet, the price AND value of that internet will rise.. period.
Moreover, there's a risk that Comcast gets paid only for the transport of the content, and the content producers themselves (Discovery, Viacom, Disney, Fox, etc.) get paid directly for the content itself. And this is a GOOD thing? For real? You'd rather go direct to the "crooks" and pay them?? I mean, REALLY? .. okay.. if you say so. So there is a risk that Comcast (well, lets say Cable, becuase this isn't really about "comcast" alone.. ) only gets paid for the transport of the content.. ummm.. WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY DO NOW?? They're a consignment business... EVEN if they only get paid for the "transport" of the content, they're still going to make up a profit on that as well.. oi.
Of coruse, that could actually be a net positive for Comcast. Believe it or not, cable TV is not as hugely profitable as you might think. Let me correct your inaccurate statement. "BASIC CABLE" is not as hugely profitable as you think. Basic cable basically breaks even and pays bills. They make a good amount of money on the premium channels and PPV, but where they make their biggest chunk of video revenue is Ad Insertion sales.
A substantial portion of your monthly fee goes to the content companies already. Of the $55 you spend, Comcast nets maybe half after programming fees. Try again. .. it's actually far less than that.
Compare with HSI, where Comcast gets to keep nearly the whole $42 minus a tiny cost for bandwidth. It's not really so "tiny" as you make it sound. It costs about $12 per month per subscriber. While that is about a 70% profit margin, where do you think so much of their system rebuild money comes from, and other expenses... ?
Both video and HSI incur network maintenance and build-out expenses, but since there aren't programming fees for HSI, I would bet that HSI actually nets Comcast more profit per subscriber than video. HSI does bring in more money per subscriber.. and there is maintenance for both products, yes. However, HSI does actually help keep other costs and expenses down. You'll notice that HSI ala cart generally costs about $10 a month more... which is about the cost I'd assume they figure it takes to maintain the line to the house.
So, the problem isn't really video customers switching to HSI. It's customers who already have video and HSI switching to just HSI. Ummmmm.. think about what you just said and think about the post you just replied to.. I think you totally missed the point. IF people are dropping video and now shifting a lot of their video to that HSI connection, not only will that drive up the amount of data used (which replaces the linear video) but they also are reducing the amount of income to the cable operator. You do that, they're going to need to make up for the loss in revenue elsewhere.. you think they're going to jack up the price of their phone to compensate for that? No... they're going to turn to the very product replacing television. Not to mention, I NEVER once said anyone was going to "switch FROM video TO HSI" now did I? So, this whole last statement of yours really was irrelevant... and, you also basically said what I already said.  | |
|  |  |  |  |  bsoft join:2004-03-28 Boulder, CO | Re: Comcast will modify business plan if TV moves to internet With cable, two satellite carriers, and many more places having a 4th choice.. the monopoly term is a little outdated... Satellite is not an option in my area, and Qwest doesn't offer TV. I'm not sure how to describe Comcast being my only option for pay TV as being anything other than a 'monopoly'.
That's your fault.. WHERE you live is your choice.. neither the cable or satellite carriers tell you where to live.. If your argument is that there's competition because I could move, that's total BS. You might as well argue that the power company has competition because I could move to a different area with different choices.
When you look for an apartment next time, perhaps you should ask for a southern facing unit. Some of us aren't going to spend eons fighting the landlord to get a dish up. The fact that the FCC says it's legal doesn't mean that it's easy.
Also, no level of further excuse will work. You can't say there are no more available.. there's always other complexes or apartment buildings. So, what you're saying is that there's competition elsewhere, just not where I live. Which is exactly what I said.
Nothing new here... While basic cable is about $60 a month now, 10 years ago it was about $35 a month.. people bitched back then too about prices.. 15 years before that basic cable was about $25 a month and guess what, people bitched then too.. so what's going to change in 10 more years? Prices will still go up, people will still bitch. What's different is that there are a range of new alternatives today. It's hard to argue that Internet TV competes seriously with cable right now, but it's likely that it will become a stronger competitor in the future.
What's different is that Internet TV will most likely be ala-carte, with providers like Amazon or Apple/iTunes selling programs instead of one big subscription. The success of per-song music downloads and DVD box sets for TV indicate that there is at least a substantial market willing to pay for 'ownership' of a program instead of paying month-to-month for a subscription service.
Ummm... not enough to matter. What you're getting on the internet is basically the scraps.. left overs.. yesterday's stuff... and for many people, great... they are okay with that. The future of Internet Video is not 'free' content like Hulu - it's in paid downloads. That could happen as subscription services (e.g. like Netflix) or as pay-per-download (e.g. like iTunes or Amazon). It's also possible that both models will succeed.
And, while you may not want to pay $100 a month for TV and HSI, the fact is that as TV revenue decreases and is replaced by the internet, the price AND value of that internet will rise.. period. I agree that the amount people spend on TV + Internet will be relatively stable or even increase. The question is who will be getting that revenue.
And this is a GOOD thing? For real? You'd rather go direct to the "crooks" and pay them?? I mean, REALLY? There are a lot of problems with the content industry, but, yeah, I generally am OK with someone like Discovery or Viacom being paid for the programming they commission.
ummm.. WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY DO NOW?? They're a consignment business... EVEN if they only get paid for the "transport" of the content, they're still going to make up a profit on that as well.. Right now they negotiate with content providers and set rates for customers.
In the future, it's likely that consumers will interact with content providers directly. That gives Comcast less ability to dictate prices for transport because transport is a commodity. There are far more options for Internet than there are for TV; I have Qwest and Comcast, plus several local WISPs.
Let me correct your inaccurate statement. "BASIC CABLE" is not as hugely profitable as you think. Basic cable basically breaks even and pays bills. They make a good amount of money on the premium channels and PPV, but where they make their biggest chunk of video revenue is Ad Insertion sales. If you have a reference for this, I'd love to see it.
A substantial portion of your monthly fee goes to the content companies already. Of the $55 you spend, Comcast nets maybe half after programming fees. Again, references. Figures I have seen are far higher, although they were for Echostar which may not have Comcast's negotiating power.
It's not really so "tiny" as you make it sound. It costs about $12 per month per subscriber. While that is about a 70% profit margin, where do you think so much of their system rebuild money comes from, and other expenses... ? Pretty much any other business would kill for a 70% margin. Talk to your power company and ask what kind of margin they have, and they also spend a significant amount on maintenance and construction.
Also, where does your $12/mo figure come from? Is that all-inclusive, including plant maintenance, customer service, billing, and other incidentals? It is most certainly not a bandwidth cost figure unless Comcast is massively overpaying for bandwidth.
You do that, they're going to need to make up for the loss in revenue elsewhere.. you think they're going to jack up the price of their phone to compensate for that? It doesn't work that way. Companies don't figure out what their costs are, add some fudge figure, and make that their price. They charge what the market (or, in some cases, regulations) will allow them to charge. Comcast can't jack up HSI prices to compensate for lost video revenue unless their competitors do the same. And Internet is far more competitive than video service. There are more providers and there is less product differentiation.
Qwest isn't going to jack up their prices because of lot video revenue because they don't have much video revenue (only their deal with DirecTV). The local WISPs don't have video revenue either.
Historically Comcast has raised HSI prices far less aggressively than video prices. That's not because they're generous, it's because they're concerned that higher HSI prices could drive users to other services.
If Comcast can differentiate their HSI product by offering superior service to other services, they can probably command a price premium. But that won't hold up very well if they attempt to double the cost of HSI service. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 | Re: Comcast will modify business plan if TV moves to internet The first half of your reply basically said nothing. The point is that YOU have a choice.. the choice is YOURS to make. I don't pity anyone that won't help themselves.
You DO have choices in TV... Satellite is available to anyone.. if YOU are not willing to live in an area or CHOSE a place where you can have satellite, then tough luck.. again, YOU have a choice. I'm honestly sick and tired of people complaining they don't have access to EVERYTHING available at EVERY address they CHOSE to live. When you chose to live in an apartment, you also have to accept that you're going to give up certain things that others can in fact have. And yes, living in an apartment is a choice.. maybe not a direct choice, but an indirect choice.. and before you go off on that, I'm sorry to say, the choices you make start WAY before you become an adult. (Think about that one)
And no, it's NOT "total BS" becuase you could move... the fact you CHOSE not to move is your problem, no one else's. Your argument on power doesn't even apply here. First off, power is a requirement and regulated by the government who also believes the price they charge you is okay. Second, you don't have to move to a different "area" to get satellite.. sometimes you just need a south facing view. And maybe not a 'different area' as in power, but across the street. Again, YOUR choice.
If you don't want to fight your landlord, don't rent from them in the first place. FIGURE IT OUT before you move in, how about that? Second, write the FCC.. it doesn't take long to set the LL straight.. again, YOUR choice. And, you STILL don't have the right to mount any dishes.. there are land based options that they can't even stop you from using. But, please, keep making excuses.
As for "competition elsewhere".. um... moving across the street, or down the road is not really talking about competition.. you can't be so narrow.. hell, there are people that live in HOUSES that can't get satellite becuase of trees.. again, that's not going to change anything on the large scheme as the "AREA" or "CITY" and often the "METRO" does offer you choice... find something that works for YOU.
As for "internet TV" competing with cable.. there is no competition becuase there IS NO internet TV.. there are video streams you can get.. it's not "TV"... there is a difference. The reason there is no "competition" right now is because there is no demand for it either.
I also disagree that the future of TV is in paid downloads... that's just about as strong as saying people "want to pay for the internet by the byte"... also, the main viewership of TV remains primetime TV.. that's now "downloadable" in the eyes of most people.. like I said, they want to watch those shows when they're still live.
as for agreeing with me that $100 is the amount people will spend on TV and internet.. you missed the point; not surprised tho. What's going to happen is that shrinking cable TV revenue will only drive up the cost of the broadband that will carry it... ADD ON TOP OF THAT your pay per view TV shows. People already hate paying for TV, that's clear.. you REALLY think people are going to want to pay per show they watch? REALLY? Think about it.. Basic cable is already about $60 a month... TV shows are certainly not going to cost $0.99 a show.. think more about $2 or more a show on an all PPV ala cart scheme. If people watch even 20 streams, you're at $40 a month.. already not a good deal.. That $60 basic cable fee looks like a better value to me and then I don't have to worry about hand selecting a TV show and finding out AFTER I purchased the VIEW of that show that it sucked.
You also think that cable companies somehow drive the costs of shows up.. you're wrong. There is something about buying in bulk that keeps costs DOWN... if one on one customers negotiate, I mean, have to buy directly from the source itself, there is NO predictability on future revenue in that model and yes, the prices will go up.. so I'm sorry to tell you, but cable and satellite in the mix, your costs is actually lower. See the last paragraph as to the why.
As for the statement I made on basic cable profits.. I am the source.. I used to work in the finance department of a major cable company.. I know the numbers. Anything else, you can do your own homework.
As for the amount of what goes into the content providers.. that's no hidden fact. The average BASIC cable channel ranges from $0.50 to $0.65 per channel. That's about $42 a month in costs. Take about $18 left over, factor in maintaining the plant and other expenses to caring for the customer.. it's about a break even expense. Its also clear you don't really follow the industry much becuase price per network is often discussed, even around here. SOME networks want more money, like Fox News wants $1.00 per customer while lifetime, for example, wants about $0.45 per customer. Again, you can do your own homework.
The $12 per month per customer on HSI? @home, when they went bankrupt, was very public about the fact it cost $9 per customer to operate and they were a third party carrier. The rest, again, you can figure it out.
Now.. the last thing I'm going to respond to, becuase this really is pointless - sorry... "Loss of revenue from a shift in the market"... You TOTALLY didn't read my point on my comments.. Companies have HARD costs they have to pay for things like their Network, staff, advertising, power.. etc. Those costs don't change. It still takes nearly the same amount of manpower to keep a plant running be it 1, 2 or 3 services running over it. With that said, they have to SUSTAIN (there is a term you need to understand better) a certain amount of revenue. IF HSI eats BIG into video, that means that the loss of video revenue has to be made up elsewhere.. and that IS going to come in play with the dominant product, in this case, HSI. YES, there will be some trimming back of expenses, but not a whole lot... some staff cuts, yes.. that's about it. I am totally aware of market bearing pricing.. however, you also make it sound like Comcast is going make a major change right now before others.. however, at the same time, Qwest, in your example, is NO WHERE NEAR able to keep up with what Comcast can as far as HSI.. their measly 1.5 DSL is not going to allow for what we're talking about - streaming TV. So therefore, that *say) $90 a month 200meg cable modem line that CAN stream TV will in fact be of value to people. You also forget that pay per video over the internet is LONG into the future.. a lot can change before then.
Sorry, no need to continue on.. your speculation (not based on anything really factual) isn't worth going over again.
Oh.. one last thing.. the reason Comcast has raised TV prices over HSI is becuase TV/VIDEO has a direct cost associated to it from the vendors they consign for.. that means when contracts go for renewal and their prices are raised, they're going to pass that on to the customer.. price increases from video vendors happen regularly.. HSI is another story. And comcast's HSI is quite honestly "superior" in the grand scheme to other providers.. they also will have DS 3.0 available to their entire footprint before the end of the year making them the largest operator with the fastest speeds available nationwide to more customers than any other provider... but please, continue to prove my points.. and your own.  | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  bsoft join:2004-03-28 Boulder, CO 1 edit | Re: Comcast will modify business plan if TV moves to internet I'm not going to argue this more - it's pointless. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  1 edit | How do you have the time to endlessly argue things that simply aren't true? | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 | Re: Comcast will modify business plan if TV moves to internet ... and time to add you to ignore as well. I swear, I think you like to post and argue things you don't know much about just to post.. | |
|
 |  |  SnowymIRC unix.ro UnderNetPremium join:2003-04-05 Kailua, HI kudos:5 Reviews:
·Clearwire Wireless
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by fiberguy:I guess mom saying "there's give and take" never stuck with too many folk around these parts. I guess there's people who talk about mom's lesson on morality but only believe in the 2nd part of it. | |
|  |  |  bsoft join:2004-03-28 Boulder, CO | .. and either way, they're not going to change it... when there is change, it's not just one sided.. I guess mom saying "there's give and take" never stuck with too many folk around these parts. We've been successful so far in changing it. Look at TWC's attempts to introduce metered billing.
There's this attitude that metered billing is inevitable. I think that's BS. If anything, we're moving away from metered billing - look at long distance service, consumer Internet access, or cell phone minutes. All of these were at one point almost exclusively metered, and are now either exclusively un-metered or at least trending in that direction.
We'll see whether or not providers can pull off metered billing. If it's well-disguised and done by all providers at once, it might work. If not, well, I think we'll continue to see repeats of the TWC debacle. | |
|
 | | hes right as all life forms it progresses into something bigger as in this case...expensive
think im wrong how much food does a single cell creature need vs YOU. | |
|  RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium join:2001-08-25 Kendall, FL kudos:2 | Get rid of the investors... I think it's time Comcast become a private company. It's time that corporations stop looking to investors for approval, but instead to customers! | |
|  |  cacoPremium join:2005-03-10 Whittier, AK | Re: Get rid of the investors... Only works if all of Comcast competitors due the same , if not than Comcast would be at a disadvantage. | |
|  |  |  | | Re: Get rid of the investors... I would have to strongly disagree with this comment.
The ONLY thing investors do FOR a company is bring in capital to expand or get started. Beyond those 2 things there is no point in even offering shares to the company.
Once a company is firmly established and turning good profits there is no need for investors as all they do at that point is take revenue from the company and become leeches. Money that could be used to reinvest for growth, improvements, or new technologies is instead paid out in dividends. Investors are a cancer to profitable companies. | |
|  |  |  |  cacoPremium join:2005-03-10 Whittier, AK | Re: Get rid of the investors... Not all companies offer dividends. Companies having to borrow money at x interest rates is not as effective as just selling x amount of shares on the market. -- Politicians and diapers have one thing in common. They should both be changed regularly, and for the same reason. | |
|
 |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 | Unfortunately their market cap currently would leave the richest man in the world with little left over...I don't think going private will ever hapen. | |
|  |  Pullo join:2009-06-18 Reading, PA | It's already run like a private company with Brian Roberts controlling 33 1/3 of the voting stock with a minimal equity stake and a compliant board of directors. | |
|  |  | | Being one of the largest tv and phone providers and arguably the largest internet provider in the US shows they are doing something right for customers. | |
|  |  |  | | Re: Get rid of the investors... LOL, that's good stuff.
You don't think it has anything to do with a lack of competition do you? | |
|  |  |  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 | Re: Get rid of the investors... said by Skippy25:LOL, that's good stuff. You don't think it has anything to do with a lack of competition do you? LOL , not at all.
Ummmm... here's a word for you that everyone loves to say.. "duopoly"... since they only compete with one other provider, usually,... phone.. how is that changing things? They price their product, HSI, pretty much the same all across the country. They're in line with just about every other cable operator on price, yet have some of the faster speeds. Even in Fios areas, Comcast is till seeming to hold their own...
Since the phone company offers an HSI product for less money, yet cable still has more customers AND charges more.. what does that say about competition.. MAYBE, just MAYBE they do offer a better product in the minds of some people. | |
|  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Get rid of the investors... said by fiberguy:said by Skippy25:LOL, that's good stuff. You don't think it has anything to do with a lack of competition do you? LOL , not at all. Ummmm... here's a word for you that everyone loves to say.. "duopoly"... since they only compete with one other provider, usually,... phone.. how is that changing things? They price their product, HSI, pretty much the same all across the country. They're in line with just about every other cable operator on price, yet have some of the faster speeds. Even in Fios areas, Comcast is till seeming to hold their own... Since the phone company offers an HSI product for less money, yet cable still has more customers AND charges more.. what does that say about competition.. MAYBE, just MAYBE they do offer a better product in the minds of some people. Exactly, people complain when Comcast is the only provider, "oh, its a monopoly!!!". If there is 2 providers in the area, all of a sudden it's "Oh, but now its a duoploy!!!""
Lol, so what, if there are 3 providers its "it's a triopoly"
Where does it end? -- I'll do it later. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Get rid of the investors... said by LeftOfSanity:said by fiberguy:said by Skippy25:LOL, that's good stuff. You don't think it has anything to do with a lack of competition do you? LOL , not at all. Ummmm... here's a word for you that everyone loves to say.. "duopoly"... since they only compete with one other provider, usually,... phone.. how is that changing things? They price their product, HSI, pretty much the same all across the country. They're in line with just about every other cable operator on price, yet have some of the faster speeds. Even in Fios areas, Comcast is till seeming to hold their own... Since the phone company offers an HSI product for less money, yet cable still has more customers AND charges more.. what does that say about competition.. MAYBE, just MAYBE they do offer a better product in the minds of some people. Exactly, people complain when Comcast is the only provider, "oh, its a monopoly!!!". If there is 2 providers in the area, all of a sudden it's "Oh, but now its a duoploy!!!"" Lol, so what, if there are 3 providers its "it's a triopoly" Where does it end? It ends at duopoly, which is what most people have. I hate repeating this like a broken record, but studies have shown that cartel-like behavior exists in any market as long as there are 4 or less competitors. | |
|
 |  markofmayhemI can haz competition?Premium join:2004-04-08 Pittsburgh, PA kudos:4 | Adelphia.
Sometimes having investors is the better way. | |
|
 guppy_fishPremium join:2003-12-09 Lakeland, FL kudos:1 | Pay by bit The only way internet costs more than TV ( and TV is constantly increasing in cost ) is metered billing, They will give you a DOCIS 3 modem , 50mbs and then charge by the BIT ( not kilo or mega, just plain bit, think text messaging ) | |
|  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon Online DSL
| So... Sounds like the average internet bill will go up to the average TV bill...or the average internet + TV bill?
Already the standard-tier internet service has increased from ~$56 to ~$60 per month including modem rental here. Might go up some more later. Comcast is investing in infrastructure to be sure, but they have plenty of money to do this; their rates are higher than everyone else's but on the other hand their service is better so you've got a bit of a dilemma: pay more for service that's halfway decent or pay less for crap. There's no competition to speak of where I am; Qwest sits squarely below Comcast in speeds and prices, and I don't want to go back to 700 kbps upload speeds when I can get 2+ Mbps.
That said, if Comcast internet creeps over the $70 level for their stadard tier (you know, like digital cable is now once you add in boxes etc.) then I'm going to have to leave. | |
|  | | metered billing If they give you 100Mbs for $0 a month and charge by the GB I think it is worth it. Imagine you're billed 5 cents a GB. | |
|  |  | | Re: metered billing My prediction for that metered billing pricing plan: It would likely be more like $30 a month for the wire to be there, $10 to $15 a month for each box (you now have to connect the TV to the internet), and at least $10 a month for that modem. They will charge $1 per GB during off peak hours up to 50GB. Peak hours will be charged at $3/GB, over 50GB will be $5/GB on or off peak. They may offer discounted nights and weekends, but only up to 10GB a month.
Now, if I could pay $10 a month for the pipe to be there, not pay outrageous rental fees, and only have to pay for what I use at about 10 cents per GB up to 250GB and 15 cents per GB OVER, that would be great. If they went to that model, they would be losing money on MANY people, so don't get yer hopes up. | |
|  |  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 | Re: metered billing Personally, I think it won't really go straight usage base billing.
I am guessing you will have several options on how you buy the internet ...
1) Same as you do now.. monthly with a cap for a set price for speeds you choose.
2) Same as you do now.. however, lower monthly caps, reduced prices, and add overage charges to that... bundled services.
3) Unbundled HSI accounts (no TV or phone) will most likely be where you have pure billing by the byte.. You pay a basic line charge of $10 or $15 (like DSL used to do) and then you pay for usage that you use.. all of it. You could/may also see that line charge rate be based on speed ability (same as DSL used to be as a standard)..
4) Unbundled HSI accounts (no TV or phone) flat rate with caps but at a MUCH higher rate than just $10 more a month over bundled services. Meaning, a base flat rate capped service would be more like $89.99 a month instead of the current average $42.99 per month.
It's hard to say.. but as it was stated before, there is still a certain amount of revenue they need to maintain the system and operate the business. As one product (HSI) erodes their core VIDEO product for a new/upcoming technology/delivery method, it's only bound to raise the cost of that product .... here we are again to value pricing (and don't think of value as savings,.. think of value as in what that service MEANS to you) and also pricing on what the market can handle .. (and by "handle" I mean, when you stop paying for linear video to get it over the HSI connection, then YOUR budget should be able to handle MORE to pay for the very product that replaced it)
Keep in mind, some people won't be buying video at all.. this is why I think they are going to have several billing options for customers. Some will simply take NO video in their home at all,... some will have satellite.. with that, I CAN see raising the rates of non-video customers who have satellite will put a pinch on Satellite subscribers especially when they can't get DSL or another carrier for HSI.
Its really hard to say, and too early to tell (a bit premature anyway) where things are going to go right now. While there is a feeling like everything's about to change, it really isn't.. while some techies (especially here) are wanting video over the internet, MANY people are not wanting that yet.. they may get a movie or several from the internet over BluRay players or other devices, but they're still getting their service linear. Until you see a huge dent in Satellite even, I'd not worry about billing by the byte.. we haven't even seen what 4G internet providers are going to do yet.. and I think there is a BIG answer there.. | |
|
 kpfx join:2005-10-28 San Antonio, TX Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Thoughts on Metered Billing As services such as TV, Phone, and Internet (and soon video gaming, movie rentals, etc) are turning into nothing more than data streams, its obvious things will be changing soon. I know Metered billing is not a popular topic, and I'm adamantly against all the current proposals, ideas, and cost metrics I've seen these accounting and marketing guys have thrown out there because I think they got blinded by $$....
But.... just brainstorming here. I really don't think metered billing would be all that bad if priced and structured correctly.
As it is right now all my utilities are metered. Electricity, water, gas, and even sewage and trash are all billed as usage-based. Yet, if I do nothing but surf the internet for a whole month, I still pay for my TV and phone service regardless if I used it. Vise-versa on the Internet.... I may be gone on vacation for the entire month but still have that $100 bill due when I get back (and a $30 electric bill for that month too).
So.... with one camp screaming that Internet access should be a utility, why shouldn't it be billed like one? What if I was only paying $0.25 per gig on a 100 Mbps connection (or even 1,000 Mbps)? What if that cost per gig was even lower if I bundled my voice and TV services (and lets assume it even comes in on that one pipe)?
Just a thought. | |
|  | | It's easy... I can about wrap this all up with two words...Corporate Greed.
Also...if the day comes when P2P is somehow eliminated, it'll be a big wake up call when providers realize that 1/3 to 1/2 of internet traffic is p2p... and then bandwidth demand will drop drastically resulting in tons of people downgrading their connections...save for people that do HD streaming or something like that.
And yeah...with the way Comcast is solidifying it's online usage meter's accuracy, you can bet your @$$ metered billing isn't far behind. | |
|  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 | Re: It's easy... You just said SOOO much, while saying soooo little there bud....
How do you get "corporate greed" when you also just said that 1/2 to 1/3 of use is p2p, which is what they've been having problems with in the first place? They're saying that P2P is causing them expense and congestion on the last mile connection..
I think you answered your own question, and the answer was wrong.. it's not corporate greed.
What you, and many fail to remember as well is that things were fine BEFORE these so-called "pioneers" starting their idiotic so-called battles to fight being disconnected after using hundreds and hundreds of gigs, into the TBs per month.. First off, they weren't using their connections for "typical residential use" so they violated their TOS and got booted.. second, they forced the hand of ISPs to "define" what is "excessive use"... and guess what.. you got it! .. and now people sit back saying WTF and getting pissed?? I've said this all along.. "be careful what you ask for, because you won't like what you're going to get".. and here we are, two years later...
.. pretty nice. (And people TRY to call me wrong.. hah!)
.. oh yea.. "greed".. Still, what's funny, is that 95% to 98% of all HSI customers out there don't even care, becuase they don't need to.. they don't go on internet binges downloading everything in site... or running servers on their lines running up their usage. Most people are FAR below the caps that Comcast has placed. | |
|  |  |  | | Re: It's easy... said by fiberguy:And people TRY to call me wrong.. hah! Try? It's actually not that difficult to prove you wrong. | |
|  |  |  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 | Re: It's easy... said by digitalfreak:said by fiberguy:And people TRY to call me wrong.. hah! Try? It's actually not that difficult to prove you wrong. Ummm... try again... so far, I have a very long track record of being right... but, you believe what you want.. what ever makes you sleep better at night... a'ight?
Oh, and please... I come to the forum with facts... people like you regularly come with 'Utopian Opinions' regarding the perfect world... like I said, what ever makes you sleep better.. | |
|  |  |  |  |  | | Re: It's easy... said by fiberguy:said by digitalfreak:said by fiberguy:And people TRY to call me wrong.. hah! Try? It's actually not that difficult to prove you wrong. Ummm... try again... so far, I have a very long track record of being right... but, you believe what you want.. what ever makes you sleep better at night... a'ight? Oh, and please... I come to the forum with facts... people like you regularly come with 'Utopian Opinions' regarding the perfect world... like I said, what ever makes you sleep better.. You have a track record of writing people to sleep with poorly written, hopelessly long posts filled with false claims and baseless accusations against everyone but the corporate CEOs. | |
|
 ScreeIn the pipe 5 by 5 join:2001-04-24 Mount Laurel, NJ | bah This reminds me, time to downgrade my service before the $2 increase. :/ | |
|  Eek2121Lovin Verizon FIOS join:2002-10-12 Newton, NJ | Alternatives... Yep, it'll evolve alright, and the second it becomes disruptive to the consumer, an alternative will emerge. | |
|  Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| KAH CHING $$$$$??? Evolve sound very similar to price gouging when a ceo or other white collar anal_yst/employee spouts at either end about increased profits from broadband. docsis 3 isn't creating the competitive punch it SHOULD have with both carriers charging tremendously high prices for the products. we all know that once broadband becomes the juggernaut that video as a block of take it or leave it channels will be in jeopardy of going "wanting" for subscribers. comcast is in such a monopoly position in the cable/last mile industry that if they should push any further ANTI-COMPETITIVE crap you will have to tar & feather and lynch mob this company (almost to corporate death), IMO!
And, yeah.. same deal for Verizon!
PS. when AT&T finally comes to the party with a 50 megabit tier.. them too. | |
|  |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ kudos:4 | Evolve huh is that what they're calling rape/gouge pricing these days? | |
|  |  |
 djcrazy join:2009-08-05 Minneapolis, MN Reviews:
·Comcast
1 edit | I doubt it. Maybe a restructuring, but thats it. Would be nice if they offered other higher bandwidth use tiers however or maybe a small charge (say 15 cents per GB used over the cap). I think that is fair and reasonable and a better alternative than disconnecting heavy users. A 12/2 HSI connection is base priced at $42.95 and has a 250 GB cap. If someone used 250 GB over the cap then it would cost them an extra $37.50 that month. This way heavy users have the option of using more but will police themselves. If they want to use more then get a business connection. I do think however that the 50/10 option should come with a higher cap though, say 500 GB.
I am a bit disgusted over the video portion however because governments tack so many extra taxes and fees to it. Add to that, I think too many cable networks have far too many infomercials and Comcast should use this as an argument for a rate DECREASE from those program vendors.
As for HSI, I used to complain but now the speeds have gotten so good that I can say I am happy.
On a side note, I just rebuilt a computer for a friend of mine at work. He lives in the sticks so dialup is his only option. Just tonight he brought it back to me so I could add another piece of hardware and he asked me to download Avast for him because after 3 days he could never get a completed download.
It took me 11 seconds to download that 44 MB file. Needless to say, I did a printscreen of the download dialog and saved the .jpg for him to look at in horror  | |
|
 | |
|
|