dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
FiOS Keeping Cable Prices In Check
Cable speeds increase, prices don't...
by Karl Bode 09:49AM Monday Dec 29 2008
Research firm Pike and Fisher notes that while cable broadband speeds are increasing, cable broadband prices are staying level, thanks in large part to competition from FiOS. While broadband services from cable operators continue in the $40-$45 range, standard cable modem speeds have climbed from an average high of three megabits per second in 2004 to today's typical 10-15 Mbps (or up to 50Mbps in some markets). Says Pike & Fischer contributing analyst Mitchell Shapiro:
quote:
"As Verizon has rolled out FiOS Internet and TV services in more and more communities, the market has seen an increasing variety of prices and data rates, as cable operators respond to FiOS launches [and to a lesser extent similar services from AT&T and Qwest Communications] on an increasingly market-by-market basis."
Of course on the flip side, cable TV rates continue to rise, many carriers are continually offering fewer services, and have plans to impose new service limitations (caps, overages). Many carriers also continue to bury price hikes in below the line fees, allowing them to keep their advertised price the same while gleaning more revenue per consumer.

view:
topics flat nest 

ddg4005
Premium
join:2001-08-22
Bronx, NY

FiOS Keeping Cable Prices In Check

If this is true imagine the pressure the cables companies will be under as the footprint for Fios expands. Looks like the heat is on for sho'; now let's see which provider melts first.
--
A man must have a code -Bunk

n2jtx

join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY

Re: FiOS Keeping Cable Prices In Check

said by ddg4005:

If this is true imagine the pressure the cables companies will be under as the footprint for Fios expands. Looks like the heat is on for sho'; now let's see which provider melts first.
For data perhaps but I doubt for video. As the article points out, both services are raising video prices. Most of that is probably do to the ever increasing charges the content providers charge and the lack of al a carte options will cause video to rise forever.

The competition on data is quite noticeable. When I first got Optimum Online in 2001 it was $39.95. I was about six months into my contract when the price went up to $49.95 but was not effected until the contract expired. Since that time, competition has forced the price to stay at $49.95.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears.
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

Re: FiOS Keeping Cable Prices In Check

Promo prices always expire but on average usually only DSL providers raise the price of their services. Cable usually stays at a flat rate. The only time its lowered is for new customer promos.

But my provider isn't raising video or Internet prices. We also get more speed than what U-Verse will provide us at a lower cost.
nasadude

join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
I wouldn't get too excited - in many areas, the arrival of FIOS just means either a duopoly instead of a monopoly or fiber instead of DSL where there already is a duopoly.

I think the only reason broadband prices haven't gone up is because their profit margin is so huge already. Also, instead of raising broadband prices they are doing sh1t like caps, throttling, etc. to make sure you don't use more than they want you to.

Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus

join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY

1 edit

Better living through Chemicals

This report illustrates the cosmic rule discovered in San Fransico around 1969 by none other then Freewheelin Franklin. "Dope will get you through no times of no money better the Money will get you through times of no dope" Who ever wrote this piece must have not have any money.
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption

fruhead

join:2002-01-29
Mosquito,NJ

Re: Better living through Chemicals

said by Transmaster:

This report illustrates the cosmic rule discovered in San Fransico around 1969 by none other then Freewheelin Franklin. "Dope will get you through no times of no money better the Money will get you through times of no dope" Who ever wrote this piece must have not have any money.
The investigative work was done by one F. Fredrick Skitty, noted quadriped.

jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL

2 recommendations

Non sequitur

I call bullshit.

I've been paying the same price for internet service since 2002, LONG before FIOS was a glimmer in Verizon's eye. The article attempts to tie apparently related phenomenon into a cause/effect relationship, which is a logical fallacy.

dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18

Re: Non sequitur

said by jester121:

I call bullshit.

I've been paying the same price for internet service since 2002, LONG before FIOS was a glimmer in Verizon's eye. The article attempts to tie apparently related phenomenon into a cause/effect relationship, which is a logical fallacy.
Agreed!
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

3 recommendations

Re: Non sequitur

BIG time agreed. I about fell off my chair when I started reading the headlining story here on BBR. I haven't seen a price increase in HSI since I had the service in 2001.

Second, what they also fail to realize is that the internet and video services are two totally different creatures. The internet is a product born from different vendors and pieces that make it up. Prices are much more stable there. Television on the other hand is built from the rich elite in Hollywood and the lawyers, execs, organizations, and of course, people like John Travolta need their money so they can support their house staff and small fleet of air planes. (In other words, the entertainment industry is largely priced off of salary and contracts of all the players which ultimately is passed on to the subscribers)

aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
said by jester121:

I call bullshit.

I've been paying the same price for internet service since 2002, LONG before FIOS was a glimmer in Verizon's eye. The article attempts to tie apparently related phenomenon into a cause/effect relationship, which is a logical fallacy.
Prices in my area kept going up from comcast with little increase in speed. As soon as FIOS entered the market Comcast started increasing their speeds without increasing the price.
Without FIOS, Comcast would have had no reason to increase the speeds without price increases.

jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL

Re: Non sequitur

said by aaronwt:

Without FIOS, Comcast would have had no reason to increase the speeds without price increases.
See, that speculation just doesn't hold water. I live in Illinois which is far from FIOS territory, so by your logic I should be getting price increases. Instead all we get are speed increases for the same price.

aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA

1 edit

Re: Non sequitur

said by jester121:

said by aaronwt:

Without FIOS, Comcast would have had no reason to increase the speeds without price increases.
See, that speculation just doesn't hold water. I live in Illinois which is far from FIOS territory, so by your logic I should be getting price increases. Instead all we get are speed increases for the same price.
This is for my area, not yours.

And on the flip side, the reason FIOS offers their internet coonection so cheap, was because of Comcast . iinitially had the 30/5 tier for $55 because comcast had 30mbs powerboost in my area in Summer 2007. then FIOS offered the 50/20 tier for $90 this past June. Without the competition, neither provider would have the incentive to offer those speeds at the low rate.

jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1

Re: Non sequitur

I've been seeing a bit of a price/performance war in my region between Comcast and FiOS.

When Comcast came out with their digital voice service, Verizon immediately fired back with a similarly priced free nationwide phone service with all of the premium features like caller ID and call forwarding included at the exact same price. I'm also seeing the $90 price for the FiOS 50/20 tier, although Verizon publicly advertises this tier at $140.

I believe the competing FTTH technology is forcing many cable providers to expedite their move to a DOCSIS 3.0 system much sooner than they would have otherwise been prompted to do so on their own accord. Even those areas not in direct competition with FiOS may reap the benefits of improved infrastructure and service. If they cannot improve their product in many of these regions, when FiOS or a similar service is made available, it will be very difficult to retain customers if the gap in service is too great. Some of the improvements being made are simply attempts to proactively keep FiOS from stepping in with a vastly improved product and gobbling up an established user base.

And while the cable companies are able to offer similar speed packages on the surface, the reality is that this is more of a marketing gimmick. The fact is that in many of these areas they are simply overselling the service and have to use drastic measures to regulate and throttle the bandwidth consumption at these inflated speed offerings. With some exceptions, a 16/2 Comcast service with PowerBoost is not an equal product to a 20/5 FiOS connection. Having had FiOS now for a couple of months after being with Comcast for over 2 years, I'd prefer a 10/2 fiber service to my previous Comcast cable service. It's simply a more robust, higher quality product through and through for me.
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

1 edit
Comcast has been talking about 100mb speeds since back in 1997. And, that conversation was held in Sacramento CA which is no where near Verizon territory. I'm sure that cable speeds have been pushed solely and purely on Verizon's FiOS product.

I think the so-called professional analysts and the not-so professional analysts want people to think that we'd not see new technology ever to come unless there was competition. I can't say that I'd agree that services would not have improved. Cable, alone, went from a simple antenna feed run through the hills picking up locals for the neighbors to a small amplified system, to microwaved, to fiber links to nodes all with out real competition. It was done to improve service and also add more capacity. Does this give more selling options? Sure.. that alone would drive the improvements. However, keeping the prices down? ... that's another story..

.. the moral to the story is that (and as I've been saying here for years) competition doesn't necessarily keep the prices down.. regulation GENERALLY does more-so. If you don't believe me, look at gas stations on opposing corners. One simply waits to raise the price when the others do. Airlines are also guilty of this as well. As soon as one raises their fare, the others generally follow.

This who article is nothing but someone's speculation and not fact... but in the end, the author has to write an article to get paid.
Corydon
Cultivant son jardin
Premium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO
said by aaronwt:

said by jester121:

I call bullshit.

I've been paying the same price for internet service since 2002, LONG before FIOS was a glimmer in Verizon's eye. The article attempts to tie apparently related phenomenon into a cause/effect relationship, which is a logical fallacy.
Prices in my area kept going up from comcast with little increase in speed. As soon as FIOS entered the market Comcast started increasing their speeds without increasing the price.
Without FIOS, Comcast would have had no reason to increase the speeds without price increases.
If this logic is true, then why was Minneapolis-St. Paul (part of Qwest's, not Verizon's footprint) one of the first cities to get the faster speeds from Comcast?
--
"2 Strangers + 1 20 minute ceremony + $50 + 10 shots of tequila = Holy Matrimony and 1st Class Protections Under the Law… now that’s crazy!"

jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1

Re: Non sequitur

said by Corydon:

If this logic is true, then why was Minneapolis-St. Paul (part of Qwest's, not Verizon's footprint) one of the first cities to get the faster speeds from Comcast?
It's a nice place to test out a new technology before going head to head with FiOS. It's almost guaranteed that FiOS is indirectly responsible for the increased speeds in the Twin Cities.

Others tend to agree.

»www.telecompetitor.com/node/588

"Comcast probably picked a non-FiOS market like Minneapolis to perfect their “craft” before going head up with Verizon. They’ll want to gain some experience in a more competitive friendly town before going to battle."
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

Re: Non sequitur

The others that "tend to agree" are again speculating. The reason that Comcast Minnesota got the new speeds first is in part of its system rating in the bunch.

The keyword in your quoted paragraph was "probably" to which I can tell you was pretty much a false guess.

Comcast Minnesota is a A/B rated system. Its in good condition, the leakage is very low, the return path system here is clean, and many other factors made this system a good choice for it. The St. Paul system has always been a very well run system for comcast... and the system was just ready for it. Compared to other cities, St Paul is a very clean, well run system and has always been ahead of the curve of other systems.

To be honest, products have launched in other markets that were not quite perfected. Comcast simply works through all the good and bad along side the competition. I don't think anyone here can say why Comcast does anything they way they do.. the decisions that are made never seem to follow any pattern from before. Also, Comcast has, over the years, been more tight lipped on it's plans vs shouting them out to the world as they had in the past.

jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1

Re: Non sequitur

My opinion on the matter, despite reading Comcast's defensive squirming about the Minnesota deployment of DOCSIS 3.0 not being about competition, remains unchanged. There are plenty of systems that Comcast could have chosen, but they preferred to implement this in an area with little or no competition offering anything comparable. This is the perfect climate to trial something new and relatively untested. The environment was more controlled.

And now that Comcast has started deploying DOCSIS 3.0 almost exclusively in FiOS areas, such as Fort Wayne, Indiana, or proposed FiOS locations, such as their threatened Philadelphia base of operations, I feel even more strongly about this position. The Minneapolis test site was chosen out of all the possible locations due, in large part, to competition from FiOS. This is despite Comcast's claims stating otherwise.

I simply believe that Comcast would not make such a critical decision without careful consideration of their competition.
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

Re: Non sequitur

Defensive squirming huh?

Almost exclusively?

Sounds like those two statements, alone, allow me to put my money on the fact that it really is just 'your opinion'... I gave you some pretty clear facts as to why the system was chosen for DOCSIS 3.0.. also, while some people think that everything revolves about the internet, you may also not know that the MN system was also a test bed for many other products and services too...

.. but again, it's all about HSI theories.

jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1

Re: Non sequitur

You are simply repeating what Comcast has already stated back in April.

»www.lightreading.com/document.as···site=cdn

"...the Twin Cities have established a solid track record in testing and deploying new technologies..."

I agree that the test site selection was chosen, in part, because of the excellent condition of the system. That much is obvious to me. Great infrastructure, a metropolitan area with plenty of potential customers and traffic, and no real competition in the area with a product that currently competes with the services undergoing testing.

I don't know why it's so difficult for you to believe that the lack of competition had anything to do with the test site selection. Unless this is personal to you for some reason? Nobody wants to test a race car in an actual competition before going a few laps on a test track.

It's clear to me that the pricing models and speed tiers that Comcast decided upon while testing are currently set to compete directly with Verizon's FiOS offerings. This is all about competition with FiOS, including the choice in where to begin their testing. Comcast's denial plays right along with how they always seem to react when FiOS is mentioned. Their actions tell a different story. I'm right in the midst of this cable/fiber battleground, so it's difficult to ignore.

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

1 edit

Re: Non sequitur

said by jmn1207:

You are simply repeating what Comcast has already stated back in April.

»www.lightreading.com/document.as···site=cdn

"...the Twin Cities have established a solid track record in testing and deploying new technologies..."

I don't read what the other stories say.. I happened to have heard it, and lived it daily, for many moons personally.. Unlike some, I don't arm chair. I know first hand the condition of the system based in St. Paul.

Why is it so difficult? .. becuase it's an opinion and one that I don't agree with. When you place the stipulations on it that you do, you're working hard to spin a theory to make it true - sorry, I just disagree.

As it's made perfectly clear, there are many systems that are NOT as reliable out there as this one. If you were going to test a product, especially one that is prone to imperfections, would you deploy it on a known reliable system? Or a state of the art piece of crap?

And, to clear things up.. no, I'm not 'simply repeating' what comcast stated back in April.. and simply becuase it was stated in an article doesn't mean it's some conspiracy.. you think perhaps that it could be a valid reason?

I think you, and others, try to hard to place Verizon in the center of a long road already have been traveled for years in a long term plan.. ie: these things have been in the works for years.. FiOS isn't the center of the communications universe. You seem to think that becuase you're in VA or in the middle of a Fios/Comcast competition game that your situation is unique OR that it's built around your area.. A customer is a customer and means nothing if they subscribe to cable, DSL, Fiber or EVEN DIAL-UP... if they aren't subscribing to your service and paying your invoice, they are fair game. Like you, I'm in the middle of a competition area too between comcast and Qwest. It's not always about who's the fastest.. it's about many things such as reliability, price, speed, services, support, reputation and many other reasons.

To think that everything revolves around Comcast and Verizon's FiOS is to be short minded.

Heart

@verizon.net
I'm living in Fort Wayne, IN so I thought I would post this. Its from the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette.

»www.journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs···12160305

Its was announced back in November 23, 2008 about Comcast speed increases coming before the end of year. I've enclosed that link below.

»www.journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs···11230367

Scatcatpdx
Fur It Up

join:2007-06-22
Portland, OR
Another example why you are correct DSL pricing remained the same, including outside FIOS area.
Happydude32
Premium
join:2005-07-16
kudos:1
I'm with you as well. Not only have my broadband rates not increased, they actually decreased, by a lot while getting a massive speed increase.

In November 2006 I had Road Runner Premium, which was 8Mb Down/512Kb Up and I was paying $69.95 for that and it was like that for a while. One month later, in December 2006, the speed essentially doubled, 15Mb Down/1Mb Up, the following month in January 2007, the service was renamed Road Runner Turbo and became a $9.95 add on service to standard RR, so I was now paying $49.90. $20 price DECREASE while DOUBLING the speed. Competition? None. Verizon can barley deliver their 3Mb DSL service and it wasn't even available 2 years ago, but is now thanks to remote terminals, but who'd want that junk.
--
Don't Blame Me, I Voted For McCain
Welcome to The SSA, The Socialist States of Amerika, Lead By Your Dictator, Hussein Obama
Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, B. Hussein Obama
Obama = Terrorist

i1me2ao
Premium
join:2001-03-03
TEXAS

yea right

in certain areas for example new york, la and that is it..
--
»www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Babaganooosh

join:2008-03-18
Belmar, NJ

Whatever

My Fios TV bill just went up!

serge666

join:2004-06-07
Little Falls, NJ

what competition?

all the towns around me have FiOS but not my town...oh yea, Cablevision raised their Family Package by $3 :/

Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

1 edit

Prices didn't increase?

That would be news to Cox who just took a 7.2% HSI increase in my market a couple of months ago.
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

Re: Prices didn't increase?

said by Dogfather:

That would be news to Cox who just took a 7.2% HSI increase in my market a couple of months ago.
Well, being that this analysis talks about the industry as a whole, and not one market, or even one player, I'd say that the crust of the article remains solid in its statement.

Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

Re: Prices didn't increase?

Cable HSI prices were subject to periodic increases in prices before FiOS and have been proved to be subject to periodic increases despite FiOS.

The crust of the article is bullshit. The only thing that is changing is how cable operators lie in their advertising trying to pass off their HFC networks as "fiber" networks.
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

Re: Prices didn't increase?

said by Dogfather:

Cable HSI prices were subject to periodic increases in prices before FiOS and have been proved to be subject to periodic increases despite FiOS.
"Subject to periodic increases"... um, EVERYTHING is subject to periodic price increases.. so what's so unique about this? At large, the HSI pricing has gone down, not up.

You, and others, need to stop thinking that FiOS is the Holy Grail; it's not.

The crust of the article is bullshit. The only thing that is changing is how cable operators lie in their advertising trying to pass off their HFC networks as "fiber" networks.
Um, is there fiber in them? Maybe telephone should take your same advice and stop calling their systems "digital" and "fiber networks" too.. really, stop being so one sided in your spin here. What's good for one is good for the other, well, in the real world that is - not here.

Both cable and phone have been using fiber optics in their networks most likely longer than you were arm-chairing here on sites like BBR. There is no "bullshit" unless you want to make that part of your slant. You DO know what the "F" in "HFC" means, right?

Even the FiOS network has non fiber as part of it, doesn't it? I'm going to take a page out of many other BBR's pages here and call foul on what you said.. so long as there is a scrap of coax running in the "system" then its not a 100% digital/fiber network. The portion from the ONT to the devices in the house is coax. People here have, for months, called foul on the term Digital Voice and how cable operators call their phone service "100% digital".. they claim that it can't be so long as there is any twisted pair or ribbon cord going to your receiver into your ear. (Again, a long stretch, I agree) but the argument here is that its not 100% anything when it's passed off to analog at some point.

The bottom line is that they all do it, yet you single out Cable over phone. FiOS is a PRODUCT of a phone company, not a technology and not a company other than Verizon. The fact that fiber runs up to the home doesn't necessarily make it any more or less effective than what AT&T or Cable is doing in their hybrid systems. The only place it matters is in the heads of some people here who are living for the day of Utopia.

I want to ask the real question here that no one thinks about or, as I see it, would rather stick their heads in the ground like a bird. "How exactly do you people expect to wire up the country with fiber and who is going to pay for it - and with what money?" The answer is simple.. you don't have one. I think the priority in this country would lay at the feet of fixing roads and bridges in this country FAR before we worry about laying fiber networks at un-believable price tags that are NOT sustainable right now in a time of economic devastation so that people can steal from torrent sites or rent movies a little cheaper and more convenient than they do today.

It's time to take off the tinfoil hats, put away the absurd conspiracy theories, and stop playing play-detective in every "marketing" piece ever put out and come life in the real world.

Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

4 edits

Re: Prices didn't increase?

Oh Brother.

The article was bogus as cable HSI rates increased before FIOS and increased after FIOS. The claims by some cable operators like Cox and TWC of having fiber networks are bogus because only a fraction of the network has fiber and last mile certainly isn't. Those ads are designed to deceive people into thinking their HFC networks are state-of-the-art like FiOS when they absolutely aren't.

Now everyone here knows you are compelled by some innate force to jump to the defense of your coaxial masters every time someone dare question their greatness but give the shilling a rest. We all know you love the cable industry.

Enjoy ignore (shouldn't have taken you off).
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

1 edit

Re: Prices didn't increase?

Please - hit ignore now.

Since when does a fiber network set the standards that all must live by? Who are you, of all people, to say that a cable operator can't state they have a state of the art network simply becuase VERIZON )get it straight) ran fiber further to the home? (For the record, Verizon wasn't the first to run fiber to the home.. it's been done since before 2000 by other companies)

Also, more babble.. you need to speak only for yourself and not others. You may want to say dumb things like "everyone knows" etc.. but more people just aren't brave to speak against the liberal elite here on BBR as I am. Many of my supportive messages come through private messages. Sorry to blow your theory, but 1) I don't have a think for cable. 2) Not everyone things like you here. 3) You see only what you want to see by your own one sided blindness. That's your problem though.

People with nothing to say attack the user for their own beliefs instead of sticking to the topic at hand, such as you and so many others. If you had read the very post you replied to, you'd realize that I slammed both cable and phone for doing the same thing.. you, of course, have a phone industry filter on and didn't see that so of course you only saw cable. Besides, it was you that attacked cable only and didn't include AT&T for doing the very same thing that cable does.. remember, they also have a hybrid network with fiber and twisted pair; you only chose to slam cable.

If you can't have an honest conversation and see past your own anger, that's your problem, not mine.

Pot - meet kettle.
bzmeteorite

join:2006-02-15
San Luis Obispo, CA

Not for Charter

Charter around here hasn't dropped prices that I know of in many years, of course AT&T is their "competitor" (well, at least in price, but certainly not in speed).

Maybe in 10 years when we see U-Verse Charter will blink, if they haven't gone bankrupt by then.

Though by hearing other people's experiences in other markets, I would venture to say that Internet (cable/DSL/etc) for the most part has not increased in prices over the years, but CATV and telephone has (to an extent). Instead of lower Internet prices, you usually see them raise the speeds on the same plans.
--
What happens when you combine common sense and an outspoken personality?

Scatcatpdx
Fur It Up

join:2007-06-22
Portland, OR
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 edit

Tv is a Different Animal

If anything, the relatively flat cost of Cable broadband shows that it not cable infrastructure is culprit but Media companies like Viacom, Disney, and ESPN and add to that the NFL wanting a bigger share of the revenue pie. I guess somebody has to pay for the Multi-million star contracts. Still, I cannot see a logical reason for the drama because the cable bill goes up $3.00. If it is that bad, I would suggest unsubscribing and reading a book.
tmc8080

join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY
Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS

parsing products..

when it comes to voip and internet access.. yes, Verizon FIOS is a competitive product (or will be once Verizon revamps their Voip service and ports voip into the ONT the same way they've ported ultra expensive POTS). The cable rates are just about as expensive as most cable companies and have almost matched the major players-- insulting rate increase for rate increase... be it in set top rentals, service plans, rejiggering channels to make customers pay more for certain channels, tiers etc. considering that cable companies double dip on advertising revenue and profit from other localized content delivery, standard cable rates are accelerating beyond comparable inflation (gas prices not withstanding) and fios is along for the ride ($UP$)

jeep4fun
Premium
join:2005-03-30
Littleton, CO

Nature of the business

Certainly a competitive environment is a factor, but as others point out the nature of the business allows improved capability at the same cost - remember cable entered the HSI arena when the market was there for the taking by the incumbent telcos.
Different economics are involved with video services (cost of content) - but some valuable services have been added like VOD. As more companies enter the fray, it will become more clear that they all share a similar cost of goods. It will be interesting to see how that cost changes as programming is increasingly available free on the internet.

fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2

DirecTV keeping cable on their toes

haha yeah right!!!

Actually that probably is the case, because our cable company is adding HD channels like crazy, apparently in response to customers defecting to DirecTV.
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

Not!

While overall, we're paying lower rates today for more bandwidth than we were eight years ago, both FiOS and cable internet have seen hard price increase within the past year.

When TWC eliminates 768K Roadrunner service at $19.95, and the new floor is $26.95, isn't that a price increase?

When Verizon establishes a new "minimum late payment fee" ($2.50 on $.01), which it applies to any balance dispute, isn't that a price increase?

davidbugs

@cox.net

Justin.tv is the best solution for nfl

Oh well. Justin.tv will taking over the world. They are providing all free streaming like nfl, nba, wwe and pay per view for free.

This is the future.

Live streaming is the future.