[opendtv] Re: Scrambled channels irk cable viewers
- From: "John Willkie" <jmwillkie@xxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 19:57:52 -0700
Price increase or service decrease to make people pay for what they actually
receive? I think this is of the same order as saying that broadcasting is
an economic term.
$8.95 a month for basic basic cable is about half the charge in San Diego
for the same service.
Increased regulation? You've got to be kidding or you're off-base. Federal
law permits charging for basic and extended basic based on the number of
channels carried. I tend to believe that there are more local channels in
Boston than in San Diego. Certainly there were when we moved back to San
Diego from Holliston, MA in 1965. I would tend to think that the cost of
living is higher in Boston, as well as the average wage.
What's funny to me is thinking how much money John Malone (TCI's boss)
"saved" by not putting $0.35 traps on the lead in when customers were first
installed. EVERY cable system that I had ever subscribed to did that,
either at install, or when the first line auditor came by.
They're likely to convert 0.00 percent of the whining to $8.95 per month
customers into digital cable subscribers, at least while analog is
available.
By the way, I believe the cable company can come back and CHARGE the basic
basic customers for the extra amount for extended basic. And, I don't
believe there is any statue of limitations for this in F.C.C. regulations
and federal law. It's previously happened with trucking outfits that cut
rates below federal tariffs to get business, then went bankrupt because the
rates weren't profitable. The creditors ended up getting the previously
ignored difference. Sometimes, the fees went back decades and bankrupted
more than a few shippers.
I doubt they'd do it, but they can.
John Willkie
-----Original Message-----
From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Tom Barry
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 4:47 PM
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [opendtv] Re: Scrambled channels irk cable viewers
Comcast is perfectly and legally justified in what they did. OTOH,
there is no doubt in my mind that this amounts to a price increase and
/or service decrease.
They may well be able to get away with it but with sufficient
grumbling about cable price increases tends also to come greater
grumbling about cable monopolies with the usual pressure for greater
regulation. If they would truly like to convert everyone to digital
only service you would think they would be trying fairly hard right
now to not offend anyone. But maybe another way to get rid of analog
customers is simple to drive them off.
- Tom (becoming a broadband, phone, and limited basic Comcast
customer again this weekend at my new loc)
Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
> Mike Enright wrote:
>
>
>>>What Comcast should have said is that this is the a la carte
>>>service you customers have been asking for. Of course it ends up
>>>costing you more. Just as it would cost you more if you bought
>>>eggs one by one at the supermarket.
>>>
>>
>>As IF!
>>=20
>>These customers were happy to receive extra channels. Your
>>"gotcha" is
>>very much mistaken. Since these customers were not the ones irked by
>>borderline-indecent programming on their extra channels, your
>>attempt at irony goes wide.
>
>
> Of *course* they were happy to get the freebies, but that's the
> whole point.
>
> These customers were basic-basic subscribers, who are presumably the
> type of customer that won't pay for extras he didn't request. So
> Comcast agreed with them, and removed *all* the channels they had not
> requested.
>
> The reason they were getting the freebies before, one must assume,
> is that it was harder for Comcast to block those few extras than it
> was to just give them the same filters they apply to the majority of
> their customers. Well, isn't that exactly what the problem is with
> a la carte? It's more admin-intensive. So it costs more.
>
>
>>Comcast missed the boat here. It sounds to me like the=20
>>numbers involved=20
>>are so small that the box they want the low-end subs to use should be=20
>>bundled, which technically they might have to do with a price=20
>>_de_crease.
>
>
> I guess I'm missing what you're diagreeing with. What Comcast will
> no doubt do in the future is to raise their rates even more, to cover
> the extra admin costs they are incurring. Which is precisely what
> happens the more "a la carte" their service has to become.
>
> As always, "be careful what you ask for."
>
> Bert
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>
> - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
>
> - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
