# Comcast's Outrageous Rates



## TostitoBandito (Sep 18, 2006)

So I've heard here and elsewhere of long-time customers having success calling Comcast and getting them to give them some kind of promotional rate in place of their regular prices, which are nuts. Currently, I begrudgingly have cable and internet from them due to there being no other cable provider here, and I pay around $190 a month, about $135 of which is for the cable (digital cable + HBO, Showtime, Sports Tier, and two A/O's). I have no use whatsoever for voice so their "triple play" bundle has little appeal. I talked to a CSR today who said I could save like $12 a month by getting the bundle with voice, but after a year I'd then be paying more than I am now so it's kind of pointless. They said that there are no cable/internet only bundles, despite what their web site says. I wish I could get FIOS...

Anyone have any similar experiences or advice?


----------



## ThAbtO (Apr 6, 2000)

I think Internet only is not a bundle. 

Glad I only have OTA which is totally free.


----------



## billyjoebob99 (Jan 13, 2007)

TostitoBandito said:


> Anyone have any similar experiences or advice?


Cancel the comcast service. Get dsl for the internet. Use OTA and downloads for your TV fix(would have been better if you did this at the end of the TV season rather than the beginning). Two or three months later you can sign up as a new customer with comcast. I know people who have done it here in the Detroit area.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

If you call or use their online chat sessions you may be able to get a promo price. I did this just a couple of months ago. I told them I wanted to lower my monthly bill and I was offered $19.99/month for six months for the internet when I was paying the full $42.95 before. If they don't offer anything to you the first time, try again some other time with another rep.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Those ComCast rates don't sound any worse than our Time Warner rates.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

A consumer wants to pay less. 

This is not a big surprise.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

So get the triple play for a year to save money then cancel it at the end of the year.


----------



## jadziedzic (Apr 20, 2009)

Comcast was offering a promo in our area for new customers - ~$50 for Digital Preferred with HBO (no phone or Internet) if you signed a 2-year agreement. I called, explained I really needed to reduce my cable bill, and asked if it might be possible to take advantage of the promo offer. The CSR took a few moments to check something (I think she looked up the current promotions), and then said "yes". I shaved about $35/month off my cable bill. Since Comcast sold the northern New England states we'll never have FiOS TV, so a 2-year contract wasn't a big deal.

Call, be polite, and if you aren't lucky, try again a few hours later.


----------



## tootal2 (Oct 14, 2005)

just cancel hbo and showtime and anything else you dont need.



TostitoBandito said:


> So I've heard here and elsewhere of long-time customers having success calling Comcast and getting them to give them some kind of promotional rate in place of their regular prices, which are nuts. Currently, I begrudgingly have cable and internet from them due to there being no other cable provider here, and I pay around $190 a month, about $135 of which is for the cable (digital cable + HBO, Showtime, Sports Tier, and two A/O's). I have no use whatsoever for voice so their "triple play" bundle has little appeal. I talked to a CSR today who said I could save like $12 a month by getting the bundle with voice, but after a year I'd then be paying more than I am now so it's kind of pointless. They said that there are no cable/internet only bundles, despite what their web site says. I wish I could get FIOS...
> 
> Anyone have any similar experiences or advice?


----------



## shiffrin (Aug 23, 2000)

TostitoBandito said:


> So I've heard here and elsewhere of long-time customers having success calling Comcast and getting them to give them some kind of promotional rate in place of their regular prices, which are nuts.


Call Comcast back and tell them that you are thinking about switching to Satellite but would rather stay with Comcast if they could find you a promotional rate to reduce your bill. They will probably transfer you to a retention specialist who will give you some kind of reduction which will last for 6 months or so. In 6 months when your bill goes up, call again.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

shiffrin said:


> In 6 months when your bill goes up, call again.


The game is up... this doesn't work any more. Apparently, now, each time you call back, you need to add a *new* service; retention specialists supposedly can no longer extend a promotional rate for services you *already *have.

Perhaps you have to go beyond a retention specialist to get around that: Instead of just claiming that they're going to lose you as a customer if they don't placate you, it seems that you really have to *prove *it now  and even then I'm not sure it is going to work. It seems like we're moving into a time where folks will have to downgrade service for a few months, in order to become eligible for a promotional rate again, on a specific set of services.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

That's what I plan on doing. I recently upgraded to a digital preferred + free HBO & DVR package for $45/mo. for a year; when the year is up I'll drop HBO and the DVR (which I'm not using) then wait 6 months and hopefully get the same package again on the promo rate.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

If the triple play deal is better than TV and/or Internet only, add the phone service. DON'T let them transfer your existing phone number. Keep your phone line and get a new number. Then you'll have a phone number to give out on the web and elsewhere. Don't even put a phone on it.


----------



## Millionaire2K (Jun 16, 2008)

I was paying around $230 for all ch (all digital, prem, sports) + blast internet + 4 add outlets + 2 HDDVR's + basic cable box + 1 CCard.

I called and asked for a lower rate. I told them that Verizion made me an offer for $170 for the same stuff. The rep gave me a new rate of $165 and I kept all my stuff.

If you get the right person u can get any deal.


----------



## SGR215 (Jan 20, 2004)

I pay $250 for just TV simply because I have five outlets. Box rentals + A/O comes to nearly $85 alone. It's ridiculous and far more than what I was paying for FiOS with the all the same stuff but unfortunately I moved and my only option is Comcast now. Perhaps I'll call up and BS about FiOS offering me a better offer and see if I can get my bill reduced...


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Comcast is the Antichrist.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

SGR215 said:


> Perhaps I'll call up and BS about FiOS offering me a better offer and see if I can get my bill reduced...


But, is this stealing?


----------



## SGR215 (Jan 20, 2004)

steve614 said:


> But, is this stealing?


I hope you're joking. 

I've been lazy but I finally got around to calling Comcast thanks to this thread and I just reduced my bill by $100! Before calling I researched Dish and found it was the cheapest and thus the service I should "compare" to Comcast when dealing with customer retention. I called up and explained the situation and the first rep let out a laugh and said "I'll transfer you to someone else". I assume I got transferred to customer retention because the next rep was really friendly and truly wanted to "keep me as a customer". After explaining to him about Dish he actually went to Dish's site himself and verified I wasn't BS'ing. (He was originally surprised that Dish offered a better package, which wasn't a promo deal, that was $150 cheaper a month) After that he put me on hold and a few minutes later he came back and said he could go as low as $150 for TV. ($50 more than Dish yet still $100 cheaper a month) We both agreed Comcast was worth the $50 premium since it meant I could keep my Tivo and still get OnDemand. This brings my bill to $200 a month; $100 less than before I called. Anyhow, to anyone considering calling *DO IT.* Best thing about this? I get reimbursed by my work $140 for TV/Internet service so realistically I'm only paying $60 for every channel available and the fastest internet service Comcast offers here, 16/2. Not bad!


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

Yes, I was joking, hence the wink smiley.
Glad you got a resolution you are happy with.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

mattack said:


> So get the triple play for a year to save money then cancel it at the end of the year.


+1

beyond that, at least in my experience they NEVER make you pay the published rates with triple pay.

I signed up for the new customer promotion- 99 for a year (plus 10 bucks for HD to total 109)

They kept it at 99+10 for almost 2 years without me even doing anything. 
Finally at around 22 months they called and said they were going to raise my rates. They then gave me 129 for triple play PLUS HBO, Showtime, and Starz and HD was now free instead of the 10 bucks it used to cost. So total increase was 10 bucks but I got 3 movie channels for that 20 bucks.

Kept that for a year. at the end of the year the published price for that package went to 189. But they all on their own sent me a letter that said since I was a "valued customer" they would give me 20 bucks a month for any triple play package and another 30 bucks on top of that to keep my current package. So now my triple play plus the 3 movies is 139 out of pocket. So another 10 dollar increase

So it HAS in fact gone up ~10 bucks for each year of service- but no were near the price that they list for that service.

DSL is totally lame compared to cable speeds around here. For me DSL is as cheap as 19 bucks a month- but that gets me all of 768k speeds. Cable is giving me 10- 15k down (10 sustained with 15 speedboast- anytime I've ever checked it's closer to 17, and Netflix streams to my tivo's at the highest HD level all the time).

I was a bit hesitent to go to my phone on cable versus regulated twisted pair. I have a fax line that I keep on the basic telco plan as a reserve. But in the ~3 years that I've had VOIP instead of telco phone I can recall maybe 2-3 times that the phone has been messed up for more than couple minutes. Maybe it's been messed up a couple minutes 10 times. So actually at this point I would trust the voip even if i didn't have the backup telco fax line. I'm "this close" to actually signing up for the comcast business phone at my office, but honestly i can't quite pull the trigger for my work lines. But for home I trust it.

so why not just get triple play?

Even if you dont use all 3 sometimes it's just too cheap to give up. My business partner actually gets the comcast triple play and only uses the VOIP and internet- he actually gets his TV from directv but it still works out for him.

_Edit- AO fees and Cablecard are over and above the pricing above_


----------



## SGR215 (Jan 20, 2004)

steve614 said:


> Yes, I was joking, hence the wink smiley.
> Glad you got a resolution you are happy with.


Sorry, I'm slow apparently.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> ... Instead of just claiming that they're going to lose you as a customer if they don't placate you, it seems that you really have to *prove *it now  and even then I'm not sure it is going to work. It seems like we're moving into a time where folks will have to downgrade service for a few months, in order to become eligible for a promotional rate again, on a specific set of services.


along the PROVE it lines:

I've got a technically challanged friend at work. He got totally pissed that some of his channels went bye bye and he got the screen that he'd need to call for the FREE DTA's to get that channel at this point.

anyway he was all bent and called and complained- thought somehow that he could complain and they could just turn his analog back on. Obvioulsy they couldn't.

So my friend said "first thing I'm doing tomorrow morning is calling FIOS and getting that instead of you". The CSR told him that if he had an order number from FIOS they could give him some super secret pricing- it was soo good it placated him. He says "well go ahead and give me that price now". The CSR said it didn't work that way. So my friend asked to speak to a supervisor- unsure if he got retention or a manager or what- but my friend basically said "so let me get this straight, you want me to actually order FIOS to get you the number so you can give me the discount?"- the reply "Yes sir"- so my friend says "So you want me to actually order service with a competitor and HOPE that I will then cancel the order with them and stay with comcast?- I may at that point just stick with FIOS!?"- the reply was basically yes thats all they can do now and in fact their on screen form actually demands they enter a FIOS order number in order to permit them to give that pricing.

So idle threats, at least in central NJ, no longer count for sure.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I suppose that's easier than trying to convince the customer that they're going to lose analog cable channels with FiOS, too.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I know when I got FIOS in 2007 I gave Comncast every chnace to give me a bette r deal. They didn't and basically said, we can't give you anything.

So I left Comcast and a week later I started getting big colorful flyers with a great deal asking me to come back. I was getting three or four a week sometimes. It really made no sense to me to let me leave then spend all this advertising asking me to come back.

Although I did eventually sign up for a six month deal they had later that only cost me $30 a month with several premium channels and all their HD cHannels. I only got it for the HD channels that FIOS didn't have at the time, like SciFi(SyFy)
But one the six months was up, I dropped them again, plus FIOS had all those HD channels and more by then.


----------



## SNJpage1 (May 25, 2006)

I was paying $185 for cable and internet to comcast. I called up and asked about how to save some money. They transferred me to a specialist and he said if I added their phone service I could lower my bill by $30 a month. As a retired verizon employee I only pay $11 a month for my phone service which is why I never looked at their triple play package. However it was worth adding their phone service just to save the $30. I kept my verizon phone and had comcast give me a different number. My bill is now $155 a month and their phone service gives me free long distance were as verizon land line doesnt. So I connected a single phone to the comcast line and we use comcast for long distance calls and still have out friends and family call us on the verizon phone. I thought about connecting all the phones to it and having the verizon number forwarded to the comcast number but we would lose caller ID.


----------



## EvilMidniteBombr (May 25, 2006)

I have been considering trying to get my bill lowered as well and try to upgrade to digital as well. Asking alot I know. I am not interested in their VOIP but would sign up for it if VOIP + tv + internet was actually below what I am already paying.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I just was reminded that Comcast offers another level of service in some areas: Digital Economy. It offers many of the same channels as Digital Starter (A&E, AMC, Animal Planet, BET, Cartoon Network, CNN, Comedy Central, Discovery, Disney, E!, Food Network, Fox News, Nickelodeon, Lifetime, Spike TV, USA, Weather Channel), but for about $30 less. That's a great deal, especially for us, since among the channels that we'll lose we'd probably only watch one this fall (and another one next summer, but by then we might re-upgrade), and we can catch those shows on DVD.


----------



## TostitoBandito (Sep 18, 2006)

Wow, this sparked some conversation. 

A few clarifications:

I don't have voice service because I don't have any need to use a landline at all. Yes I'm aware that I could get voice via triple play and just not use it.

I'm not intereted in dropping services that I have. I'm interested in dropping the price that I pay since that has steadily risen by a large percentage over the last few years, even excluding the end of my promotional period.

I have no respect whatsoever for Comcast. They deal in extremely shady billing practices. As one example, I have to check my bill every month to look for extra A/O, cablecard, or equipment fees they've slapped on with no notice. I've had to call on numerous occasions to have these removed and refunded. Most recently, their "equipment audit" thought I had a couple of their HD DVR's and some extra outlets. In the past they've also tried to slip in $10-15/month A/O fees for my Tivo on multiple occasions. If I had ANY other non-satellite (or OTA) option where I live I would take it in a heartbeat.

So all in all this sounds like a crap shoot. Talk to the right person or lie convincingly enough and you can get something close to their advertised promotional deals. Talk to the wrong person and you won't. I was mainly wondering if there was some "secret" to success in these discussions. It sounds like the answer is no. Anyhow, thanks for all the input everyone. When I can muster up the patience to deal with their CSR's, I may give them a call again. Perhaps I'll prepare some Qwest/DirectTV quotes as ammo.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

You think Comcast has "shady billing practices"???? Gosh, you should check out Verizon! I read ten times as many billing complaints about FiOS TV than about Comcast. At least Comcast will fix their mistakes; apparently Verizon often doesn't!


----------



## TostitoBandito (Sep 18, 2006)

bicker said:


> You think Comcast has "shady billing practices"???? Gosh, you should check out Verizon! I read ten times as many billing complaints about FiOS TV than about Comcast. At least Comcast will fix their mistakes; apparently Verizon often doesn't!


Yikes. 

Well, I'm willing to give anyone a chance or two and Comcast has had plenty of those from me, hence the desire to give FIOS a shot if it miraculously were to arrive in my area. 

I didn't even include the story about how when I moved my existing service back in April they cancelled my autopay without notifying me. I received a letter from them about a balance past due and when I called a CSR they said this is normal and it'll just be added to my bill for the first month after my move, and he told me to wait when I asked if I should schedule a payment for the next business day or let it autopay the following week. For some reason I followed his advice and (predictably in hindsight) ended up with a late payment fee. I called them up again and flipped out enough fro them to refund the fee, but any other credit damage was done unfortunately. Again, not to be trusted.


----------



## rdb4133 (Sep 13, 2007)

I was able to get Digital Starter + Internet from Comcast for $50 a month (for 12 months): forums.slickdeals.net/showpost.php?p=23106647&postcount=110 (I haven't reached 5 posts as of yet so I can't post the full link)


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

TostitoBandito said:


> Again, not to be trusted.


Again, your assumptions about Comcast are off target. Beyond the fact that Verizon is much much worse at billing than Comcast is, here are some reports about how unreasonable the folks at another Comcast competitor, DirecTV, are:

http://www.dtvusaforum.com/31397-post1.html
http://www.dtvusaforum.com/31397-post3.html

The grass is always greener...


----------



## TostitoBandito (Sep 18, 2006)

bicker said:


> Again, your assumptions about Comcast are off target. Beyond the fact that Verizon is much much worse at billing than Comcast is, here are some reports about how unreasonable the folks at another Comcast competitor, DirecTV, are:
> 
> http://www.dtvusaforum.com/31397-post1.html
> http://www.dtvusaforum.com/31397-post3.html
> ...


I'm not saying that the grass is greener, I'm saying that Comcast is terrible. I have no opinions or knowledge on how trustworthy their competitors are, though I'd probably be willing to give some of them a shot.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

*I'm *saying that the grass is greener. 

Each of the suppliers have their advantages and disadvantages. And there is nothing about Comcast, specifically, or any of them, overall, that makes it/them "terrible" except unjustifiable expectations.

Give the others a shot, if you will; just don't expect the difference to be night and day. Verizon's billing is a lot worse. Dish Network sucks in the rain. RCN requires a box on every television, even for local channels. And so on.


----------



## flatcurve (Sep 27, 2007)

Right, but he's telling you he only has experience with Comcast... Bad experience. If you're telling him that everyone else is worse, then what does that say about the state of service providers today? Being the best of the worst still doesn't make you good, just good enough.

ETA: and FWIW, my experience with Comcast's competitors has actually been the opposite. (RCN, DirecTV, Dish Network, AT&T) I've gotten much better service from all of them.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

flatcurve said:


> Right, but he's telling you he only has experience with Comcast... Bad experience. If you're telling him that everyone else is worse, then what does that say about the state of service providers today?


First, I wouldn't say the others are worse. I think they're all pretty-close to equally as bad, within a certain range, and given each of their respective circumstances. It's a pretty narrow range actually, when all factors are taken into consideration.

Second, your question really gets to the heart of the matter: What it says about the state of service providers today is that they've been consistently rewarded by consumers for providing the lowest possible level of service.

That's why consumers must start to take some personal responsibility for themselves and when they feel that a service offering is not worth it, they need to dump that service! I'm calling Comcast tomorrow, and dropping down to a lower tier because what I'm paying for now isn't worth what they're charging me. That's *on me*; it's not their "fault". They're doing what they're supposed to do, and now, tomorrow, I'm going to do what I'm supposed to do. I'm not trying to avoid my personal responsibility. I'm not trying to make them sound evil. I'm respecting their right to be what they're supposed to be, and I'm doing what I'm supposed to do. Reasonable. Rational. Logical. Responsible.



flatcurve said:


> Being the best of the worst still doesn't make you good, just good enough.


Tell that to Wal-Mart. Regardless, the point is that you're applying the label "good" based on your own personal criteria. That criteria only applies to your own situation. "They" rightfully care about their own objectives, and the only criteria that can be rationally used to determine whether or not they're doing well is the criteria that reflects achievement of their objectives.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

I think we live in a society of "good enough" now a days. 

many strive not for greatness but merely to be good enough that you dont get annoyed enough to spend the effort to leave.

Many things get sold as commodities that could just as well be sold as premium valued good or services. 

Personally in many instances (obviously not all)- I'm willing to pay a bit more for a higher level of quality. Paying for tivo is for many of us who do a prime example of paying a little more for what we feel is a better product.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> I think we live in a society of "good enough" now a days.


Or "cheap enough".



MichaelK said:


> Many things get sold as commodities that could just as well be sold as premium valued good or services.


And they would if it represented more profit potential.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> Or "cheap enough".
> ....


yep



bicker said:


> ...
> And they would if it represented more profit potential.


if no one tries then how do people know if it's got more profit potential or not?- I think now a days sometimes corporate leaders just dont try the top end- they just have a different philisophy. You can sale a lot of items with little profit or less items with more profit per item. (and sometimes you hit the jackpot and sell more items for more profit).

there's plenty of examples where companies charge more for a little bit better service and make a killing.

Verizon wireless is a prime example - while sprint and t-mobile race to the bottom of monthly pricing, verizon consistantly charges more. Who'd doing better? Verizon is KILLING the other 2 in terms of market share, net adds, arpu, and profit.

Compare DISH to Directv for sat TV- used to be the same sort of thing. Directv focused on the top end- in fact a couple years ago they activaly chased away their lower end subs. DISH on the other hand liked to have their dealers spam me all the time for 19.99 packages. I'm not sure who's more profitable at this point but when i last paid attention Directv had much higher ARPU and profit/sub and was larger also. (Not sure if with the advent of HD if DISH still is a bottom feeder and or if things have changed)

Apple seems to do just fine selling less products for much higher margins.

So there's different ways. Selling tons of stuff at low margins isn't always the way to make the most money. Sure sometimes it is, but sometimes it's worth a gamble on the high end.

It's funny but seems the "utility" type companies (wired telco and cable) just live by the "good enough" or "cheap enough" mantra from the olden days when the consumers had no choices. Seems like maybe they dont know how to get away from those old ways. I'm really surprised that as you pointed out that FIOS apparently stinks with some aspects of their customer service- I thought Verizon tried to firewall FIOS off from their legacy businesses and sell it as a better product. But I guess they cant get away from "being the phone company".


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> if no one tries then how do people know if it's got more profit potential or not?


Of course people try and use other ways of knowing.



MichaelK said:


> - I think now a days sometimes corporate leaders just dont try the top end- they just have a different philisophy.


They do have a different philosophy: Try things that there is a reasonable basis for thinking that they'd work; Don't try silly things.



MichaelK said:


> there's plenty of examples where companies charge more for a little bit better service and make a killing.


And plenty of examples where they take a big hit for trying to do so despite clearly indications that consumers are frakking cheap bastards.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Previous few posts thus illustrating the need for market analysis and that running a business can involve considerable risk -- even with good market analysis, all of which *should* be well known .....


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> Of course people try and use other ways of knowing.
> 
> They do have a different philosophy: Try things that there is a reasonable basis for thinking that they'd work; Don't try silly things.
> 
> And plenty of examples where they take a big hit for trying to do so despite clearly indications that consumers are frakking cheap bastards.


In a nutshell Bicker I don't have the same trust that you seem to have that everyone is smart and wise as in business. I think we both agree capitalism works but I just don't think the real world implementation always makes for the most efficient end point. Plenty of dumb decisions are made. And plenty of times regulations, tax policy, politics, and other constraints keep businesses from doing exactly what it best for them.

So I just don't believe that all businesses and the people that run them are free to make the best choices without any other constraints and even assuming they are unconstrained that they will always make the best decisions 100 percent of the time.

There are reasons why company's fail all the time, and sometimes it's from the wrong decisions being made by the people that run those companies. Did all the decisions that GM made have a "reasonable basis"? Even assuming they were "reasonable" sometimes there were just wrong. And other times the other factors (regulations, government policies, public relations, etc) clouded their decisions.

And yes there are plenty of examples that consumers are cheap- I completely agree. But as I posted above that's not universally the case. One example= Verizon Wireless wouldn't be the company they are if people made monthly cell phone cost their only concern - sprint and T-mobile would be the big dogs with Verizon looking up. Sprint could work on reinventing themselves to become the "the highest quality carrier" and charge a premium for it - yet they are in a race to the bottom in cost and still the bleed post-paid subs every month.

But if you believe otherwise- have at it and I wish you well- everyone is entitled to an opinion.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> In a nutshell Bicker I dont have the same trust that you seem to have that everyone is smart as wise as in business. I think we both agree capitalism works but I just dont think the real world implementation always makes for the most efficient end point. Plenty of dumb decisions are made. And plenty of times regulations, tax policy, politics, and other constraints keep businesses from doing exactly what it best for them.
> 
> So I just dont believe that all businesses and the people that run them are free to make the best choices without any other constraints and even assuming they are unconstrained that they will always make the best decisions 100 percent of the time.
> 
> ...


I would also add what is best for an individual company may be detrimental to consumers in general. Companies have only two general desires maximize profit and market share. At some point that hurts competition, the consumer, and innovation.

It's up to the government to make sure no one company has a distinct advantage even if they are doing everything by the book.

By allowing all the babybells to heal and granting exclusive geographical licenses to people like Comcast they help Comcast but they hinder competition. The attitude of the government for the last 10 to 15 years has been one of two companies is enough for competition.

Think Intel vs AMD, Microsoft vs Apple, Verizon vs ATT vs Comcast.

I don't think DTV/Dish count because they cannot provide the voice and internet component that ATT and Comcast can and as a result I think have a long term problem.


----------



## SGR215 (Jan 20, 2004)

Wow, I just noticed that when I got my bill reduced by $100 the rep also added The Movie Channel which I previously didn't have. So to reiterate what a simple, legitimate threat of canceling did:


Reduced my bill by $100
Added three additional premium channels (Three TMC channels)
Credited my account $100 for the previous month; effectively making the deal retroactive up to one month

Not bad if I do say so myself. :up: I was told this was a promo deal that will last 1 year but by this time next year I'll just call up again and threaten to cancel if I don't get a similar deal. I see no issues in doing so since I really will cancel if I'm moved back to a pricing plan that's *double* that of the competition. With this new deal I'm paying $50 more than Directv/Dish but I also get more services; OnDemand and, most importantly, I keep my TivoHD.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

SGR215 said:


> Wow, I just noticed that when I got my bill reduced by $100 the rep also added The Movie Channel which I previously didn't have. So to reiterate what a simple, legitimate threat of canceling did:
> 
> 
> Reduced my bill by $100
> ...


so I'm guessing they didn't ask you for an order number from another provider?


----------



## SGR215 (Jan 20, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> so I'm guessing they didn't ask you for an order number from another provider?


Nope, but when I mentioned Dish was half the price and offered more channels the rep actually went to Dish's website and verified it for himself. Right after that he put me on hold for a few minutes and then offered me the deal I mentioned above. 

Here's an interesting comparison on Comcast's pricing structure:

You need four DVR's. Price per month on each provider for fee's alone:


Comcast: $99.76 a month (DVR fee(15.95) + A/O fee(8.99) x 4)
FiOS: $63.96 (DVR fee: 15.99 x 4) No outlet fee's as far as I'm aware.
***DirecTV: $24 (DVR fee: 6 x 4)
****Dish: $28 (DVR Lease Fee: 7 x 4)
*DirecTV requires a $500 startup fee. However, your money will be made back within five months and you will start saving money each month thereafter. Total saved each year when compared to Comcast: $909.12.

**Dish requires a $200 startup fee. However, your money will be made back in two months and you'll start saving money each month thereafter. Total saved each year when compared to Comcast: $861.12.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> In a nutshell Bicker I dont have the same trust that you seem to have that everyone is smart and wise as in business.


It isn't trust. It is respect for anyone who is human, respect that they can still have a perspective different from mine and still be reasonable people.



MichaelK said:


> I think we both agree capitalism works but I just dont think the real world implementation always makes for the most efficient end point.


A good part of the blame for that rests with consumerism, not capitalism. I think you'd be better off focusing on your own contribution to the problem rather than trying to foist your frustration with how things are off onto the good folks just doing their jobs, what they're supposed to be doing, as well as can be expected.



MichaelK said:


> And yes there are plenty of examples that consumers are cheap- I completely agree. But as I posted above thats not universally the case.


Nothing is universally the case.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

zalusky said:


> I would also add what is best for an individual company may be detrimental to consumers in general. Companies have only two general desires maximize profit and market share. At some point that hurts competition, the consumer, and innovation.


No: It doesn't hurt competition and innovation. It feeds competition and innovation. What generally hurts competition and innovation is government regulation.



zalusky said:


> It's up to the government to make sure no one company has a distinct advantage even if they are doing everything by the book.


Incorrect. "The book" is the means by which the government makes sure that no one company has a distinct advantage over any other company.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> .........Incorrect. "The book" is the means by which the government makes sure that no one company has a distinct advantage over any other company.


I can't believe you accepted "makes sure that no one company has a distinct advantage" as a legitimate function of government!

Companies can have "distinct advantages" for many meritorious reasons, such as innovation, trying harder, being smarter or understanding the market better. Surely you don't want the gov to prevent this ?

As a possible example: the iPhone. Apple arguably is the firstest with the mostest in this case, and they deserve a distinct advantage as a result.

I suppose this will devolve into a semantic argument, i.e., the definition of a "distinct advantage." Oh well........


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl said:


> I can't believe you accepted "makes sure that no one company has a distinct advantage" as a legitimate function of government!


Why? Capitalism is all about fostering competition between suppliers.



dlfl said:


> Companies can have "distinct advantages" for many meritorious reasons, such as innovation, trying harder, being smarter or understanding the market better. Surely you don't want the gov to prevent this ?


Correct, individual innovations are protected for a period of time, as they should be.



dlfl said:


> I suppose this will devolve into a semantic argument, i.e., the definition of a "distinct advantage." Oh well........


This thread *started * devolved into semantics, with the OP essentially blaming the service provider for charging a price that their service was worth, with the OP only "grudgingly" paying the price, as if the service provider was committing some offense.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> Why? Capitalism is all about fostering competition between suppliers.
> ................


I gave examples of general characteristics a company could have that would give them a distinct advantage (being smarter, trying harder, better market analysis), which you (so far) have not disputed. I also gave a specific example (Apple/iPhone), which you (so far) have not disputed.

Are you saying it's a legitimate function of government to prevent such distinct advantages, or penalize companies that have them? If so, I strongly disagree. This opposes rather than fosters capitalism.

Or perhaps you are defining "distinct advantage" in a way that doesn't encompass my examples (?). If so, what is your definition?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl said:


> Are you saying it's a legitimate function of government to prevent such distinct advantages, or penalize companies that have them?


Of course not. Where are you getting this from? I think you're assuming that the world is black-and-white. That's simply not the case. Read all of the words, not just a few of them.



dlfl said:


> If so, what is your definition?


http://www.uspto.gov/main/patents.htm


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> .......
> Incorrect. "The book" is the means by which the government makes sure that no one company has a distinct advantage over any other company.


In this response you seemed to implicitly accept that a legitimate function of government is "...makes sure that no one company has a distinct advantage over any other company". This surprised me coming from you, and your responses seem inconsistent with this statement (unless you have some definition of "distinct advantage" different from what I have attempted to present via my examples).

I'm not attacking you but as a proponent of free-market capitalism I hate to see a statement like yours which could easily be intrepreted as being opposed to it. And I don't think that is your intent. If the wording had used "unfair advantage" instead of "distinct advantage" I would not have said anything, although I realize there could be arguments about that wording also.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl said:


> In this response you seemed to implicitly accept that a legitimate function of government is "...makes sure that no one company has a distinct advantage over any other company".


I didn't say that they shouldn't have the ability to patent innovations though. You imposed that erroneous black-and-white interpretation all by yourself. Regardless, by now it should be very clear what the reality of my position in, with regard to the balance between these two aspects.



dlfl said:


> If the wording had used "unfair advantage" instead of "distinct advantage" I would not have said anything, although I realize there could be arguments about that wording also.


Let's not get lost in the semantics. Let me revise that: If you would like to get lost in the semantics, go ahead, but take it to some other thread please.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> ....... Let me revise that: If you would like to get lost in the semantics, go ahead, but take it to some other thread please.


Ah, gracious as usual, mr. bicker. In this case you are irritating but *not* correct. BTW who appointed you the "thread meister"? I'll post wherever I please (just as you do).


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Because the word "please" evidently indicates to you that it was a directive. 

I find it ridiculous that when you're the one who made erroneous black-and-white assumptions about what I wrote, and then responded to those erroneous assumptions as if they were my perspectives, that I'm the one who's not being gracious.  Where's the apology for misunderstanding what I wrote? --- Didn't think so. Glass houses, dude.

But again, you seem to be all about getting lost in the semantics today. Have at it.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> I didn't say that they shouldn't have the ability to patent innovations though. You imposed that erroneous black-and-white interpretation all by yourself.


My examples encompass things other than patenting innovations (being smarter, trying harder, better market analysis) that can give a company a "distinct advantage". You are the one making the erroneous black-and-white interpretation, *apparently* that the only kind of distinct advantage a co. could have is a patentable innovation. (I have to guess since you won't define "distinct advantage" as you use it.)



bicker said:


> Regardless, by now it should be very clear what the reality of my position in, with regard to the balance between these two aspects.


Not to me. If there is an OP who understands it, I hope they will post. I'm not even sure what "two aspects" you refer to.


----------



## DocNo (Oct 10, 2001)

MichaelK said:


> Apple seems to do just fine selling less products for much higher margins.


For Apple (and your other examples) it isn't just that they are selling stuff at higher margins - they sell a better overall experience.

It's a subtle distinction, but extremely important. Tivo isn't just a DVR, it's a better experience. People who chalk up the success of companies like Apple relying on "fanbois" or clever advertising totally miss the point of those companies success.



> So there's different ways. Selling tons of stuff at low margins isn't always the way to make the most money. Sure sometimes it is, but sometimes it's worth a gamble on the high end.


Selling tons of stuff at low margins is rarely a good way to make money.

That's why even though Apple has 5% of the market Microsoft continues to go after them. Apple is skimming off the cream of the crop and leaving Microsoft and the other PC manufacturers with the low margin high overhead "dregs".



> It's funny but seems the "utility" type companies (wired telco and cable) just live by the "good enough" or "cheap enough" mantra from the olden days when the consumers had no choices. Seems like maybe they dont know how to get away from those old ways. I'm really surprised that as you pointed out that FIOS apparently stinks with some aspects of their customer service- I thought Verizon tried to firewall FIOS off from their legacy businesses and sell it as a better product. But I guess they cant get away from "being the phone company".


Part of the reason Verizon doesn't have the iPhone is they don't want to be relegated to just a "utility" or carrier of bits. They are trying to hang onto the higher profit content delivery and app business. Their problem is, it's not their core competency and they are getting their lunch eaten on those fronts by companies like Apple. "The network" is only going to be a differentiator for so long. AT&T is spending literally 10's of billions on capacity. TMobile's parent may buy Sprint. And if Verizon does move to GSM based 4G technology, the current distance advantage they have with CDMA technology will be negated too (and that same need for them to have fewer towers would kill them with a data hog like the iPhone - it will be interesting to see how they handle a useable smartphone like the iPhone or Pre if they ever do get one).

If FIOS isn't doing a better job in the customer service department, they don't have a chance against the inertia of the entrenched cable co's. A friend near me is gong to have FIOS available soon - she priced out the packages and it would be about 30% more then what she has with Comcast! Now Verizon may offer deals when they finally are officially available, but right now it was very disappointing. I would love to have true choice between 5-10 different providers like they do in Europe - then again most of our States are bigger then the countries in Europe


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

DocNo said:


> For Apple (and your other examples) it isn't just that they are selling stuff at higher margins - they sell a better overall experience.


This is *so* critical. They actually aren't even selling the obvious "product" -- it is indeed the "experience" that they're selling.

There are so many examples of this. One that is often discussed, in some of the forums I typically visit, involved the Disney Stores, about fifteen years ago. The stuff most folks purchased there -- t-shirts, sweatshirts, games, toys, videos, etc. -- was priced substantially more than comparable licensed Disney items were when sold elsewhere, and people paid the premium, happily and in great numbers. It was the purchasing experience that people were paying (extra) for: The way they had a cheerful person who's job was practically solely to say "hi" to everyone walking in; the fact that they sold mega-expensive serialcels there (even though few people ever bought serialcels there); the piles of plush toys, dazzling the eyes of children who thought they'd never see so many in one place. The _things _you brought home were the same -- in the end, after-the-fact, the physical evidence of the difference was only the higher price.

The big problem with experience-selling is that it follows the business cycle of a fad. By 2001, the boutique logowear market was shattering. There actually were Warner Brothers Studio Stores -- a little edgier, but essentially just Disney Stores for another set of iconic characters. They struggled through the late 1990s, and by mid-2001, they called it quits. The Disney Stores held on a few more years, but by then the concept stores that sold the "experience" were gone. They were just another shopping mall store. Many the great things that distinguished the original Disney stores, such as the rare (and rarely purchased) merchandise, were gone. In 2004, with the "experience" completely gone, Disney sold license to the Disney Store name to cookie-cutter shopping mall store chain Children's Place. (They've since reacquired the stores, but the magic, pardon the pun, is still gone.)



DocNo said:


> It's a subtle distinction, but extremely important. Tivo isn't just a DVR, it's a better experience. People who chalk up the success of companies like Apple relying on "fanbois" or clever advertising totally miss the point of those companies success.


To be fair, the existence of the fanbois is credit to the company's ability to sell "experience" rather than just products or services.



DocNo said:


> Selling tons of stuff at low margins is rarely a good way to make money.


Well, it is one approach. However, people shouldn't be surprised when that sort of thing leads to ever-decreasing quality of stuff for sale. The consumer expectations for lower prices is faster and more draconian than the capacity for economies of scale to deliver comparable decreases in cost to suppliers, except through selling cheaper and cheaper stuff.



DocNo said:


> If FIOS isn't doing a better job in the customer service department, they don't have a chance against the inertia of the entrenched cable co's.


Uh, well, it depends on what you mean. Verizon already has demonstrated that their billing sucks the big one. They might have service provisioning working, and tech support as well, but their billing is much worse than Comcast ever has been.



DocNo said:


> I would love to have true choice between 5-10 different providers like they do in Europe - then again most of our States are bigger then the countries in Europe


We have five providers available here in Burlington. What do you think would be different in such a scenario? I'll be happy to check and let you know if your assumption along those lines is realistic.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> ...
> 
> Nothing is universally the case.


exactly my point.

You can't say that univerasally all business decsons are logical or reasonable.

there's outliers everywhere.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> It isn't trust. It is respect for anyone who is human, respect that they can still have a perspective different from mine and still be reasonable people. ....


I love when you state things like this.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> It isn't trust. It is respect for anyone who is human, respect that they can still have a perspective different from mine and still be reasonable people.
> ......


Me too. I am *so* reassured! Kum Bi Ya!


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

DocNo said:


> . And if Verizon does move to GSM based 4G technology, the current distance advantage they have with CDMA technology will be negated too (and that same need for them to have fewer towers would kill them with a data hog like the iPhone - it will be interesting to see how they handle a useable smartphone like the iPhone or Pre if they ever do get one).


The 4G technology LTE is not GSM based. It uses OFDMA, which is different from both CDMA and GSM. It just happens to be the 4G technology selected by GSM providers (and everyone else other than Sprint).

(Topic drift alert. This a TiVo forum, right?)


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

CharlesH said:


> (Topic drift alert. This a TiVo forum, right?)


That's what I love about this place. It always starts out Tivo related and eventually becomes more interesting.


----------

