Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Comcast's two-tier pricing angers broadband-only customers
Mercury news/Yahoo ^ | 6/11/03 | Michael Bazeley,

Posted on 06/11/2003 10:35:00 AM PDT by Pro-Bush

Comcast's two-tier pricing angers broadband-only customers

Bay Area Web surfers who use Comcast for their Internet connection are finding they have to pay a premium if they do not also take the company's cable-television service.

Internet-only customers have seen their monthly bills jump from $46 a month to $60 recently. By contrast, cable modem (news - web sites) users who also buy cable-television service pay just $43 a month for Internet access.

Comcast says it is simply rewarding customers who bundle services. But Internet-only customers say they are being punished for not wanting or needing cable television.

"I feel taken advantage of," said Jill Singleton of Fremont, whose family does not own a TV. "Being able to have broadband is important to us, and it's not like we really have another choice."

Comcast announced the rate increase in December, shortly after the Philadelphia company acquired AT&T Broadband. Company spokesman Andrew Johnson said the company gave its customers ample notice about the rate change.

The new prices began to appear in customers' bills April 1; the specific date varies with their billing cycle.

"We're rewarding people who take more services from us," Johnson said. "Just like other companies. It's a tried-and-true concept."

Johnson would not say how many Bay Area customers take only cable-modem service, but the number is "very, very, very small," he said.

Natalie Munn of Fremont said she never heard about the increase and did not notice any change until Comcast debited her checking account in May.

Happy with satellite

Munn said she switched from cable TV to satellite years ago because of problems with her former cable provider, Viacom. She is happy with the satellite service, she said, and has no plans to switch back to cable.

"It's blatantly unfair," Munn said. "They're using their monopoly position to force people to subscribe to cable."

Johnson said that even with the price increase, broadband-only customers are still getting a good deal. He said Comcast's pricing is competitive with the only broadband alternative, digital subscriber line, or DSL.

Comcast's $60 cable-modem service, with download speeds of up to 1.5 megabytes per second, is comparable with an SBC Yahoo DSL package offered at $59.95, Johnson said. Comcast customers can save $3 a month if they provide their own cable modem.

"We still believe we have a superior product in value," Johnson said.

The two-tier pricing structure, which Comcast uses nationwide, has attracted the ire of consumer groups.

Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America have asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate what they called "anti-competitive" behavior. They are taking aim not at the higher-priced cable-modem service, but at the low-priced TV-Internet bundle.

Bundled pricing

The groups argue that Comcast's bundled pricing is so low -- less than $60 for both Internet access and basic cable TV -- that it amounts to giving away the cable-TV service for free. The goal, they said, is to "shrink the market" for DirecTV satellite television, Comcast's only real competitor in most markets.

"What they're doing, in my view, constitutes predatory pricing," said Chris Murray, legislative counsel for Consumers Union.

Murray said the bundle could be considered anti-consumer.

"If you're looking for a bundle, it's a great deal," he said. "But what about the person who only wants one service? For some people, this is the difference between being able to get broadband and not being able to get broadband."


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: broadband; comcast
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-147 next last
To: brianl703
Realistically, there is nothing Comcast could have done to make you happy in that situation.

Of course, if Comcast was so damn proactive, they would have been paying attention to the county when initially told that a new subdivision was coming in. Considering that the phone company, et. al. were...

Feh.

As for the implied lack of quality of the homes, rest assured, I checked that out before putting any money on the table.

By the way - from what I understand, Comcast is short on the uptake with MOST of the subdivisions around here. So this is not an isolated incident.

Like I said - if Comcast was so damn interested in customer service, they'd be proactive. But they're not. They don't give a damn, and it shows. Too bad. Is there any wonder that satellite penetration in the Atlanta market is so high?

As I said in the beginning, as far as I'm concerned, that was simply the straw that broke the camel's back. As long as the existing customers bend over for the shareholders, Comcast will continue treating folks like dirt.

121 posted on 06/12/2003 10:11:48 AM PDT by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Ready4Freddy
Little known factoid of the cell phone number portability issue is that it will allow you to change your old home number over to your cellphone......

I had my land line shut off, and only use cellular, but I wanted to have a different number. Be advised that if you keep your land line number for you cell phone, there's no way to ensure that telemarketers can't call you, and stick you with the bill. At least with cell phones, there are certain ACs and exchanges that only belong to cell phones, and they know they'll get into serious trouble.

Mark

122 posted on 06/12/2003 10:46:09 AM PDT by MarkL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Even if the router idea works successfully with Comcast which I doubt, you are in violation of the user agreement if you do so.

It would be like stealing cable service back when it was legal for the cable companies to charge you for each TV.

Not since the telecom laws that broke up AT&T were passed. Way back then, AT&T actually owned the equipment and premesis wiring, and they could tell you what you could and couldn't do, even in your own home. However, once the gubmint put an end to that, you're not breaking any laws by having an unlimited number of systems using a single link to the Internet. The simple fact is that they're selling bandwidth, and can't tell you what you can and can't do with the data once it moves out of their domain of authority.

Of course, if you voluntairly sign a TOS agreement that limits your ability to do this, then I suppose you could have legal problems. But it's doubtful that any provider would look to the law for redress, simply because it would be hard and expensibe to prove, as well as generating a huge amount of bad press.

Mark

123 posted on 06/12/2003 10:57:27 AM PDT by MarkL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: mhking
Is it really the county's job to arrange for utilities to be installed for a new development?

It sure isn't around here. A county can't grant an easement on the property to the utilities, for one thing.

What did your developer have to say about the situation?
124 posted on 06/12/2003 10:58:10 AM PDT by brianl703
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: mhking
I understand. I feel the same way towards MCI.
125 posted on 06/12/2003 10:58:54 AM PDT by Pro-Bush (I don't believe in coincidences!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
Starting in July, $15 extra for an IP Address for home users.

Wow! You guys are so lucky! In order to get static IP addresses on Road Runner, you have to go with the second tier or higher RR Business plan, which starts at (I think) $169/month!

Mark

126 posted on 06/12/2003 10:59:50 AM PDT by MarkL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: brianl703
Is it really the county's job to arrange for utilities to be installed for a new development?

The county was supposed to set that when the streets were drawn; that's the way it works with the utilities (phone, water, power) as well. The responsibility is either with the county or with the cable company.

127 posted on 06/12/2003 11:01:06 AM PDT by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: mhking
Of course no developer could sell a house which wasn't wired for telephone or electric. I figure they probably made a special effort to be sure those went in.
128 posted on 06/12/2003 11:03:48 AM PDT by brianl703
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: N3WBI3
Just be aware NAT can do funky things to FTP..

Believe me, it's NOT just FTP. If you to telecommuting, and use a VPN, be sure that the router you have is compatible with the VPN. Most are NOT!

Mark

129 posted on 06/12/2003 11:04:14 AM PDT by MarkL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: mhking
Your county draws the streets for new subdivisions???

That's definitely not how it works here. Streets for new subdivisions are drawn out by the developer and paved by the developer.
130 posted on 06/12/2003 11:06:08 AM PDT by brianl703
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: MarkL
Interesting, I didn't realize the same laws applied to the internet service. That's good to know.
131 posted on 06/12/2003 11:10:12 AM PDT by DannyTN (Note left on my door by a pack of neighborhood dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: MarkL
"...and stick you with the bill."

That's why god gave us FIMF, I guess. The telemarketer issue was mentioned / addressed about 80 posts ago.

132 posted on 06/12/2003 11:15:26 AM PDT by Ready4Freddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: brianl703
AFAIK, that's the way it goes - I know for a fact that it went this way with this particular subdivision...
133 posted on 06/12/2003 11:19:50 AM PDT by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: mhking
BUMP
134 posted on 06/12/2003 11:22:16 AM PDT by Publius6961 (Californians are as dumm as a sack of rocks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: mhking
The developers in VA love being able to lay out their own streets. They can make them all dead-end streets that don't connect to adjoining developments, so you get situations where you have to drive 2 miles to get to a house you are only a few hundred feet from.

All of these, with few exceptions, end up as public maintained roads, too.

135 posted on 06/12/2003 11:33:43 AM PDT by brianl703
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

Comment #136 Removed by Moderator

To: knews_hound
That is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read here. I pay TAXES, A LOT of them. Yet I am not supposed to utilize the services that these Govt agencies were created to look into? One of the poorest arguements I have ever heard.

If those services are unConstitutional or immoral, then no, you shouldn't use them. Fixing prices for cable television is not a legitimate function of government, so you shouldn't try to get them to do so.

If you think that is ignorant, you may be at the wrong site.

137 posted on 06/12/2003 4:01:59 PM PDT by timm22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Pro-Bush
I will be exiting Comcast soon. Broadband is cool, I even bought me own modem, but their pricing is a RIPOFF compared to Verizon/Yahoo campaign to get people aboard their DSL for $30/month. I refuse to be a sucker in an economic down time.
138 posted on 06/12/2003 4:05:42 PM PDT by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pro-Bush
F Comcast...am with them now. I will give DSL a whirl then go back to 56k. I don't have a compelling need for broad band. I'll do all my bigass downloads then leave.
139 posted on 06/12/2003 4:08:54 PM PDT by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mhking
I'm still trying to understand why a profit-seeking company such as Comcast would commit a profit-limiting move such as failing to wire a subdivision for cable service.

That is why I assumed that the fault would have been with the developer, who has no profit motive whatsoever in making sure that things are taken care of with respect to Comcast.

If it is indeed the County who is reponsible for advising Comcast of the need to place infrastructure in that development/subdivision, that is an interesting situation since the County is probably whom Comcast holds the franchise agreement (to serve an area for cable) with, and the County could use that failure to wire the subdivision against Comcast when it's time to renew the franchise agreement.


140 posted on 06/12/2003 4:20:25 PM PDT by brianl703
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-147 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson