Comcast admits that people are leaving for free OTA TV

bicker

DTVUSA Member
#2
If validated, this is a very telling statistic. It shows clearly that legacy cable providers like Comcast are actually providing service at competitive rates, because the supplier that's "beating" them for the business they're losing is giving service away for free. You don't compete against "free", for the same reason you let (hope?) your unprofitable customers switch to your competitors.
 

dkreichen1968

Moderator
Staff member
#3
Should add that legacy cable providers like Comcast have internet and phone service, which they can sell to both individual and business customers. Satellite providers like Dish only provide video, or if they do provide internet it isn't competitive in most cases.

On the other hand calling basic subscribers "unprofitable customers" is a bit much. Less profitable yes, but they certainly make money off those people, or they wouldn't provide the service.
 
Last edited:

bicker

DTVUSA Member
#4
It depends on where you are... In the thread where I ascribed a label to, specifically, "basic subscribers", I explicitly said "low and unprofitable customers":
So in other words, they gained highly-profitable customers and unloaded low and unprofitable customers, perhaps dumping that stagnation or costs onto competitors.
 

MrPogi

Moderator, , Webmaster of Cache Free TV
Staff member
#5
From the article:
Cable companies could simply increase their a la carte broadband prices (since in most markets, households have no other choice for sufficiently fast broadband) and simultaneously drop their video pricing, leaving the price of the bundle unchanged, to recapture video share." He pointed to an example of this in Albany, N.Y., where Time Warner Cable raised its broadband price by 10 percent for its Internet-only customers to a rate just $2 below its promotional bundled rate for both services. The Internet-only price increased to $54.95 from $49.95.

So, you're stuck with your cable co and you will pay about the same price for your internet as you will for the bundle. And for broadband, most areas don't have much choice but their cable co for internet.

I hate being forced to bundle, it gives me an overpriced and inferior product (basic cable) when I only want the broadband.

We need more choices in internet, pay TV and phone services that allow us to mix and match according to our needs. As long as cable remains a default broadband monopoly in most areas, you will have no choice but to pay them, no matter what their prices are, or how bad their customer service is.

You CAN compete against "Free", by offering a superior product at reasonable prices, with customer service that gives a damn about keeping existing customers.
 
Last edited:

Orrymain

, Blogger: Orry's Orations
#6
Quite honestly, if my antenna ever does get 'fixed' so that I can receive what TVFool and I both know I should be getting, as much as I would miss many cable channels, because of my income, I'd probably drop Comcast, too. It's just too expensive. I should add that I would need to get my new TV first, but then it would be a done deal I'm afraid.
 
#7
I guess I'm guilty as charged. I use Comcast for the Internet, but not for cable! It's really outrageous what they expect you to pay for TV these days, and as per usual, there's STILL nothing good on!
 

n2rj

Moderator
Staff member
#8
I guess I'm guilty as charged. I use Comcast for the Internet, but not for cable! It's really outrageous what they expect you to pay for TV these days, and as per usual, there's STILL nothing good on!
Nobody really has to pay for TV. They can use an antenna and get it for free.

But some people have this entitlement mentality that because their TV programming has commercials in it, then it should be free, even when delivered by cable. I don't think so.
 

Chips

DTVUSA Member
#9
If validated, this is a very telling statistic. It shows clearly that legacy cable providers like Comcast are actually providing service at competitive rates, because the supplier that's "beating" them for the business they're losing is giving service away for free. You don't compete against "free", for the same reason you let (hope?) your unprofitable customers switch to your competitors.
I agree to a point, but it when comes to offering broadcasters video, what can a Cable Co. lose. If the cable is going right past a home and it rebroadcasting the signal over their cable, how can you lose money, the subscriber is paying the fee you want, and you are not losing any bandwidth, unless you want to get rid of analog altogether, but without that factor, the signal is still being broadcast the more subscribers the more money. As long as they are broadcasting the signal to begin with, it is not costing more money to deliver that signal to any home the cable goes by. But the more customers that stop subscribing the more money you have to get from the better customers.
 

Similar threads

Top