Home » pricing » Recent Articles:

Comcast Kicks CenturyLink Around With Very Aggressive ‘Switch Provider’-Discount Deals

Phillip Dampier October 24, 2011 Comcast/Xfinity, Competition, Consumer News, Editorial & Site News Comments Off on Comcast Kicks CenturyLink Around With Very Aggressive ‘Switch Provider’-Discount Deals

Stop the Cap! reader Wayne A. dropped us a line to let us know Comcast has been getting very aggressive in the Denver area, poaching CenturyLink customers with enormous discounts:

My wife and I just accepted a package from Comcast to leave CenturyLink for a package that includes:

  • Digital Premier HD with DVR
  • HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, and other premium movie channels
  • Broadband service at 25/5Mbps
  • Unlimited Long Distance Digital Phone Service

Comcast’s price?  An amazing $109.99/month for the first year, $129.99/month for the second.  Wayne says that’s a savings of $90 a month over ordinary Comcast prices, and compared with what he was paying CenturyLink, he will save $912.12 during the first year and around $600 for the second.

What makes Comcast’s pricing so aggressive is the fact they include much faster broadband speed than many other retention or “capture” customer deals.  They also throw in free premium movie channels.  We’ve seen Time Warner Cable offer triple-play retention deals for less than $90 a month for the first year, but they don’t include movie channels and deliver broadband service at the standard 10/1Mbps speed.

If you are paying Comcast more, it may be time to pick up the phone and threaten to walk unless you can have the same deal.  We’ve found dealing with customer retentions to be a real “your results may vary”-experience.  Don’t be willing to take the first offer.  Don’t be afraid to dismiss weak deals with a non-committal “I’ll think about it” if the price is not right for you.  Then call back.

In the last few weeks, we’ve found Time Warner Cable’s best deals still go to customers who actually schedule a service disconnection. Within hours, Time Warner starts calling, looking to “make an offer you cannot refuse.” The retention specialists at Time Warner who reach out to you generally have the most aggressively priced deals. You qualify if you call, schedule a disconnect a week or two out, and wait by the phone. You can keep your service running while company representatives try to convince you to stick with them.  Just make sure you answer those unfamiliar Caller ID-calls — it’s probably the cable company.  Most will ask why you disconnected.  If you answer “price,” the deals start coming.

Unfortunately, there was no way we could take advantage of any of their latest offers, which literally started two hours after disconnecting my late grandmother’s cable service.

It’s a buyer’s market for telecommunications products, so never settle for the regular price when a substantial discount is a phone call away.

FairPoint: The Little Company That Couldn’t, Wants To Be Deregulated

FairPoint Communications, which took control of Verizon landlines in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont in 2009 and then promptly went bankrupt is now appealing to New Hampshire’s regulators and legislature for deregulation.

Teresa Rosenberger, the company’s New Hampshire president, told the Nashua Telegraph that before FairPoint Communications took over Verizon’s northern New England landlines in 2009, that means of communication was the “only game in town.” Now that Verizon’s “monopoly” no longer exists, FairPoint wants the “shackles [removed from] our ankles.”

Setting aside the fact Verizon and FairPoint both faced identical competitors — Comcast and AT&T in parts of the state, the primary difference between the incumbent landline phone company and its cable competition is that the latter enjoys the right to choose its customers.  Landline providers must deliver universal access to basic service, something both FairPoint and Verizon managed for more than a century.

Rosenberger claims that with the rapid decline of landlines, FairPoint should be free from regulatory constraints it argues limits its ability to compete on pricing and service.  Rosenberger uses FairPoint’s biggest failure — its rapid loss of customers — as the core argument for allowing deregulation, which would deliver few checks and balances from state regulators.

FairPoint’s market share in New Hampshire is now down to 49% and dropping.  Its competition — Comcast and wireless mobile providers, now account for the majority of phone lines in the state.  FairPoint’s line losses spiked when the company took over providing service in northern New England from Verizon Communications.  Many FairPoint customers would describe that level of service as poor, with billing and service complaints reaching epic proportions before the company ultimately declared bankruptcy.

Rosenberger points out that the traditional way utility services deal with changing business models is to sell off non-performing or excess assets.  Electric utilities sell excess power, but phone companies like FairPoint have few things other providers want.

In particular, FairPoint is upset it is saddled with a statewide network of telephone poles that “nobody wants.”

“We lose a ton of money on these poles” when work has to be done on them, Rosenberger told the newspaper. “There is the flag rate, the excavation fee, paying for a cop out there – and that’s before taxation and reporting requirements.”

FairPoint notes their competitors gets to use those poles, and are not necessarily contributing their fair share towards their upkeep.

FairPoint isn’t asking to abandon its universal service obligation, something AT&T has lobbied for throughout its territories.  But it does want to do away with pricing regulations and reporting requirements.  If FairPoint offers a business customer a special discount rate, it must file that rate publicly with state regulators, which is public information.  FairPoint says its competitors may be using that information to undercut them in contract negotiations.  But the public price regulations are in place to prevent a phone company from offering dirt cheap service for a select few, effectively subsidized by other ratepayers.

FairPoint also wants quality of service reporting regulations eased, and that comes as a concern to some New Englanders who lived through FairPoint’s messy transition from Verizon service.  Even today, there are ongoing disputes over whether FairPoint is meeting state obligations on everything from how quickly they answer customer calls to whether or not service problems are resolved on a timely basis.

Frontier Tells Consumers They Can Buy Metro Ethernet Service Most Can’t Afford

Frontier Communications has announced the availability of Metro Ethernet service to a total of 55 cities in 11 states, with one Frontier representative describing it as perfect for individuals “who are serious gamers, people who download videos and those who watch TV and movies on their computers.”  Apparently Diana Anderson, technical supervisor for Frontier in Kennewick, Wash., has not read Frontier’s Washington State service tariff (5.7.7b) to understand the cost implications of signing up for the service.

Metro Ethernet falls between DSL and fiber optic connectivity, and delivers service at speeds that can approach 100Mbps or more, depending on telephone company facilities and the distance of copper between your home or business and the central switching office.  There are Metro Ethernet services that work over fiber networks, fiber-copper hybrid networks, and even traditional copper landlines — the ones Frontier uses to deliver its MetroE service.

Frontier is pitching Metro Ethernet primarily to medium and large-sized businesses who need more speed than the phone company can offer over its traditional DSL products.  The reason it’s not marketed to consumers is the cost.  Frontier’s Metro Ethernet service is included in Frontier’s tariff for Washington with an installation fee of $320 and a Metro Ethernet-Special Transport fee of $75 a month per DS1 (1.544Mbps).  Customers can get additional speed above 1.544Mbps by paying for additional DS1’s.

We called Frontier’s customer service and asked about service pricing in the Rochester area.  A residential customer service representative had to transfer us to the business products office — they do not sell “residential” Metro Ethernet.  A representative there said the service was available in several parts of Rochester, but was “completely unfeasible” for residential customers because of its cost.  Frontier DSL is the recommended solution for all residential customers in western New York, despite the fact the service does not exceed 3Mbps in our neighborhood (although it is marketed at speeds up to 10Mbps locally).

The following communities now have access to Frontier MetroE service:

  • Coeur d’Alene, Idaho
  • Bloomington, Carbondale, DeKalb, Freeport, Jacksonville, Lincoln, Marion and Olney, Illinois
  • Elkhart, Fort Wayne, Lafayette, Richmond, Terra Haute and Valparaiso, Indiana
  • Adrian, Coldwater, Mount Pleasant, Muskegon and Sturgis, Michigan
  • Bryson City, Burnsville, Cherokee, Creedmoor, Durham , Hayesville, Marion and Murphy, North Carolina
  • Gardnerville, Nevada
  • Athens, Bowling Green, Delaware, Jackson, Marion, Medina, Troy and Wilmington, Ohio
  • Beaverton, Coos Bay, Gresham and Hillsboro, Oregon
  • Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
  • Everett and Kennewick, Washington
  • Merrill, Sun Prairie and Wausau, Wisconsin

Let us know what kind of pricing and promotions you can get from Frontier for Metro Ethernet in your area in our comments section.

iPhone Owners Start Bugging AT&T for Special Upgrade Discounts

Phillip Dampier October 6, 2011 AT&T, Competition, Consumer News, Wireless Broadband 4 Comments

Courtesy: Gottabemobile

Just two days after the less-than-overwhelming unveiling of the incrementally-upgraded Apple iPhone 4S, the “must-have-it” crowd has begun melting down the customer service lines of AT&T looking for special discounted upgrade pricing, even though many are months away from the end of their contracts.

AT&T customers are being invited to dial *639# from their phones for an upgrade text message in response.  Others are visiting AT&T’s Phone Upgrade website.  Many are not happy to find AT&T isn’t automatically throwing out the rules for two-year contract upgrade pricing, and are being offered phones that include an early upgrade penalty and a new two year contract.:

  1. $250 early upgrade penalty fee;
  2. $199 for the iPhone 4S (8GB model) on a new two-year contract (other models available);
  3. $18 upgrade activation fee;
  4. Shipping, handling, and taxes extra.

For the benefit of having the latest iPhone, AT&T customers will pay at least $467.  That $250 early upgrade fee appears to be different from the company’s standard early termination fee: $325 minus $10 for each full month of your two year contract that you complete.

Several customers are unhappy to hear that, so they are calling up AT&T and demanding the same discounts a new iPhone customer would get.  AT&T has a history of bending over backwards for their iPhone customers, because they often spend more than other customers on higher-priced service plans.  In many cases, customers got their current generation iPhone months before contract renewal time, scoring significant savings and avoiding penalties other phone owners face when attempting early upgrades.  Many customers expect they’ll get the same treatment again, but AT&T is showing signs it has few reasons to agree to every request.

Surveying several message boards, it appears AT&T is granting early upgrades only to their best, biggest-spending customers.  Everyone else gets to wait.  For those who managed to acquire the iPhone 4 on the day it was released, discounted upgrades without the $250 penalty will become available the day after Thanksgiving.

Comcast Testing Its Version of “A-La-Carte” Cable: Theme Packs & Channel Bouquets

Cable subscribers paying ever-increasing television bills for hundreds of channels they never watch may find some relief if Comcast decides its experiment in “a-la-carte” cable-TV is a success.

The company is testing a new way of selling service that delivers a basic package of channels for a lower price and then offers customers bouquets of add-on channels sold in “theme packs” for $10 apiece.

Comcast is testing what it calls MyTV Choice in parts of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont and Charleston, South Carolina, and plans to expand it to the Seattle area soon.

Here’s how MyTV Choice works:

Customers start with a basic package of channels that Comcast calls “Get Started” ($24.95) or “Get Started Plus,” which sells for $44.95 a month.

What differentiates the two options are the networks they contain.  Inexpensive cable networks turn up in Get Started — A&E, Discovery, C-SPAN, Animal Planet, Daystar, Food Network, home shopping, and The Weather Channel are among the 32 channels that accompanies a basic package of local channels.

Get Started Plus includes all of those networks plus sports — the budget-busting networks that help keep cable bills growing.  ESPN and other regional sports channels are included in the more expensive package.

Missing from the basic package of channels are kids shows, news, movies, and niche networks.  That’s where Comcast’s “Choice” packs come into play.  Customers can add a 19-channel News & Info pack, 31-channel Entertainment & Lifestyle pack, 16-channel Movie pack, and/or an 11-channel Kids pack for $10 each.

That’s where the “choice” ends.  Customers cannot skip the basic channel package to select only one of the theme packages, individual channels are not for sale, and anywhere outside of Charleston, customers also have to buy phone and Internet service from Comcast. HD also costs extra.

So much for a lower bill.

In fact, Comcast sells a digital cable package incorporating a full lineup of basic cable channels for just under $60.  If your family loves sports, has kids, and needs news channels, sticking with the digital cable package is actually cheaper than MyTV Choice.  That’s because the latter will require a $44.95 base package, plus three theme packs for an additional $30 a month.

Comcast denies their experimental a-la-carte package has anything to do with cord-cutting Internet viewers.

“It’s more or less responding to feedback from customers that they want more choice,” Comcast spokesman Bill Ferry told the Post & Courier.

While Ferry and others argue the pay-per-channel is not economically feasible, Christopher C. King, a telecom analyst for Stifel Nicolaus in Baltimore told the newspaper that is the trend.

“Certainly the industry’s moving more toward an a la carte model,” King said.

Theme-packs are not a new concept for some pay television viewers.  In the 1980s and 1990s, consumers owning large 6-to-12 foot satellite dishes routinely encountered the channel bouquet concept.  Customers would purchase a basic package and then select from a dozen or more mini-tiers, usually made up of networks owned by one company.  Want TBS and TNT?  Turner Broadcasting sold an add-on with those two channels.  Wanted a superstation package?  Channels uplinked by cable companies like TCI from Denver could be purchased as a small package.  So could stations like WSBK in Boston, WWOR and WPIX in New York, KTVT in Dallas and KTLA in Los Angeles.

Comcast has “simplified” things with a much smaller set of choices.  But that also dramatically limits any potential savings.

The concept of a-la-carte cable horrifies cable companies and their Wall Street shareholders, because a true “pay-per-channel” offer would dramatically cut the average revenue earned per subscriber if customers took a hatchet to the bloated channel packages most customers receive today.

Cable operators have resisted the concept because every channel would have to be encrypted to sell individually, billing would become more complicated, and the business model of niche-oriented networks supported by more popular fare would end.  That’s why programmers hate the idea as well.  While A&E, TNT, and CNN would have no trouble surviving, networks like Current TV, TV One, Hallmark, Cloo, and LOGO probably would not.

More importantly, many subscribers might find savings elusive from a-la-carte, because the most expensive cable programming networks also happen to be among the most popular.  ESPN and Fox News Channel, for example, have dramatically increased their rates to cable companies, who helpfully pass them along to you.  But if cable operators suddenly stripped those networks out of basic packages, while leaving the much cheaper networks together in broad-based theme packages like “lifestyle and entertainment,” subscribers may howl in protest or accuse the cable operator of playing politics.

It gets even harder when the cable companies selling the big packages of channels customers never watch also happen to own some of the networks found within those packages.  Comcast shareholders may not like the cable side of the business kicking lucrative NBC-owned and operated cable networks like The Weather Channel, USA, E!, Cloo, and other owned networks to a-la-carte Siberia.  Every cable subscriber pays for Cloo and E! today.  How many will choose to pay for those networks under an “a-la-carte” model is an open question.

Only two cable operators have expressed an interest in switching to a true, a-la-carte model to date — Suddenlink and Mediacom — both small, regional players that have no programming interests and lack sufficient buying power to score the kinds of discounts available to companies like Comcast and Time Warner Cable — discounts they can have if they agree to keep as many channels bundled in one digital cable package as possible.

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

Your Account:

Stop the Cap!