Corporate Doublespeak: By Forcing Competition On The Market, We Will Need To Raise Prices
from the these-guys-are-slick dept
Earlier this week we wrote about plans by the FCC to ban deals that gave a single service provider exclusivity to an apartment building or housing development. Service providers (particularly the cable companies who locked many of them up) loved these deals as they were granted a guaranteed monopoly. Of course, most of us realize that monopolies are bad for consumers and lead to higher prices (monopoly rents and all). Yet, now that they're gone, Comcast is responding to the deal by saying that it's actually competition that will cause them to raise prices. Reader slide23 writes in to point out Comcast's corporate doublespeak:The following statement may be attributed to Sena Fitzmaurice, Senior Director of Corporate Communications and Government Relations: "Consumers in apartment buildings and condos across the nation received a blow today from the action taken by the FCC. The result of this decision is likely to be higher prices for services and years of litigation and uncertainty for consumers. The significant concessions building owners have been able to bargain for on behalf of their residents will be lost."Yes, Comcast is going to use the fact that they now have to compete within apartment buildings to raise prices. Or, so they say. Somehow, you get the feeling that once the local DSL providers starts offering faster/cheaper service, Comcast will have a change of heart on the matter. More seriously, perhaps what Comcast really means is that it believes these kinds of services are natural monopolies, which may actually be a defensible position. Of course, Comcast probably doesn't want to go down that path at all. Once you admit you're in a space where a natural monopoly makes sense, then you open yourself up to forced line sharing and (more importantly for Comcast...) regulations barring any kind of traffic discrimination. Given last week's Comcast kerfuffle over traffic jamming, the last thing the company should be doing is suggesting that competition hurts the space, because that just gives politicians all the ammunition needed to put network neutrality laws in place.
The company can't really have it both ways. It can't go around saying it can run its network like a private company in a competitive market that doesn't need any regulation out one side of its mouth, while at the same time claiming that it's facing a natural monopoly where competition hurts the market out of the other side.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cable, exclusivity, internet
Companies: comcast, fcc
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Not surprising at all...
They offered a package deal at what appeared to be a reasonable price for about 3 months, but after that time the price sky-rocketed to their new rates.
Personally, we switched over and ended up with faster internet, more tv channels and more HD, and the bill is about $30/month lower than it was with Comcast... I honestly wonder how they can survive with these sorts of business decisions...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Competition doesn't alway mean choice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Competition doesn't alway mean choice
How is that good for consumers? I agree in the perfect world you are right but what are you supposed to do if you live in the real world where not all installs are equal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Competition doesn't alway mean choice
This is 100% false. Currently there are 2 major means to connect to a broadband ISP. DSL, and Cable. We can assume that most people living in apartments will have a landline phone, and a fair amount of them will have Cable TV services. The "wiring" for an internet connection makes use of standard POTS telephone lines and standard coaxial "Cable". There's no additional wiring necessary. Almost all apartment complexs have Cable in place and if you can find one that DOESN'T have telephone lines in place, then you probably won't find many people living there. Wiring in an apartment is hardly that much different, if at all, from any standard dwelling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Competition doesn't alway mean choice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Competition doesn't alway mean choice
99.999% of apartment/condo developers want the Comcast cash while doing as little work (read: spending money on infeastructure) as possible. They don't give a rip about what they're saddling the residents with.
It's a shame as I've tried telling these guys that digital services (Internet, voice, content) could be a HUGE differentiator in marketing their units to today's tech-savvy buyers (in only certain urban markets, of course), but they're stuck in yesterday's mass market mentality foisted upon us by Comcast, Verizon, et al.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Competition doesn't alway mean choice
That's a win-win-lose if I ever saw one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah...Comcast is at it again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comcast & competitition...
--
Texas Concealed Handgun License Classes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The result? Paying prices as high (higher, at first) then comcast for shoddy internet and cable, with no customer support and constant outages. When asking about it at the apartment office, he was point-blank told (by some junior working there) that the Complex used such-and-such provider because they were being paid.
with some competition, perhaps even the much hated Comcast will push them out with better service and pricing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dishes everywhere
Also, there are a lot of small apartment buildings in my city. Fully half of them have a dish hooked up. Not all apartments in the building have a dish, so it's obvious they split between Comcast and whoever.
I think Comcast is starting to see the writing on the wall and is moving into full panic/bribe the congressman mode.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comcast's prices go only one way
I was a Comcast customer for years and hated them for that entire period. I have yet to speak with a single Comcast customer who doesn't hate them. Month after month they regularly raised prices on basic cable until I found myself paying nearly $50/month for no premium stations, no digital cable, no set-top box, nothing but the basics. The outcome is I left the market entirely; I'm living without cable, getting my TV by way of Netflix, and loving the fact that I never have to give Comcast another dime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why do apartment dwellers have internet installed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
caveat emptor
Oh, but they can! It is up to the consumers to press lawmakers and other decision-makers (such as apartment landlords) to keep competition open. If we accept this B.S. we will get more of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Consumers have the power
Quit waiting for the Government to save you. If you want change regarding Comcast or any other issue, consumers could accomplish amazing things with organization.
Look at what effect the Christian coalition has had on Washington.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]