How long before Comcast is in Chapter 11

[Andy Taylor]

That's the way a lot of these buys end up.

 

[LKellerIII]

That's the way a lot of these buys end up.

Really? I don't think that's correct, at all. It's true that some of the media mergers have problems. AOL Time Warner got into trouble when AOL tanked. Viacom made some mistakes - primarily with the theme parks they bought, and with Blockbuster. But I can't think of a single high-profile media merger that has ended in Chapter 11 yet.

Comcast has been doing fine financially. Despite all the ridicule heaped on NBC, and the 4th place finish in prime time, NBC Universal (as a corporation) earned operating earnings of $1.7 billion on earnings of $11.2 billion during the first 3 quarters of 2009. No - it ain't Walmart or Google, but given the economy, its not doing so bad, either.

.

 

[dave73]

Viacom made some mistakes - primarily with the theme parks they bought, and with Blockbuster.

Viacom bought Blockbuster in order to use the money they had at the time to outbid QVC for Paramount. If you think about it, Viacom bought both, Paramount, & Blockbuster around the same time in the 1990's.

 

[KML0224]

Of course Comcast is doing fine financially...they gouge all of the customers, do they not?

 

[oaktree]

They only gauge who are nuts enough to buy their cable product. There are options. If you don't like them, don't buy them No gauging done, or , at least, none worse than what you get from Direct or Dish.

 

[Silkie]

Here you are.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/12/03/in-comcast-nbc-deal-were-all-the-biggest-losers/?icid=main|main|dl7|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailyfinance.com%2F2009%2F12%2F03%2Fin-comcast-nbc-deal-were-all-the-biggest-losers%2F

 

[LKellerIII]

They only gauge who are nuts enough to buy their cable product. There are options. If you don't like them, don't buy them No gauging done, or , at least, none worse than what you get from Direct or Dish.

Well, I'm one of those "nuts" who pays for Comcast. I'm not defending them, and I'm not thrilled about this deal, either. I also wasn't thrilled that they took the opportunity to charge people more for HD - which amounts to a de-facto rise in their rates given that practically everybody will have HD within a couple of years.

However - that said - I have not been thrilled with the satellite alternatives. The last time I did a comparison (a couple of years ago), DirecTV came out about $8.00 per month cheaper for equivalent service -not worth the trouble to have one or more dishes installed on my house, and the potential problems with maintenance - I live in an area with a lot of wind, and rain storms generally hit hard from the south. The Comcast lines are now underground where I live.

And last time I checked, satellite didn't do On Demand, which I'm addicted to. If they have now started On Demand service, it's probably time for me to do another price comparison.

By the way - in my area, Comcast customer service is courteous and helpful - no problem there - and much superior to the cable company that preceded them (AT&T).

 

[benwolf]

They only gauge who are nuts enough to buy their cable product. There are options. If you don't like them, don't buy them No gauging done, or , at least, none worse than what you get from Direct or Dish.

Plenty of gouging oaktree. When one major provider like cable raises their rates, their competitors follow, as long as they're still a couple of bucks below. Its called raising the bar, and cable, satellite and AT & T just inch upward with the flow, at least from what I've seen.

 

[LKellerIII]

They only gauge who are nuts enough to buy their cable product. There are options. If you don't like them, don't buy them No gauging done, or , at least, none worse than what you get from Direct or Dish.

Plenty of gouging oaktree. When one major provider like cable raises their rates, their competitors follow, as long as they're still a couple of bucks below. Its called raising the bar, and cable, satellite and AT & T just inch upward with the flow, at least from what I've seen.

That's exactly why I don't bother to switch from Comcast to satellite. If DirecTV or Dish would save me $25 a month or more, I would probably jump for it, but $8 per month (less than $100 per year) is not worth the trouble.

 

[stationless listener]

The real question is how long before the constant rate increases begin to affect negatively their bottom line. At some point (and I have no clue where), being able to pick the pockets of customers on a casual basis hits the point of diminishing returns. Or a massive brick wall if you're Cheapcast. No, I don't have Cheapcast as my cable company but what I have is nothing to brag about, either. Hint: they used to be in the same company as AOL.

Anyway, I try to look at it from the other side, even though it annoys me to do it. First, you have a business that is capital and labor-intensive (having to wire millions and millions of homes isn't a cheap operation). You have a regulated industry (OK, I know many of us don't think the regulations are worth anything nowadays but bear with me for now) that is subject to oversight from local and federal agencies, with various political and non-governmental factions to satisfy. You have to deal with various media companies, some of which (ESPN) believe that they have a Gawd-given right to charge as much as they can. You have a not-so-small section of your customers who are very fickle, ready to ditch your company at any first or a series of disruptions or perceived lack of quality in service. You have to deal with many fast-moving changes coming down the pipeline that would radically alter the way people watch content on the air. Last, but certainly not least, you have shareholders who are holding billions worth in stock, options, etc., who want to know how you are able to handle the challenges to your business.

I don't defend many of the practices of these cable companies but I don't pretend that they don't understand the pressures of the business, either.

 

[LKellerIII]

The real question is how long before the constant rate increases begin to affect negatively their bottom line. At some point (and I have no clue where), being able to pick the pockets of customers on a casual basis hits the point of diminishing returns. Or a massive brick wall if you're Cheapcast. No, I don't have Cheapcast as my cable company but what I have is nothing to brag about, either. Hint: they used to be in the same company as AOL.

Good question. Much of the increase in their rates is due to technology - and are somewhat hidden by the addtion of new technologies. I've had cable service for over 25 years starting with Viacom, which was sold to TCI, then AT&T and now Comcast. The whole thing is a blur, frankly. I don't recall what year Comcast came in, but I'm sure I pay at least double.

But I get a lot more than I did 10 years ago - more channels, digital service, HD, a DVR, On Demand. Am I getting my money's worth from all that new technology? I'd say yes. I watch TV very differently than I did back then - almost entirely On Demand or time shifted with my DVR. And I wouldn't want to go back to those days just to save the extra $50 (or whatever) per month.

Same thing with cell phones - I pay about double what I did a few years ago...because my wife just had to have that Apple i-phone, and now we need to pay for internet Now I want one...

But eventually, techology levels out. Think about computers - they got so fast, and have so many features that we don't replace them every couple of years like we used to...for the latest Pentium processor, or whatever. Cable/satellite is reaching that point, and settling in with High definition. Comcast will have a harder time raising their rates without making people angry.

 

[Markxxx]

AOL Time Warner got into trouble when AOL tanked. ther.

To be fair AOL was manipulating it's books for years to show money where none existed. Of course those accounting practices were OK back then.