# Cable: Switching Satellite Subs Easier With Triple Play



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

When the pay-TV industry reported second quarter numbers, it became apparent that
although satellite providers are having financial success, rounding up subscribers is
becoming more and more difficult. But now, cable operators are touting the fact that
their triple-play bundles are stealing satellite customers easier than ever before.

One such company is Cox Communications, which on Tuesday said satellite customers
are subscribing to the cable giant in record numbers due to the value and convenience
of its triple-play bundle. Among new connections, the company said, the percentage
of basic cable customers who are former satellite customers has nearly doubled in
the past two years.

"In 2004, six percent of our basic connects were former satellite customers; in 2006,
we've driven that number to 11 percent," said Cox president Patrick Esser. "The
convenience and value of buying video, telephone and internet services from one
provider and our superior customer care experience are bringing more and more
DBS customers to Cox."

According to the company, Cox's success in attracting satellite customers helped
the company gain approximately 84,000 basic cable customers since July 2005. 
Advanced video services such as cable-only on-demand, HD and DVR contributed
to new customer acquisitions and a reduction in churn.

"Former satellite customers are great cable customers. Over 40 percent buy the full
three-product bundle.", said Esser.

www.SkyReport.com - used with permission


----------



## D-Bamatech (Jun 28, 2006)

Nick said:


> When the pay-TV industry reported second quarter numbers, it became apparent that
> although satellite providers are having financial success, rounding up subscribers is
> becoming more and more difficult. But now, cable operators are touting the fact that
> their triple-play bundles are stealing satellite customers easier than ever before.
> ...


NICE post of REALness. I see you too keep up with TRUTH. (also SKY report)

Just wait till IPTV makes wide release to DMA's. I predict that Rural America will be the dominant and maybe ONLY Sat cust in the VERY near future.

DTv and D-net better start offering ala carte programming to compete or get ready for a sinking ship! Its already "taking on water".


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

As long as cable keeps the prices high there will be a place for competitors.

"Tripple Play" is a good marketing tool ... especially when combined with a limited time offer that makes the three services affordable ... but at the end of the special customers are left with rates that are not as competitive.

Plus satellite has a big partner in the battle against "tripple play" ... we call it 'the phone company'. AT&T has begun a heavy anti-tripple play ad campaign. Sprint/Embarq has one running as well. Phone companies don't like the tripple play any more than satellite companies (except for the tripple play they want to offer).

It may get interesting - but satellite shouldn't be overly threatened by this new fad.


----------



## Olevia37HD (Jul 12, 2006)

Have any one heard of ViaTalk?
To me if you can get two years of unlimited phone service for $199. it just shows me how much cable companys even with Triple Play are sticking it to us. :eek2:


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

D-Bamatech said:


> ...DTv and D-net better start offering ala carte programming to compete or get ready for a sinking ship! Its already "taking on water".


Forum posting conventions:

DTV = Digital TV
E* = EchoStar (Dishnetwork)
D* = DirecTV



> _better start offering ala carte programming to compete..._


Ala carte is not a good idea for anyone except for the (mostly) unprofitable low-dollar subs -- not the
sats, not cable, and certainly not all the mid-to-high-dollar subs who are the backbone of all MCVPs.


----------



## D-Bamatech (Jun 28, 2006)

Nick said:


> Forum posting conventions:
> 
> DTV = Digital TV
> E* = EchoStar (Dishnetwork)
> ...


 BUT IPTV does/ will. = (al carte) So what then? 
(thats what i meant btw)
When IPTV (imo) becomes available to the masses the rest will follow suit or get left behind.. a matter of time.

Do you see ANY RESIDENTIAL internet dishes in the metro areas where DSL, cbl, and NOW wifi is available.. NOPE never have ..never will. In the future the same will be true for DBS IMHO. It will become LAST choice just as the ISP dish is now.

Ive been in the DBS game for going on 12 years (since its birth). Its not the cheapest anymore and the cble comp's as you posted are taking the DMA's back as we speak.
I see it and my wallet feels it. Both DTV and d-net's new Cust's #'s dictate such. I dont think those numbers are because America doesnt watch as much TV.
Its a saturated market almost now and there are too many choices. IPTV will rule for the "tv heads". Look where IPTV is now. It's caused major "ship jumping" from both cble and DBS.

IPTV will start to sink them both (cbl/ DBS) if things dont change with one thing =TRUE VOD and that word of ala Carte.

PS.. that trademark copyright noise (lol) of the D* & E* doesnt even enter my mind as you can see. Screw 'em.. theyve screwed me enough already:lol:

Both D* and E* have Now turned into scavengers and idiots as far as biz is concerned anyway ya know. 12 yrs of nothing but a Plummet south! Their recent implications for dealers and techs alike have turned them into strong arm robbers to be frank.

I watched the Birth of them both with my hands and eyes.. Now days you'd be better off dealing with congress to be honest.

I just may be on my way out to escape the madness and the simple unjust.
I cant stand to be Robbed and not ever see a pistol ya know


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

IPTV is an interesting concept, it may even develop into a niche market, but it is not organized enough to compete with packaged television options.

The first hurdle is content. "Choose your own channels" a la carte is nice, but the channels you want must be among the choices. The second is content protection. Commercial providers will not want an easy to hack feed available via the Internet. The third is pipe size. How many channels can a house view at the same time? One? With limited bandwidth one could end up with bad PQ (especially as neighbors watch different channels and clog the pipes).

There is also some information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_television

E* and D* are still turning profits and increasing their subscriber numbers. Down an bit, but not out by any means. Unfortunatly that can lead to trying to reduce costs in order to keep making a profit.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Triple play rocks, I love the idea of one bill and a bunch of services from one company. As song as Digital Phone is available in my area, I will get it. 

I don’t see how $155.95 for digital cable with all the premiums, all the On Demands, rental of one digital box, 7Mb Broadband and digital phone with Caller ID, Voice Mail, Call Waiting and all the other stuff is expensive. 

Similarly Dish’s AEP is $90, Verizon’s Freedom package is $62 and Verizon DSL is $30 for only 3Mb down. $182 plus tax. For that price, with cable I could add the HD Tier, Sports Tier, get a second box as in a HD DVR, add the $4 and change franchise fee and the tax is only applicable on Digital Phone service and still comes out a buck or two cheaper. Plus I get more premium movies channels, On Demands and over double the speed on the broadband side. Oh yeah and with cable, no upfront costs or contracts.

I have never heard of ViaTalk and that’s why I wouldn’t use them for phone service. I’d rather have phone service from a company I have heard of before and trust, like Time Warner. And the biggest issue, I don’t care how cheap Vonage or ViaTalk are, if you can’t absolutely 100% guarantee that if I dial 911, it will get routed properly, then I don’t want your service. I’m sorry, whatever pocket change I save by using some third party service is not worth the potential loss of a life in some extreme situation.

As for cost, in my situation, with what I have when doing the math from having Video and Data, to having Video, Data and Voice from Time Warner, at regular rates, it’s only an increase of $15 plus tax, since I’d be converted to the All In One Premium Package. And that works out to be about the same as ViaTalk.

Not to mention cable telephony does not affect your download/upload speed while on the phone.


----------



## steelhorse (Apr 27, 2004)

Steve Mehs said:


> Triple play rocks, I love the idea of one bill and a bunch of services from one company. As song as Digital Phone is available in my area, I will get it.
> 
> I don't see how $155.95 for digital cable with all the premiums, all the On Demands, rental of one digital box, 7Mb Broadband and digital phone with Caller ID, Voice Mail, Call Waiting and all the other stuff is expensive.
> 
> ...


Comcast in my area does not have the prices you are talking about. Their top digital cable package is 138. Then add 40 for phone and 44 for internet. Oh, they just raised their price. Didn't even tell anyone, just added it to your bill. The local tv is ranting about it.
Then you have the issue of their basic 50 or so channels being so fuzzy they can barely be seen.
That is why I went to sat in the first place.


----------



## Olevia37HD (Jul 12, 2006)

Steve Mehs said:


> I have never heard of ViaTalk and that's why I wouldn't use them for phone service. I'd rather have phone service from a company I have heard of before and trust, like Time Warner. And the biggest issue, I don't care how cheap Vonage or ViaTalk are, if you can't absolutely 100% guarantee that if I dial 911, it will get routed properly, then I don't want your service. I'm sorry, whatever pocket change I save by using some third party service is not worth the potential loss of a life in some extreme situation.
> 
> As for cost, in my situation, with what I have when doing the math from having Video and Data, to having Video, Data and Voice from Time Warner, at regular rates, it's only an increase of $15 plus tax, since I'd be converted to the All In One Premium Package. And that works out to be about the same as ViaTalk.
> 
> Not to mention cable telephony does not affect your download/upload speed while on the phone.


I never heard of ViaTalk either but then again at one time I never heard of E*or Vonage and that didn't stop me from switching. I have VONAGE and I have no problem D/L and a do my fare share. As far as 911 goes I don't have a problem infact I had a cop knock at my door recently and tell me I hung up on 911.  But ViaTalk has the 911 you like.
WOW. I guess that $15 more is for the DVR @ $180 a year, that is about the same as ViaTalk for two.:eek2: 
See for Optimum (Cable company) that is the price for just the DVR and also they don't have caller ID for call waiting. :eek2: Vonage just add calling to europe for free, well so did cable for $20 more a month. :eek2: 
Top it all off my Cable Company doesn't show any previewing of Showtime or HBO and why not they can't stick it to you on the price. They also need all the money they get to help out in all the lawsuits to keep FIOS out, hey wait didn't they do the same with satellite. I would say Satellite maybe one of the reasons you are getting a better price from Cable and I see companys like ViaTalk, Vonage and FIOS making them give you an even better price. 
But then I'm sure your cable company appreciate's your business.


----------



## D-Bamatech (Jun 28, 2006)

James Long said:


> IPTV is an interesting concept, it may even develop into a niche market, but it is not organized enough to compete with packaged television options.
> 
> The first hurdle is content. "Choose your own channels" a la carte is nice, but the channels you want must be among the choices. The second is content protection. Commercial providers will not want an easy to hack feed available via the Internet. The third is pipe size. How many channels can a house view at the same time? One? With limited bandwidth one could end up with bad PQ (especially as neighbors watch different channels and clog the pipes).
> 
> ...


James, Bandwidth problems from what actually tangible hands and Transmission engineers i am in contact with say. Its almost pure myth now. I have EX sat techs who now work for ATT (lightspeed) and also have contact with some "insiders' with A large telco now on the Transmission Engineering side. Nada.. the bandwidth at 12 meg *non fiber to the curb and on asdl2 even (internet, phone, video) works like a charm. Not a hic-up one *so far. Verison FIOS and ATT (SBC, bellouth ect) are in the process of "letting it go". From what i see this thing is awesome. Its gonna be a little more than a niche. There is alot of IPTV smalll time providers(set top boxes) on the rise also. Major Metro's are swaping where the service is avail. as we speak. Go to BBR and watch the migration take effect. Fios for a Fact in areas is pulling the cbl cust's in the droves and in some places they have 30 meg. TW is on the defensive Now up in the north east in a big way. . Cable and sat cant touch this mess right now. No more paying for channels ya dont watch. And source input @each viewing per a fee. ITS super nice. Move over cbl and sat.. there's a train a comin' (wink)


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Fios has a chance because it its a packaged service.

The concept of buying a box and dealing with individual program providers is a mess. Aggregators are important because channel providers do not want to deal with thousands of tiny accounts. There needs to be an aggregator of services and, more importantly, there need to be services to aggregate.

Bandwidth isn't unlimited. Even if they managed to get the speeds up local providers have to have better connections to the world. Unless there is money in it for them there is no reason to spend the money. You are more likely to see TOS changes banning IPTV or charging customers for the throughput than ISPs increasing their throughput for no extra charge.

Welcome to America ... someone is going to get paid.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

James Long said:


> ...Welcome to America ... someone is going to get paid.


...and someone is going to pay. :shrug:


----------



## D-Bamatech (Jun 28, 2006)

James Long said:


> Fios has a chance because it its a packaged service.
> 
> The concept of buying a box and dealing with individual program providers is a mess. Aggregators are important because channel providers do not want to deal with thousands of tiny accounts. There needs to be an aggregator of services and, more importantly, there need to be services to aggregate.
> 
> ...


 NICE reflection!.. both you guys (HDnet too).. Kudo's..

BTW.. the throughput issue is already surfacing. BUT not on the cx end. providers are TRYING to charge priority fees NOW. Bellsouth (which is now fixin' to be ATT SBC or who ever they call theirself now lol) is already and has been speaking this noise. They wanna charge the "Googles" ect . I agree BTW with those set top box sellers im not impresed at all. BUT the telco's IPTV whoa is me =VERY impressive. Never scene anything like it.. truely amazing!


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

> I would say Satellite maybe one of the reasons you are getting a better price from Cable and I see companys like ViaTalk, Vonage and FIOS making them give you an even better price.


While I can't say for certain, who really can except for the execs of my division, I really doubt it in this case. My TW division is out of Rochester, Verizon has no presence in the Rochester market, Frontier is the telco and has no plans for fiber, their DSL is lackluster and phone service has always been expensive since in a lot of towns it's long distance to call someone as little as one or two towns over. But due to screwy cable boundaries I have TW as my cable provider. I actually live 12 miles from Buffalo, where Verizon has major presence. To my knowledge out of the about 60 towns, cities and villages TW Rochester services, there's only six whose phone telco is Verizon. Five of those towns are rural, mine being one of them. My area of the franchise dose not have enough subscribers, that if Verizon did offer anything spectacular, it would have no positive impact, as we're not the bread and butter of the franchise. Satellite never really had high penetration in the Rochester market either. Locals haven't been on DBS for that long, HD locals won't be on for years and this is becoming irrelevant, but the WB affiliate of Rochester is cable only. And from my own eyes, driving around in the suburbs of Rochester, you see a lot less dishes then driving in the suburbs of Buffalo.

Usually I'd say yeah it was thanks to competition, I think there might actually be someone with half a brain running my cable company who knows what consumers want. We were the first TW franchise in the country to get uped from 5Mb to 7Mb on Road Runner and one of the first to roll out digital simulcast.



> But then I'm sure your cable company appreciate's your business


Well I hope they do, as I very much appreciate the stellar products and services they offer to me. I can't wait until 1Q07 when Digital Phone becomes available in my town.



> Comcast in my area does not have the prices you are talking about. Their top digital cable package is 138. Then add 40 for phone and 44 for internet. Oh, they just raised their price. Didn't even tell anyone, just added it to your bill. The local tv is ranting about it.
> Then you have the issue of their basic 50 or so channels being so fuzzy they can barely be seen.


Completely different story here and picture quality is excellent all around as what little channels are still in analog I have in HD like my locals, TNT and ESPN.

Digital Cable is $56 and includes most of the non premium movie channels you'd find in AT180 or TC+, (the extra sports channels in AT180 however are in the $2 add on Sports Tier) Box rental is an additional $8, DVR fee is an additional $10, but HD DVRs have both fee's combined and its $13. $5 less for a higher end box, go figure. For movie channels, the first package is $13, each additional one is $8, Encore is $3. So every movie channel can be had for $40, with 44 movie channels (and only 4 of them are west feeds and not including HD and OnDemand) that's less then a buck a channel, which is cheaper then DBS, especially DirecTV.

Road Runner is $40 with cable TV, $45 without, and Digital Phone is $40 with cable TV and RR, $45 with Cable TV or RR. Even with individual prices on each service (including discounted RR and Phone) from TW, Triple Play is much cheaper.

Digital Cable (Digital Cable and all the premiums with one box) - $104 
Road Runner - $40
Digital Phone - $40

$184 versus $156 for the exact same services and level of service on each. Even though my bill is a bit more complicated then that since I have the Sports Tier, the HD Tier, a SD DVR, a HD DVR and Premium RR, the price differences stay about the same. For most subscribers who don't want the extra add ons, it's $144 with Digital Cable and Road Runner or $156 with Digital Cable, Road Runner and Digital Phone since you're now an All In One subscriber. When looking at it that way, cable telephony is pretty cheap here, despite Time Warner's own advertisements of 'as low as $39.95'. Their marketing sucks here, they push Digital Phone and All In One, but never give the price on the All In One packages, which makes everything a great value.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> Plus satellite has a big partner in the battle against "tripple play" ... we call it 'the phone company'. AT&T has begun a heavy anti-tripple play ad campaign. Sprint/Embarq has one running as well. Phone companies don't like the tripple play any more than satellite companies (except for the tripple play they want to offer).


At least not until their own triple-play product is ready for market. Verizon is the motivation there, not cable. AT&T is working on their own video distribution setup and I wouldn't be surprised of Embarq doesn't have something up its sleeve.


----------



## Kidar66 (Aug 20, 2006)

I had Time warner fo 6 year and the triple play is not cheap. If you have one tv and do not want anything extra then its cheap. The price only includes basic/standard cable ( about 78 channels) They charge you for every little thing. : 
- Extra box 7.95 each
- DVR service 9.95 for each DVR
- Digital connection Fee 
- other taxes and fees
- the prices change without notice
I am not saying directv is best but I have everything Directv has and still subscribe to TW Roadrunner and digital phone and I am paying less for all of this than I was paying with there triple play service.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

steelhorse said:


> Comcast in my area does not have the prices you are talking about. Their top digital cable package is 138. Then add 40 for phone and 44 for internet. Oh, they just raised their price. Didn't even tell anyone, just added it to your bill. The local tv is ranting about it.
> Then you have the issue of their basic 50 or so channels being so fuzzy they can barely be seen.
> That is why I went to sat in the first place.


Cable just costs too much. Comcast raised prices 4.6% here.


----------



## stuart628 (Jul 8, 2004)

I know in my area, time warner gives you digital cable, Phone, plus 5 MB internet for 39.95 a piece, go here

http://www.discoverneo.com/calculator/SHPriceCalculator.php

for 152.50 you get everything I mentioned, plus all on demands, and that is not promtional pricing, right now I pay 97 a month for directv, and 70 a month for my internet/phone.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Paul Secic said:


> Cable just costs too much. Comcast raised prices 4.6% here.


Not to start another cable vs sat war, but a year ago when I switched from Dish
to cable (Adelphia>Comcast), I got more movie channels and have been saving
$25/m. net. Overall, I save $75/m because I also had basic cable along with Dish.

Also, I got an HD DVR (SA Explorer 8300) on monthly rental with no money up front.


----------



## Olevia37HD (Jul 12, 2006)

Nick said:


> Also, I got an HD DVR (SA Explorer 8300) on monthly rental with no money up front.


But at what cost?


----------



## stuart628 (Jul 8, 2004)

in my area, I believe it is 8.95 a month for a HD DVR-which one Dvr is included with triple play (wether thats hd or not dosent matter) Also, the 5.99 a month is for both dvrs (the DVR service fee). which on directv I still save money (4.99 a month for a reciever +5.99 a month for insurance+5.99 a month for dvr service, cable=no insurance!)


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

In my area an HD DVR is $12.95 total, or broken down $7.95 rental fee, $5.00 DVR fee. No upfront costs.

Sure as hell beats the $700 price tag on the HD DTiVo at the time, for an outdated receiver, with the $5.99 DVR fee and $4.99 extra IRD I'm paying a whole $2 more. Not to mention don't need no extended warranty scam, as if my box dies I take a 20 minutes ride to the cable office and exchange it for a new one for free, go back home and hook it up.


----------



## stuart628 (Jul 8, 2004)

also I must say this, even though it rarley happens, Dish damage to the roof, can happen. My neighbors just had their house remodeled, and they had to replace the section of roof, where the dish was installed, because of a soft spot and damage to the roof from the dish. They had directv, and it had been up there for about 5 years, it was installed properly, with all sealents, and never leaked majorly, just into the osb board. Anyways, I must say this is a small miniscule poisitive for cable.


----------

