Originally Posted by GregLee
I don't understand the logic of this. They give up the revenue they get from some shopping channels, but somehow that "won't cost them a dime"?
I assume broadband users would pay more for more bandwidth, and this revenue would offset the loss of revenue from dropping the shopping channel. That's their only "cost" to add bandwidth to the Comcast network. They don't have to lay more fiber, or send out technicians. A couple of engineers in the NOC (network operations center) push out some config files to the cable head-end units to move some HFC frequency slots from video use to broadband use, and it's done.
That's about what it costs to wash Brian L. Robertson's private jet. Once.
I have "regular DSL". Which Comcast has to offer because the SEC would not approve the NBC acquisition unless they offered it. Comcast does not advertise this option, but it is there (for a period of 3 years only, after the NBC acquisition).
To get higher speed DSL I have to buy a video package for $45 that I don't want. I don't watch TV. If I buy the video package, Comcast will turn up my port speed (and charge me for it), but won't add any actual bandwidth to it's network.
Now they are "selling" me 100Mbps instead of 30Mbps, but they can still only expect to deliver 20Mbps. On top of that they still get to keep the $$M's in subsidies from the shopping networks. Most people would call this business model fraud.
As it stands now Comcast quarterly profit on broadband is 95-97%. You might well wonder how they can stand in front of FCC Chairman Wheeler, and say with a straight face, that they need to charge more money to improve their network. Oh right... Wheeler used to work for them.