<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: &#8220;Choke the customer&#8221; is poor brand strategy</title>
	<link>http://tenayagroup.com/blog/2008/06/06/choke-the-customer-is-poor-brand-strategy/</link>
	<description>Brian Phipps on next-generation brands:</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:36:50 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: steve</title>
		<link>http://tenayagroup.com/blog/2008/06/06/choke-the-customer-is-poor-brand-strategy/#comment-75822</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jun 2008 23:53:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://tenayagroup.com/blog/2008/06/06/choke-the-customer-is-poor-brand-strategy/#comment-75822</guid>
					<description>PS - AT&amp;#38;T just announced they are going to do the same thing beginning in the Fall.  The case study these guys point to is Rogers in Canada, which discovered they can minimize the cost of upgrading their network while claiming they are protecting the speed available to most people though this mechanism.  Very few people got worked up about it and most consumers bought the corporate line.  It is useful to have a monopoly or a duopoly. 

I'm afraid we are past the point where natural competition would be easy and now we are seeing even more consolidation.  Net neutrality gets to be a very difficult area - about the only thing that can be done at this point is to force a funcational separation of moving bits and providing content, but even many of the Dems are too timid for that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>PS - AT&amp;T just announced they are going to do the same thing beginning in the Fall.  The case study these guys point to is Rogers in Canada, which discovered they can minimize the cost of upgrading their network while claiming they are protecting the speed available to most people though this mechanism.  Very few people got worked up about it and most consumers bought the corporate line.  It is useful to have a monopoly or a duopoly. </p>
<p>I&#8217;m afraid we are past the point where natural competition would be easy and now we are seeing even more consolidation.  Net neutrality gets to be a very difficult area - about the only thing that can be done at this point is to force a funcational separation of moving bits and providing content, but even many of the Dems are too timid for that.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Brian Phipps</title>
		<link>http://tenayagroup.com/blog/2008/06/06/choke-the-customer-is-poor-brand-strategy/#comment-75800</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jun 2008 14:49:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://tenayagroup.com/blog/2008/06/06/choke-the-customer-is-poor-brand-strategy/#comment-75800</guid>
					<description>Points well made, and taken. I'd like to think that a revitalized FCC might re-regulate the telcom/cable arena to induce more competition, but that probably won't happen until a new entrant helps force the FCC's hand. Not sure who that would be.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Points well made, and taken. I&#8217;d like to think that a revitalized FCC might re-regulate the telcom/cable arena to induce more competition, but that probably won&#8217;t happen until a new entrant helps force the FCC&#8217;s hand. Not sure who that would be.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: steve</title>
		<link>http://tenayagroup.com/blog/2008/06/06/choke-the-customer-is-poor-brand-strategy/#comment-75789</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jun 2008 11:13:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://tenayagroup.com/blog/2008/06/06/choke-the-customer-is-poor-brand-strategy/#comment-75789</guid>
					<description>Sadly the cables and telcos are often monopolies or duopolies - no real competition exists in the US - so getting away with tactics like this are not difficult.  Some of them have not been building expensive capacity into their systems and this sort of tactic will become more common.    Additionally the spin they use is that this is in the best interest of their average (say 95 percent) of their customers - and given their failure to grow their capacity, it probably is.

There are many other areas where the cables and now telcos get away with ripping off the customer - look at cable tv packages.  People often pay an additional $30 or more to get one or two extra channels plus 40 more they will never watch.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sadly the cables and telcos are often monopolies or duopolies - no real competition exists in the US - so getting away with tactics like this are not difficult.  Some of them have not been building expensive capacity into their systems and this sort of tactic will become more common.    Additionally the spin they use is that this is in the best interest of their average (say 95 percent) of their customers - and given their failure to grow their capacity, it probably is.</p>
<p>There are many other areas where the cables and now telcos get away with ripping off the customer - look at cable tv packages.  People often pay an additional $30 or more to get one or two extra channels plus 40 more they will never watch.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
