9 thoughts on “How to Make the Telecoms Sexy? More Four-Play”

  1. Get with the 21st century. A better solution is called “online banking”. I have free billpay, so the only hassle caused by multiple vendors is to type a few more numbers into my PC once a month. If I can get better quality/value by rolling my own package from multiple providers, that’s an extremely small hassle factor.

    Sure, if a four-play (or even a triple play) truly represents the best quality and price for each individual service, then a package makes sense.

    But if the only reason to buy a package is to avoid paying multiple bills, and I have to put up with a subpar combination of services, well it’s no wonder package deals aren’t more successful.

  2. Hey Corners, you miss the joke, but get the point. single bill, lower prices, all services from one provider… price-less. thanks for the feedback though

  3. Om, Thanks. But I’m not sure you got *my* point. Total price and billing convenience isn’t everything, particularly when the services differ. The service packages are NEVER identical. Nor is any supplier likely to provide the optimal level in everything.

    Let’s say I could buy a four-play package from TimeWarner–one provider, all services , lowest price. But maybe I can get internet at twice the speed via DSL for only a few bucks more. And 3 times the channels on satellite for maybe the same price (or a bit more).

    These tradeoffs are sometimes more complex than we’d like them to be.

  4. oh i agree, they are quite complex. however, most of the people, not people with exceptional knowledge want to simplify these tasks. my sister for instance has the same issue as mine, and she is spending more money than she should. packages help – sort of like what AOL did for internet new comers. once they learn, perhaps it is time to switch to a better package or something!

  5. I’ve heard that providers are a little reluctant to offer single billing because they feel that the consumer has a harder time rationalizing one large bill versus a few smaller bills. So they fear a decline in uptake of premium services – the decision to take an existing cable bill from $70 to say $85, they feel, is easier to commit to than adding an additional $15 to a bill that already totals $240. I haven’t seen any market/consumer research to back this though.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.