SH SCV prices increased!

[Big Kahuna]

I have just cancelled my i.mail plan....12 years now since I sign up with Cyberway :cry:

There are so many people giving free email account with gigantic space, also not happy with them increasing from $2 to $3 per mth now :thumbsd:

The damage is already done, I will surely dump SCV if there is an alternative ;(

 

[Del_CtrlnoAlt]

wow.. more and more people are cancelling it.

i think SH is going to lose even more money thru this stupid decision.. :bsmilie:

well, lose the clients, but never lost the war lor... they still got a lot of ppl under contract and also subscribing without contract...

 

[Big Kahuna]

well, lose the clients, but never lost the war lor... they still got a lot of ppl under contract and also subscribing without contract...

Lose client might not be bad since they will have less transaction and volume....see how the local banks made record profit year after year after the increased all the fee base services?

They could also streamline their headcounts and concentrate in hight return sector :sweat: So we consumer is at the losing end no matter what lah ;(

 

[dkw]

I have just cancelled my i.mail plan....12 years now since I sign up with Cyberway :cry:

There are so many people giving free email account with gigantic space, also not happy with them increasing from $2 to $3 per mth now :thumbsd:

The damage is already done, I will surely dump SCV if there is an alternative ;(

Cable TV is discretionary, plenty of people in Singapore without it. You can dump SCV even if there was no alternative. If you choose to continue, then it is pretty silly to complain.

 

[vince123123]

There are a lot of things in Singapore that is discretionary, are you saying that a view that when a company which provides discretionary services abuses its monopoly, you are totally okay with it?

Other than food and housing, almost anything else is discretionary.

Cable TV is discretionary, plenty of people in Singapore without it. You can dump SCV even if there was no alternative. If you choose to continue, then it is pretty silly to complain.

 

[Big Kahuna]

Cable TV is discretionary, plenty of people in Singapore without it. You can dump SCV even if there was no alternative. If you choose to continue, then it is pretty silly to complain.

Of coz it's easy to conclude that when you do not subscribe as it does not hurt your pocket.

Anyhow, I am sure no one will be spared in this round of price rise by all the major service providers, I feel sorry as there are some who chose to accept rather than challenging the rational behind the hike :dunno:

 

[fotoudavid]

will terminate next week.

 

[zcf]

The damage is already done, I will surely dump SCV if there is an alternative ;(

It's true that if StarHub is not monopoly, they won't be able to raise price like that. I think the PR department will be quite busy recently :sweat:
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_129001.html
There are many more feedback toward starhub recently on straitstimes forum...

Time to reconsider satellite TV for homes
I AM curious to know if the Media Development Authority would be re-evaluating the policy on satellite TV for homes.
While undesirable contents that are at odds with Singapore's multiracial and multi-religious society may be a key concern, with proper implementation of policy and the choice of a responsible service provider, this concern could be addressed adequately.
Each time I visit my relatives in Malaysia, I am blown away by the wide range of channels available on Astro. Yet, I have never heard my relatives complain about inadequacy of censorship.
In fact, I have always associated Malaysia with having tighter censorship than Singapore with regard to its public television and cinemas.
If censorship seems to be a non-issue for satellite-TV audiences in Malaysia, why can't Singaporeans enjoy the same?
We don't regulate the Internet despite there being more objectionable content that risks eroding the fabric of Singapore's sensitive cultural and racial mix.
Despite the power of the authorities to revoke licences at any time, I believe it would not be too difficult to find service providers who would toe the line.
The construction of physical infrastructure is an expensive business, which might explain why it may not be feasible to have more than one or two operators offering content to the masses. Satellite technology eliminates some of these constraints and makes the distribution of content much more efficient.
My relatives across the border pay only a fraction of the prices we pay for cable TV here, and even then prices here are being increased again.
Satellite TV is already allowed in hotels here. This makes the discrimination a little difficult to understand - if tourists have access, why can't the local population? We will soon have the Formula 1 race and casinos, and we have ditched many stereotypes about Singapore in the last five years. It is time to reflect on the rationale behind some of our restrictive policies, in view of the new-look Singapore we are aiming to build. Wong Wai Pong

 

[centuryegg]

end of the day, complain all we want, terminate etc... there will still be majority who will just stick with it... why? no choice.... cos they know CASE is for show... talk only no action..... they just give you some big complicated letter to explain why must increase price and everyone just orh........... Dont be surprised they are going to start charging for the use of their cable points for FTA tv... "We have no choice but to charge 20 dollars a month for the use of SCV cables for Free to air tv due to...."

 

[jsbn]

I have just cancelled my i.mail plan....12 years now since I sign up with Cyberway :cry:

There are so many people giving free email account with gigantic space, also not happy with them increasing from $2 to $3 per mth now :thumbsd:

The damage is already done, I will surely dump SCV if there is an alternative ;(

Cyberway!!!!!! :bsmilie: Damn retro sia. Used to remember they are one of the original 3 ISPs in Singapore.

Singnet, PacNet & Cyberway! :thumbsup:

 

[dkw]

Of coz it's easy to conclude that when you do not subscribe as it does not hurt your pocket.

Anyhow, I am sure no one will be spared in this round of price rise by all the major service providers, I feel sorry as there are some who chose to accept rather than challenging the rational behind the hike :dunno:

Untrue, I am a subscriber like you, and to Sports channel too. Who likes an increase in fees? Not me! Is SH monopolistic? Possibly, but so is SBS and SMRT. Hence the existence of regulators in those industries. The true test of a monopolistic business is if it were able to raise prices ad-infinitum. If I believed SH to be a truly monopolistic business, as many here seem to, I would have loaded up on SH shares or find some way to become an employee of that company. But I don't, because they do not have a free rein of prices.

Next point, SH is a commercial entity, their reason for existence is to maximise profits. They should raise their fees as high as the market can tolerate. If I were a shareholder in SH, that is what I would demand from the management. Are they around to provide a social service? Absolutely not! So should SH try and justify their fee hike to me? I couldn't care less. Its a very simple commercial consideration for me. How much do I like to watch EPL and NBA? Quite a lot. How much am I willing to pay? A "reasonable" amount. When the time comes that the fees charged are above what I consider to be reasonable, I will terminate, very simple. So I can't watch Ronaldo, big deal. To consider challenging the rationale behind a commercial entity trying to maximise profits is like asking a shark why they eat fish; an entirely ridiculous proposition.

 

[CYRN]

It's true that if StarHub is not monopoly, they won't be able to raise price like that. I think the PR department will be quite busy recently :sweat:
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_129001.html
There are many more feedback toward starhub recently on straitstimes forum...

The thing is that satellite signals are not that good given our high rise buildings, signals are severely affected.

Also, when there's thunderstorms, signals might not get through... skali you get lighting strike instead. :bsmilie:

 

[vince123123]

You forget one important point, that is that this time, it is not just a simple price increase, but relying on the allmighty term which allows them to change terms as they like, and people who contracted with them cannot terminate unless they pay penalty fees.

Imagine this, what if I put somewhere in my contract that if you terminate before 2 years are up, you have to pay me S$1million. Normally you won't think too much about this because you are in for the 2 years, and you will think "Nah the most I don't terminate lor".

Then, now I come and tell you that inside the contract, is another term (which you probably didn't even see; as with most people), that allows them to change as they like.

Next day, they change and say that the subscription is now 100000 per month. Either you pay, or you terminate, in whcih case you pay me S$1M.

Heck, even if there is no termination charge of S$1M, they can always put it in now?

Caveat: I don't have a copy of the T&Cs, and I don't know to what extent they can change terms - maybe someone can advise.

Untrue, I am a subscriber like you, and to Sports channel too. Who likes an increase in fees? Not me! Is SH monopolistic? Possibly, but so is SBS and SMRT. Hence the existence of regulators in those industries. The true test of a monopolistic business is if it were able to raise prices ad-infinitum. If I believed SH to be a truly monopolistic business, as many here seem to, I would have loaded up on SH shares or find some way to become an employee of that company. But I don't, because they do not have a free rein of prices.

Next point, SH is a commercial entity, their reason for existence is to maximise profits. They should raise their fees as high as the market can tolerate. If I were a shareholder in SH, that is what I would demand from the management. Are they around to provide a social service? Absolutely not! So should SH try and justify their fee hike to me? I couldn't care less. Its a very simple commercial consideration for me. How much do I like to watch EPL and NBA? Quite a lot. How much am I willing to pay? A "reasonable" amount. When the time comes that the fees charged are above what I consider to be reasonable, I will terminate, very simple. So I can't watch Ronaldo, big deal. To consider challenging the rationale behind a commercial entity trying to maximise profits is like asking a shark why they eat fish; an entirely ridiculous proposition.

 

[dkw]

You forget one important point, that is that this time, it is not just a simple price increase, but relying on the allmighty term which allows them to change terms as they like, and people who contracted with them cannot terminate unless they pay penalty fees.

Imagine this, what if I put somewhere in my contract that if you terminate before 2 years are up, you have to pay me S$1million. Normally you won't think too much about this because you are in for the 2 years, and you will think "Nah the most I don't terminate lor".

Then, now I come and tell you that inside the contract, is another term (which you probably didn't even see; as with most people), that allows them to change as they like.

Next day, they change and say that the subscription is now 100000 per month. Either you pay, or you terminate, in whcih case you pay me S$1M.

Heck, even if there is no termination charge of S$1M, they can always put it in now?

Caveat: I don't have a copy of the T&Cs, and I don't know to what extent they can change terms - maybe someone can advise.

Sorry Vince, generally, you are fairly logical and thoughtful in your posts. The $1M example is a bit of stretch isn't it? If that is the main grouse of this thread (it is not, from what I have read), I would grant you that it is a little underhanded. But it is not $1M, it is the typical termination charge, whilst painful, is not going to severely dent anybody's bank account.

The main grouse thus far is the raising of the fees. To that, I feel the hurt, but are neither surprised nor angered. It is merely the nature of the beast and I do not in any way feel trapped by the situation, nor do I really sympathise who those who do.

 

[sORe-EyEz]

since when there's a fair T&C in any contract for above mentioned services? its always d costomers who will bear d brunt of higher fees, price adjustments upwards.

T&Cs is to cover d service provider backside oni, not costumer's. :sweat:

 

[vince123123]

Hmm, yes its a bit of a stretch, but that is to illustrate how unfair conditions may be easily exploited.

In any event, I do note that quite a number of letters in local newspapers have, not only highlighted the price increase, but also the fact that people who disagree with the price increase are contracted and stuck. In fact, that is the main thrust of the CASE letter on this issue.

Sorry Vince, generally, you are fairly logical and thoughtful in your posts. The $1M example is a bit of stretch isn't it? If that is the main grouse of this thread (it is not, from what I have read), I would grant you that it is a little underhanded. But it is not $1M, it is the typical termination charge, whilst painful, is not going to severely dent anybody's bank account.

The main grouse thus far is the raising of the fees. To that, I feel the hurt, but are neither surprised nor angered. It is merely the nature of the beast and I do not in any way feel trapped by the situation, nor do I really sympathise who those who do.

 

[BBTM]

Just now read the Newpaper. SH still say that only 1.1% of ppl terminating the cable. They think we stupid to term when under contracts and then pay them the penalty. CASE only ask them to let those under contract to term if they wanted. Seem like no effect la, all BIG company in SG got power, no one can touch unless boycott only but hardly happens in local. :thumbsd:

 

[swampthing]

Terminated last month. I watch more stuff from DVDs and surf more. Cable tv was really underused.

 

[spongezz]

Starhub has spent billions on systems that ultimately make our TV and broadband experience better, and with very little, if any at all, increase in price. I don't mind paying a little more for progress. When we start footing the bill for upgrades on the hybrid fibre-coaxial network so our upstream bandwidth can go from 100mbps to 1gbps while the world is still at 50mbps or so, then I'll start complaining about money not-well-spent. But until our network is advanced enough to even support 10mbps up at consumer prices, a little more dough for them to play with in R&D won't hurt

With the "billions" of $$ investment, I do not think their range of channels are so great...... except for live sport channel. AND they noe, that's why we need to sub to basic and piggy back an extra channel....... AND i dun think the R&D costs that much..... :nono:

 

[gangeslim]

i tahan 8 years w/o scv... since it started til now
and 1 month after i finally decided to get it they announce the price increase
how lucky can i get man....