I cannot believe Viasat allows so many customers to attempt to share so little bandwidth. Paying way too much and cant use service.

  • 1
  • Problem
  • Updated 6 months ago
  • Acknowledged
I cannot believe Viasat allows so many customers to attempt to share so little bandwidth. After kids get out of school each day and on weekends I get about .4 MBPS. Thats Point 4.. Th
Photo of rmduke

rmduke

  • 3 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes

Posted 9 months ago

  • 1
Photo of Ron Frank

Ron Frank

  • 312 Posts
  • 202 Reply Likes
That is exactly the problem.  And every one of those customers is paying way too much just like you are for service they cant use either.  Which what ???????

Makes them a bunch of money, and looks good to investors making the stock prices go/stay up.
  
They lock new customers in for a 2 year "service contract" so once they figure out it doesnt work half the time, they cant leave, and if they do, Viasat still makes money from the early termination fees, which what ???????

Makes them a bunch of money, and looks good to investors making the stock prices go/stay up. 

Sadly its not just Viasat.  This seems to be the business model for the 21st century.  Customers mean NOTHING ..... its all about the $$$$$$$$$$.  From poor quality, over priced goods and services that dont last or perform as expected, to food and drugs that make you sick or flat out kill you.  ITS ALL ABOUT THE $HAREHOLDER$ ... THE CONSUMER DOESNT MATTER!

One thing Ive come to learn, and not simply with Viasat but ANY provider, of ANY service.  If there is a "service contract" ... there is a reason there is a service contract!!   HAPPY, SATISFIED CUSTOMERS DONT LEAVE!
(Edited)
Photo of Karen Weindel

Karen Weindel

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Viasat is  the worst internet provider that I have ever worked with. The internet speed is slow and sometimes it would stop without reason. I called customer service and they said that I had the cheapest modem. I cancelled my service and asked them to remove their equiptment and they said that it would cost $90.00.
Photo of ExSatUser

ExSatUser

  • 1154 Posts
  • 720 Reply Likes
Of course.  You can do it yourself you know.

And why it exactly did you get Viasat for in the first place, especially if you had other internet options available to you.
Photo of Old Labs (VS1-329-L12FZ)

Old Labs (VS1-329-L12FZ)

  • 4281 Posts
  • 4367 Reply Likes
If Viasat were to limit the number of subscribers based on peak usage period usage, there'd probably be 1/4th the number of current subscribers. Viasat would probably need to raise prices by a factor of 4 or so to make up for the lost revenue. Decreasing ARPU is not a good business strategy when selling a limited resource. Viasat's current strategy is to maintain subscriber levels while increasing average revenue per user. As of the last reporting quarter, the subscriber count of 585000 was still well below the peak of 696000.   

Not many of us would be willing to pay four times the cost we incur now.

It's only business, Viasat's primary responsibility is to their shareholders and employees. We get to vote with our feet to affect a business strategy change unless we're also shareholders.
(Edited)
Photo of Ron Frank

Ron Frank

  • 312 Posts
  • 202 Reply Likes
Although I agree with you, we need to further break down the demographics of those current and peak subscribers by beam.   I could care less that a beam in California can hold 100,000 more subscribers, if MY beam is 10,000 over capacity.

When Wildblue/Exede/Viasat started, their mission statement was to supply high speed internet to rural subscribers who lacked other viable alternatives.  It seems their focus has turned to the heavily populated, high volume areas already served by land based providers.

Its nice they want to expand and increase their market share, but not at the expense of us who were the basis of the industry and still desperately need them.
Photo of Old Labs (VS1-329-L12FZ)

Old Labs (VS1-329-L12FZ)

  • 4281 Posts
  • 4367 Reply Likes
Agreed you do have to look at subscriber counts on a beam by beam basis.

Unfortunately on Viasat-1 at least, I don't think it's possible to shift capacity from an under-utilized beam to an over-utilized beam and you're stuck with capacity that's  available at launch in a beam's target footprint.

There was a suggestion that Viasat-2 had that capability to shift capacity between service areas. That may have been impacted by the antenna deployment issues. Haven't heard much about that since Viasat-2 was placed into service.

Yes it does appear Viasat-2 beams (the 100 Mbps high density ones at least) were directed at areas surrounding larger population densities - but even then, I suspect they felt there was a larger potential market of customers under-served by viable land-based providers than in a real rural environment. At the same time the antenna deployment issues may have shifted the planned footprints. 

 For example 100 square mile area in Virginia near DC is probably going to turn up more potential customers (not served by a viable land alternatives), than a rural 100 square mile area in rural Alabama. In my area, go 3-4 miles west of I-95 and it's still very populated but few internet alternatives exist off the beaten tracks.

It's population density of those that are under-served (not total population density) used for planning coverage I'm betting. 

Don't talk about mission statements. I had plenty of employers with noble mission statements and core values that were quick to abandon them once their pocketbooks were affected. Lot's of fellow employees too who bought into the "we're doing this for the good of others, world peace and mankind" - at least until they got laid off and their tune changed quite dramatically when faced with the real world.  Unless you're profitable, you can't achieve those lofty goals ;)

For now, I personally think Viasat is content to maintain market share not increase it and just increase average revenue per subscriber. Hold the line until Viasat-3 is launched and regroup. 

We'll see if that holds come February's earnings call.       
(Edited)