Why does Exede charge $150 per mo in NC for Unlimited and $70 per mo in Orlando?

  • 1
  • Question
  • Updated 7 months ago
  • Acknowledged
Photo of Dennis Lafreniere

Dennis Lafreniere

  • 12 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes

Posted 7 months ago

  • 1
Photo of VeteranSatUser

VeteranSatUser, Champion

  • 2123 Posts
  • 1124 Reply Likes
Simply put. Supply and demand. On beams with more bandwidths availability, they charge less because the demand is lower in those areas. For beams that are highly used, less available bandwidth means it can be sold at a premium.
(Edited)
Photo of Dennis Lafreniere

Dennis Lafreniere

  • 12 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Tks for your valued input. No, not moving to Orlando! Tks.
Photo of VeteranSatUser

VeteranSatUser, Champion

  • 2123 Posts
  • 1124 Reply Likes
Well I am sure you could get a good deal too if you lived in New York City :)
Photo of Brad

Brad, Viasat Employee

  • 2797 Posts
  • 902 Reply Likes
Just to bounce off Veteran SatUser's reply.  This is likely because the beam Orlando is in is considered a "low fill" beam and what that essentially means is that there's not as many customers and the demand isn't very high (likely because Orlando is a metro area and we have much fewer customers there compared to your location which might be a more significantly concentrated Exede customer area). Our prices have always been determined by location and availability.  It's much like how we were able to offer Freedom in the less busy beams compared to the higher concentrated beam. 

We will have new plans release early next year once ViaSat 2 comes out that might have additional options at different prices.
Photo of fmj77

fmj77

  • 184 Posts
  • 95 Reply Likes
Exede shouldn't even be offered in a metro area.
Photo of Old Labs

Old Labs

  • 3130 Posts
  • 3082 Reply Likes
Dennis,

To clarify plan, availability and pricing depend on the service area not the ZIPCode (spot beam coverage area).

Orlando was used for reference to find the spot beam.  It falls in the beam 359 area, whch covers a large portion of central Florida including the highly populated I-4 corridor. Demand for satellite internet in that service area is likely lower due to other more viable land based options.   

(Edited)
Photo of Diana

Diana, Viasat Employee

  • 2114 Posts
  • 365 Reply Likes
Hi Old Labs, Thanks for the information on the beams and coverage area!
Photo of Dennis Lafreniere

Dennis Lafreniere

  • 12 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
So can u tell me what spot beam for me in NC?
Photo of Old Labs

Old Labs

  • 3130 Posts
  • 3082 Reply Likes
You can eyeball it for yourself at:

https://www.northlc.com/_images/beam_priority_map.png

Might be difficult due to the large overlap of beams in NC.

Looks like NC is covered by 5 different ones. But perhaps a moderator could provide the exact one based on a ZIPCode.

Basically what it comes down to is 72 different markets (spot beams) each having the same supply (capacity). While total capacity is 140 Gbps, that's equally split across 72 different beams.

P.S. Check that... make it 6 different ones - missed that small 344 area in NC ;)   
(Edited)
Photo of Dennis Lafreniere

Dennis Lafreniere

  • 12 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
I'm in 335 beam of nc
Photo of johnny c

johnny c

  • 256 Posts
  • 103 Reply Likes
I am sure that if you are in a metropolitan area that has cable, FIOS, etc., the last thing you would even consider would be a satellite ISP.  The disparity in speeds is enormous and there are no data limits, no slowing down when you hit some number.  Now in reality, the only time you will see slower speeds, and i mean these slower speeds are faster than Exede's fastest speeds, is during the highest usage times, most users don't even recognize it.

So how can Exede get a few customers?  Offer a large plan at a price lower than the cable companies cheapest plan.   So they get a customers besides the disenfranchised rural customers.

It is just business, yes there is more beam available, because only those without a choice will go SAT.

So Exede has a beam so they offer a bargain price, we who have no choice do not get a bargain price.

Again it's just business.  

I've been an advocate for no data limits forever, i hate keeping track of bits and bytes.

Now i am hoping that the prices will come down and moderate a little, we are naturally paying too much for our service, but without a real alternative, like the folks in Orlando and other metropolitan areas have, we just have to pay the price and hope that Exede's new capability (sat 2) will allow them to do the right thing, make it more equitable for all of their customers regardless of zip code.

Exede is on the right path, but lets lower the costs sooner than later.
Photo of Dennis Lafreniere

Dennis Lafreniere

  • 12 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Tks for the input, however, many in rural America are not even making the incomes Orlando market allows and to charge rural America more for internet is not equitable. Not directly related but rural internet has been languishing for years with landline companies getting federal dollars to expand and they drag their feet with taxpayer dollars. Borders on scam. FCC doesn't seem to care.
Photo of VeteranSatUser

VeteranSatUser, Champion

  • 2123 Posts
  • 1124 Reply Likes
Several years ago with one of those Fedaral unstimulus plans Viasat did offer some 50GB or so packages at insanely low prices because the government dictated it in "select" areas that had no other broadband access.

That map was a joke of course. Said I could get this broadband internet off a WISP, but the map didn't take into account the hill blocking the signal :)
Photo of Steve Frederick

Steve Frederick, Champion

  • 2537 Posts
  • 1561 Reply Likes
In my area of upstate New York, the cable/internet companies were give very large monetary grants to expand their service area to cover the forgotten or ignored rural areas surrounding their service area. What they chose to do with all that money was to upgrade their cables and support equipment to change the same geographical areas from the 15 Mbps internet to 100 Mbps, and some areas to 300 Mbps. No additional areas were given service, only improved service to the same areas that already had broadband internet. I am a mere mile from the end of the cable that serves my locality. Unfortunately the government again failed to put strong stipulations on how the grant money could be spent, so the taxpayers in the rural areas are once again left without a ground based internet connection.

Thank you Exede for serving those of us who enjoy country living.
Photo of VeteranSatUser

VeteranSatUser, Champion

  • 2119 Posts
  • 1124 Reply Likes
The cost of delivery is the same in both locations. That has nothing to do with the pricing. Do they make more from a Silver sub in one beam in NC vs. Orlando? Yes they do. However, they don't have as many Silver subs to sell in N.C., so they are sold at a premium.

For the record, I don't think it is a good marketing strategy for Viasat to have variable pricing based on location. Unlike some of your geographic examples, in theory you could have one person paying $100 for Silver, with his neighbor down the road paying $150 for the same plan, all because one neighbor is on one beam and the other neighbor is on another beam. I live on a beam edge. How do explain people in the eastern half of the county paying $50 more/month than those living in the western half? Just not a good look.

I think Viasat would be better served to level the prices. Everybody pay a set price, regardless of location, simply because your average consumer is not going to understand the variable pricing and the reasons for it.
(Edited)
Photo of johnny c

johnny c

  • 256 Posts
  • 103 Reply Likes
Concur that a level pricing plan would be best and if they don't have enough bandwidth to offer the premium plan in some areas than forgo it until they have the resources.   Because other than their take on supply and demand, the price difference is not justifiable.
Photo of Old Labs

Old Labs

  • 3130 Posts
  • 3082 Reply Likes
OK, that does it... eveyone get's charged the higher price!

Careful what you wish for ;)

The optics are bad but as you note it's business. Right now, I feel it's just a fire sale on excess bandwidth going on until Viasat-2 is up an running - I really cant recall any substantial price differences between the same plans like this in the past. Availability yes, but price no (although perhaps a few)

Wouldn't be surprised if it's simply a year end-inventory clearance before next years model is released and the old models are perceived as less valuable and everyone wants the new model.

They're just trying to attract new customers and retain existing customers while waiting - it's all they've got until then.

P.S. Only a level pricing model would be fair on ViaSat-2 as I understand it. Unlike ViaSat-1, it supposedly will allow shifting unused capacity between beams - or at least that's the implication in some of the press releases.

Take none of it seriously or as an affront, we all are asking questions that aren't going to be answered anyway - but speculation can be fun.

Cue outrage from those paying $50 less and disagreeing with my opening sentence in 3, 2, 1...    
(Edited)
Photo of Stephen Rice

Stephen Rice

  • 1749 Posts
  • 776 Reply Likes
I'm all for prices staying the same. I don't mind Yankees paying a lot more than me so I can enjoy the price of $60.99 a month for my Liberty 12 plan.
Photo of VeteranSatUser

VeteranSatUser, Champion

  • 2119 Posts
  • 1124 Reply Likes
Old Labs. As always you have good insight. But expect Viasat to have a surprise or two with what Viasat-2 will offer :).