Today I read this on the Motley Fool in relation to Starlink:
With Comcast offering 200 mbps for under $50 in metro locales in the U.S. you might not think [Starlink will be successful].
Why is the Motley Fool telling us this fabrication about Comcast pricing? Motley seem to be merely repeating the words of a Comcast marketing strategy, not the pre-tax price customers actually pay. Clearly no writer or editor for the MF is actually a Comcast ISP customer.
The sloppy editor will exclaim that the MF article is, on the surface, correct - in my "Metro Area", Comcast's claim is that they charge for 200 Mbps service at $49.99. $49.99 is under $50. But that number is incorrect, as Comcast fully states that the $49.99 is the price for a subset of a multi-year contract. The overall monthly cost is far, far higher.
And that $100 per month rate for 200 Mbps service doesn't include recurring equipment fees costs.
Why does the Motley Fool get it so utterly wrong? Isn't the Motley Fool about money? It could be that the MF is just sloppy with their reporting - a extraordinarily scary prospect if people are actually trying to learn about the markets through the MF.
Or it could be that the MF sees Comcast as a partner, or has some other financial incentive to be less than correct when it comes to Comcast and their customer pricing.
Motley
Fool acts like it is expert, but it can't even begin to figure out Comcast's
simple marketing strategy. How else is the Motley Fool... fooled?