34764170 (banned) join:2007-09-06 Etobicoke, ON |
to bbeesley
Re: Bell Systemsaid by bbeesley:That they are unwilling to pay for anything better reinforces that there is insufficient demand - outside of the technology early adopters - to drive companies to build out to attract those customers.
The majority of folks are quite happy with DSL speeds and those speeds are good enough for what they want to do with the Internet
Once the mainstream catches up to the early adopters and demand increases, the communications providers will trip over each other to fill it. It's not that they're not willing to pay. They're not willing to pay for shitty overpriced service which is so typical of North American providers. On top of that North American companies do not understand the concept of customer loyalty. You deliver a good service and treat the customer properly and they'll be with you for a long time. You treat them like crap and nickel and dime them and is it any wonder that people are jumping ship for other providers on a fairly regular basis? With a post like this it just shows ignorance, but is so typical. |
|
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2012-Dec-12 10:19 pm
said by 34764170:On top of that North American companies do not understand the concept of customer loyalty. You deliver a good service and treat the customer properly and they'll be with you for a long time. Wrong!! American consumers have shown again and again that they show no loyalty, even for businesses that went out of their way to provide excellent customer service and good reasonably priced products. The food, dept store, hardware store industries are littered with businesses that did provide excellent service, but went out of business because the average consumer dumped them in a second for prices 5% lower. And that is why Walmart, Target, Home Depot, etc grow and grow. |
|
1 recommendation |
It's true, it's all about a buck, not just for the corporations, but for the consumer more than ever. It's why corps need to get their ROI out as soon as possible. The end customers are just as, if not greedier than the corporations.
The other problem is that when you're the third one to the party, the best you're hoping for is for 1/3rd of the market. There may be decent margins splitting it in 1/2, and even better in a monopoly, but being the 3rd gal to the ball doesn't leave you much option. |
|
1 edit |
to silbaco
Re: Woohoo! Ads!I open everything to Google and guess what...... I'm still trying to figure out what is bad with Google and my information... Nothing has changed in my life . No more ads than usual.. No huge amount of junk mail.. Nothing has happened to me...No one has knocked on my door... They want my info, they can have it... I love Android, I love Linux, I love Chrome. Nuff said... |
|
34764170 (banned) join:2007-09-06 Etobicoke, ON |
to FFH5
Re: Bell Systemsaid by FFH5:said by 34764170:On top of that North American companies do not understand the concept of customer loyalty. You deliver a good service and treat the customer properly and they'll be with you for a long time. Wrong!! American consumers have shown again and again that they show no loyalty, even for businesses that went out of their way to provide excellent customer service and good reasonably priced products. The food, dept store, hardware store industries are littered with businesses that did provide excellent service, but went out of business because the average consumer dumped them in a second for prices 5% lower. And that is why Walmart, Target, Home Depot, etc grow and grow. You're comparing businesses that already were fairly competitive if not very competitive to providers where in most cases you're lucky to have more than 2 options in any particular market and the average consumer does NOT want to have to switch providers. I've seen way too many posts on DSLR or spoken to people that say something along the lines of I've been a loyal customer of XYZ provider for 10 - 15 - 20 or more years but they screwed me over with bad customer service, nickelled and dimed or something else to that effect and the response was all too often pretty poor from the provider. |
|
1 edit |
to DataRiker
Re: Cities?said by DataRiker:said by FFH5:How about because socialism FORCES you to help out thru taxes. It isn't your choice whether to help or not. A lot of Americans aren't comfortable with the FORCED part. No, instead we are forced to pay for our "defense industry" and corporate welfare. I would much rather dump both in favor of socialized medicine. Bingo! This is something these guys fail to grasp or accept. I'm forced to waste my taxes paying for the $750 Billion Defense industry + the $4 Trillion just wasted on two wars. They just don't seem to like my taxes being invested in building and growing America and Americans. Literally, as stated in our Constitution. |
|
KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ |
to FFH5
I didnt like my taxes bailing out banks but I had no choice but to still pay them. I think we should have let those greedy Motherfsckers burn. To Big to Fail is a load of bullshit from Faux News. |
|
your moderator at work
hidden :
|
jap Premium Member join:2003-08-10 038xx |
to sonicmerlin
Re: Cities?said by sonicmerlin:Google voting stock is controlled by its founders. So wth are you talking about? A reference to finance law governing publicly traded companies, I gather. Must justify individual projects as somehow profitable. Regardless of who owns the class-A stock if there is openly traded stock involved you have to conform to general investor expectations or risk suit. In the U.S. those expectations are controlled by exchange houses and myopic. Google has definitely matured into maintainer-controlled status. Happens regardless of ownership, IMO. They had a long run as innovator/start-up though. Partly by vision of the founders, partly by virtue of their industry which was changing too fast to grow up. |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK |
to TBBroadband
And exactly what bill will the cities be footing, exactly? |
|
KrK |
KrK to FFH5
Premium Member
2012-Dec-13 12:05 am
to FFH5
said by FFH5:country by country going broke under the burden of unaffordable social services. And we're in no position to talk. We're going broke giving out handouts to individuals and industry, fighting wars, trying to police the world, plus we don't have the benefits---- just the expenses. Our greedy short-term thinking is murdering us. We're all going to pay dearly for this travesty. |
|
|
to IowaCowboy
Re: Bell SystemA monopoly only exists if the government allows it to exist. Cities allow a pseudo monopoly with cable companies when they provide them with the local "franchise" rights.
Technology will improve the capability of copper but it will never have the same bandwidth that fiber will have. Until there are financial incentives for the cable company, the phone company, or another company to start running fiber to the home, the bandwidth upgrades will never occur. Until the FCC gets off its duff and changes the rules on how television is delivered to the home by requiring that channels are priced individually and allowing the consumer to buy "by the channel", along with allowing package deals, the advantage is always going to be with the incumbent providers. |
|
jap Premium Member join:2003-08-10 038xx |
jap to Terabit
Premium Member
2012-Dec-13 12:24 am
to Terabit
Re: Cities?said by Terabit:Bingo! This is something these guys fail to grasp or accept. There's little collective consciousness in our culture. I chose to not have children yet help subsidize everyone else's without whining. It's good for my community and my society. About those wars invasions & occupations, you've barely begun paying for them yet. Iraq was done on deficit. |
|
MarkI stand with my feet join:2009-07-11 Canada
1 recommendation |
to jc10098
And who owns the government? The people do. And all those "rights" you speak of look like privileges to me. Oh, and you were founded as a republic, and flourished as a free market capitalist society and you didn't really start to flush yourselves down the shitter until mentalities like yours tipped the balance of power from producers to the free shit army. Congrats you are winning, unfortunately the prize will have to be shared by all...oh wait that is just how you like it, fair with the loosers lumped in with the producers and ribbons for all. |
|
betam4x join:2002-10-12 Nashville, TN |
Google needs to play the ISPsWhat is better than building a 140 billion dollar network? Threatening to build a 140 billion dollar network! If just 10% of the US population (COUNTING millions of businesses, even though i'm being conservative in this estimate...) paid $100 for service, it'd pay for itself in a few years. Google could flip an entire industry on it's head easily. THAT is why they are doing this. It's not about building a network, it's reminding everyone else they CAN build a network... |
|
betam4x |
to FFH5
Re: Cities?So move to a damn island somewhere, defend your island from me attacking you for your coconuts, and pay for yourself when you get cancer and need medical assistance. It annoys me how people like you have no grasp on reality. The world would not be where it is without some socialism. Our country was FOUNDED on it. If you don't like it, GET OUT. Your opinion is UNPOPULAR, Antarctica is waiting, MOVE THERE. |
actions · 2012-Dec-13 2:12 am · (locked) |
|
your moderator at work
hidden : Trolling
|
silbaco Premium Member join:2009-08-03 USA |
to cooperaaaron
Re: Woohoo! Ads!I love linux too, but that doesn't mean I love Google. |
|
silbaco |
to 29393955
Clearly Google does need access to my internet pipe or they wouldn't have made datamining to see what information providers have access to a key part of Google Fiber.
The NSA, CIA, FBI, etc. all have access to my data, no doubt. But they are not Google. We have a strong fear of the government spying in this country, but no fear of third parties that carelessly collect and store our data. No parties other than my ISP have direct access to my internet pipe which is perhaps the single most important piece of data an advertising and datamining company could want. |
|
KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ |
Kearnstd
Premium Member
2012-Dec-13 5:30 am
in part because we know why these companies want our data, for profit.
We worry about the government because they will never ever tell us why and if you ask its always classified. |
|
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture Premium Member join:2011-08-11 NYC |
to FFH5
Re: Cities?said by FFH5:said by Guspaz:Few people in Canada, if any, understand the US phobias of concepts like socialism. We just don't get it. What's the big deal? What's so wrong about helping each other out in times of need? How about because socialism FORCES you to help out thru taxes. It isn't your choice whether to help or not. A lot of Americans aren't comfortable with the FORCED part. How about that many Americans are not comfortable with the FORCED part about paying taxes to kill people in far away lands? Where is your outrage there? edit: Sorry, I didn't realize that had already been brought up when I posted, I am playing catch-up and didn't read ahead! |
|
Kommie2 (banned) join:2003-05-13 united state |
to FFH5
I am not comfortable being forced to fund the military industrial complex through my taxes either. |
|
aaronwt Premium Member join:2004-11-07 Woodbridge, VA Asus RT-AX89
|
to elray
Re: Bell Systemsaid by elray:said by IowaCowboy:But as a competitor, if Google can and is willing to provide better service than the incumbent provider, then people will vote with their wallets and choose the provider that serves them best. I would gladly take FiOS if it were available in Western Mass and I'd even pay VZ their hourly rate to wire my unit as it is a duplex (MDU in their world but our building is wired like two single family houses with Comcast). Where FiOS is available, >70% of the people vote with their wallets and choose not to buy it. Google will have similar to worse results if they don't offer a more cost-effective product for the consumer. The "uncompetitive" / "non-upgraded" (as Karl likes to call them) markets are so, because the majority customer base is unwilling to pay for anything better. How is Google going to turn a profit, ever? Just the opposite here. The uptake on FiOS is easily over 70% in my community. At one point it was almost 100%, just about everyone dropped Comcast when FiOS was first available here in 2007. |
|
|
to jap
Re: Cities?said by jap:said by Terabit:Bingo! This is something these guys fail to grasp or accept. There's little collective consciousness in our culture. I chose to not have children yet help subsidize everyone else's without whining. It's good for my community and my society. About those wars invasions & occupations, you've barely begun paying for them yet. Iraq was done on deficit. Preaching to the choir. Both of the wars were borrowed - $4 Trillion worth - and this was deliberately kept off the books. The interest alone required to pay these wars over 30 years will top an additional $4 Trillion - that's $8,000,000,000,000 that the 'deficit hawks' conveniently ignore. The negative ROI for this sort of expenditure should land people in jail, it's that bad. Heck, $350 Billion could have payed off Greece's debt - entirely. $2 Trillion could have rebuilt and repaved every road in America. $140 Billion wired every house in America with FTTH. Another $1.5 Trillion to modernize all of our dilapidated and archaic infrastructure throughout america. That works out to be just shy of $3.99 Trillion. Can you imagine what this sort of expenditure would have done for American and the world? We are taking about millions of new jobs, new businesses, and so forth. |
|
Terabit |
to silbaco
said by silbaco:Not sure why I am on the internet? Well let me give you a hint. There is fiber up to my house and presumably not yours. That might be a start. Streets with gravel roads don't have FTTH and many don't even have cable running past their houses. My bad. As a Repub, you mean for others who live on these sorts of streets. Boy, if I had $1 for every Repub who lives in blue states or civilization, rather than areas with the views they espouse, I'd be worth over $30 MIL by now. |
|
|
to sonicmerlin
Re: Bell Systemsaid by sonicmerlin:markets are inherently uncompetitive due to the barrier to entry, and once google establishes a foothold they'll have a steady and reliable source of income without having to worry about competition. That Google is doing this in one market seems to deflate the barrier to entry argument there is little to nothing preventing anyone from launching their own broadband ISP....other than the willingness to take on risk the scale might have to be smaller than a whole city like Google and one might have to be creative and select alternative technologies, but it is possible. As an example, a co-worker of mine who lived in a fairly rural area well outside of Dallas received wireless broadband that was built out by a local farmer who built and ran the network as a side job. It wasn't FIOS but it worked, speeds were generally as good as DSL, and the price was reasonable. |
|
bbeesley |
to SatManager
said by SatManager:Cities allow a pseudo monopoly with cable companies when they provide them with the local "franchise" rights. Franchise rights are only an agreement to allow the provider access to the rights of way in exchange for some giveback to the city, usually a percentage of the revenue. The issue is that the barrier to entry - the cost to build out the entire city - is so high that it generally can't support two competing providers because you need a dominant market share to pay back your build...thus a second provider generally doesn't pop up to request franchise rights because it is unlikely that they would make back the tens or hundreds of millions it would cost them to compete. Google got around this by receiving a fairly good deal with the local government shouldering a big portion of the costs that would normally be demanded of a company requesting a franchise. Whether this is sustainable or reproduce-able remains to be seen. That said, you don't have a to have a franchise agreement to build a network. You can negotiate with individual property owners to place your facilities on their premise or run fiber along it. Or you could just build out something wireless - like LTE or WiMax - and only negotiate a few locations. Or build a smaller network, say in partnership with an HOA or construction company building out a new addition. The possibilities are only limited by one's imagination and their willingness to work hard and take on the risk of starting a company. |
|
Crusty join:2008-11-11 Sanger, TX |
to elray
said by elray:Where FiOS is available, >70% of the people vote with their wallets and choose not to buy it. Google will have similar to worse results if they don't offer a more cost-effective product for the consumer. One time install fee of $300 paid out evenly over 12 months for FREE 5MB symmetrical connection isn't a "more cost-effective product for the consumer"??????? I'd gladly take that over my crappy DSL service anyday. Heck, I'd be MORE than willing to take the $70 or even the $120 package being offered. That would save me $100 a month. |
|
silbaco Premium Member join:2009-08-03 USA |
to Terabit
Re: Cities?Actually they do otherwise there wouldn't be an ONT on the side of my house and every house for miles around. You are just another clueless idiot who lives in a city bubble.
You would have one less dollar, as I am not a republican. |
|
|
to DataRiker
said by DataRiker:said by FFH5:How about because socialism FORCES you to help out thru taxes. It isn't your choice whether to help or not. A lot of Americans aren't comfortable with the FORCED part. No, instead we are forced to pay for our "defense industry" and corporate welfare. I would much rather dump both in favor of socialized medicine. I find myself inclined to agree. |
|