dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2013-02-12 15:51:41: Responding to all the attention being given to Google Fiber, Gigabit Squared, and the FCC's rather hollow recent 1 Gbps challenge," Verizon's top policy man Link Hoewing proclaims that Verizon is ready and willing to offer 1 Gbps connections -- as so.. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next

aciddrink

join:2000-08-26

Demand

They will never see the "demand" they are talking about at the prices they would charge for such services.

If they are willing to offer 1gbps symmetrical connections to homes for the same price Google is, then demand would be overwhelming.
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

Re: Demand

said by aciddrink:

If they are willing to offer 1gbps symmetrical connections to homes for the same price Google is, then demand would be overwhelming.

Nope. The price is too high, regardless of speed.

Google's $70+/month is beyond the desired reach of majority public. They simply aren't interested or willing to pay that much.

(I count myself among that crowd, though we've paid much more in the past, and I *am* willing and able to pay whatever amount is necessary to obtain a given level of service - we just don't need FTTH speeds.)
rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

Re: Demand

If you can pay $70/month for 1Gpbs with no caps, you can cut the cord (be that FIOS TV, cable or U-Verse) and use the savings over a typical TV + HSI subscription to pay for some streaming services.

I'd drop $70/month on a 1 Gbps link with no limits and cut the cord in a heartbeat.
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

Re: Demand

Those streaming services don't provide the same content that is available on pay-tv.
rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

Re: Demand

Who cares. I don't watch a lot of TV anyway and if I have to switch from time-filling crappy reality TV shows and old crappy movies, what's the difference?
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

Re: Demand

The public cares. If you can't obtain equivalent services via streaming, cord-cutting ain't gonna happen much.
rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

Re: Demand

Yeah, cord cutters aren't real and are of no concern:

»Dish Boss Ergen: Cord Cutters Very Real
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

Re: Demand

Indeed. Cord-cutting simply isn't happening in any significant or measurable way.

Its the "cord nevers" (could you invent a more awkward term?), who may actually become relevant, as they grow and couple up and multiply and play house, and try their best to avoid buying double/triple-play.

AVD
Respice, Adspice, Prospice
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1
said by elray:

Those streaming services don't provide the same content that is available on pay-tv.

you'd be surprised what is legally available.
--
* seek help if having trouble coping
--Standard disclaimers apply.--
rebus9

join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·Bright House
My household is very happy with 30-some channels of free over-the-air broadcast TV, much of it in HD. Plus we have Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Crackle.

Total cost of video content is under $10/month, and we get way more than everything we want to watch. I don't count the cost of Amazon Prime because we've been using it (for free Amazon.com shipping) since long before they included free streaming-- and we'd continue our Prime membership even without streaming. Crackle is free.

ChuckcZar

@teksavvy.com
The majority of people in Canada would pay at least triple that. Many would pay ten times that.
dfxmatt

join:2007-08-21
Evanston, IL
100% wrong. majority public pays $150+ for tv + internet. If you think the majority isn't willing to pay $100 for tv+internet via google, you are willingly ignorant and/or blind.

There's a reason verizon and TW among others are freaking out, and it's called they don't want to compete and enjoy their monopolies.
34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 recommendation

Re: Demand

said by dfxmatt:

100% wrong. majority public pays $150+ for tv + internet. If you think the majority isn't willing to pay $100 for tv+internet via google, you are willingly ignorant and/or blind.

There's a reason verizon and TW among others are freaking out, and it's called they don't want to compete and enjoy their monopolies.

He is being wilfully ignorant.
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
said by dfxmatt:

100% wrong. majority public pays $150+ for tv + internet. If you think the majority isn't willing to pay $100 for tv+internet via google, you are willingly ignorant and/or blind.

There's a reason verizon and TW among others are freaking out, and it's called they don't want to compete and enjoy their monopolies.

Households do subscribe to cable, and often triple-play, but they aren't paying $70+/month for broadband.

TWC, not TW, isn't freaking out.
They don't have a monopoly.
They certain DO compete.
34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

Re: Demand

said by elray:

They certain DO compete.

When they start offering 100Mbps at around $50 then they would be competing. Until then they're not.
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

Re: Demand

They offer several internet tiers at or below $50 that provide more than adequate broadband speeds, as evidenced by Karl's weekly attributions regards DSL flight to cable. You may not like the price:performance, but it is most certainly competition, and devastating to telco.

Cable probably can and will offer up 50M @ $50 in a few more years; 100M is a bit more difficult without more upgrades, which they're unlikely to do at that price point, and again, since few of us want to pay $70, they don't have much incentive to re-wire the neighborhood a 3rd or 4th time.
34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

Re: Demand

They're still not competing.
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

Re: Demand

They certainly are.

If they weren't, they would enjoy the majority share of customers.
dfxmatt

join:2007-08-21
Evanston, IL

Re: Demand

you know, there's these things which tend to contain marketshare. I believe the phrase is monopoly.

you might want to learn what competition is, and competitive offerings are - because TWC is neither competitive nor have they had competition before google.
34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 recommendation

Re: Demand

He goes out of his way to be ignorant.
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
said by dfxmatt:

you know, there's these things which tend to contain marketshare. I believe the phrase is monopoly.

you might want to learn what competition is, and competitive offerings are - because TWC is neither competitive nor have they had competition before google.

Cable is not a monopoly.
Perhaps you should learn what the term means.

They and they alone, have recognized the opportunity to compete with telco, who has chosen to offer only overpriced and/or underperforming product lines. Broadband speeds and rates reflect the extent of their investment, and that is why they enjoy their market share.

Telco is failing, precisely because cable competes.

Cable franchises are not protected. There no legal barrier for entry to market for legitimate private overbuilders.

If you want to make a case for yet another round of re-regulation, in which cable's former monopoly would be legally re-established, complemented by wholesale requirements, you are so welcome.

But be careful what you wish for, as that will result in only short-term gains, followed by long-term pain, as you will eliminate the competition and competitive threat that exists today and replace it with slovenly postal service efficiency.
Androidian

join:2012-12-14
Purcellville, VA
Reviews:
·Comcast

Re: Demand

said by elray:

Cable is not a monopoly.

Correct. Cable vs. Telco - when you're talking about one cable provider and Verizon - is a particular type of oligopoly called a duopoly. Take your pick of either of these terms; either way a simple search on them will indicate a market condition that's far from the competitive free market landscape envisioned by Adam Smith.

For things to become truly competitive, all cable companies need to be able to compete in all areas for each person's business using existing network connections to each home. Consumers need to have a choice between several - at least 4 or 5, and ideally more - options offering a relatively similar product.

A market in which an ISP solely determines service offerings, policies (such as caps), and pricing tiers can hardly be called competitive.
--
The only difference between Bush and Obama is the group they're wasting our taxpayer money on. It's time to elect responsible legislators.
AlfredNewman

join:2010-03-25
Columbus, OH
said by elray:

Households do subscribe to cable, and often triple-play, but they aren't paying $70+/month for broadband.

TWC, not TW, isn't freaking out.
They don't have a monopoly.
They certain DO compete.

Yes they are or else they wouldn't have slightly increased their bandwidth speeds, ran promos to get users to come back to TMW from other ISPs, and providing money to those who can provide info on Googles deployment

Yes they do or else they wouldn't also pass laws to keep other competitors out of their locations, sometimes entire states

No, no they don't.
dfxmatt

join:2007-08-21
Evanston, IL
they have yet to actually compete, and it is a monopoly - in that area what other options are even equivalent to TWC's offering? Google is the first, and thus why they bitch about it. Why? TWC's offering is not even competitive in the first place.

keithps
Premium
join:2002-06-26
Soddy Daisy, TN
Reviews:
·EPB Fiber Optics
Well here's a reality. My ISP (EPB) offers 50/50 for $57 and 100/100 for $69. The majority take the $57 deal. Why? Because 50/50 is plenty for the average joe, and the higher tiers are just for folks who like the speed (like myself). Google is selling well because your option is 5/5 or 1000/1000. There is no middle ground. 5/5 is rapidly becoming to slow except for the most basic stuff. So if you want more than 5/5 with google, it's $70/month, no other option. I'd bet if they offered 100/100 for $49/month, they'd have a ton more people on that plan than 1000/1000.
--
RIP Dad (10-28-1955 to 4-10-2010)
davidhoffman
Premium
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA
kudos:2

Re: Demand

The Google low cost option is actually 5Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload or 5/1. Google Fiber claims this is the average speed for a residential internet connection in the USA.

Curiously Google Fiber also claims that the high cost option of 1000/1000 is 100 times the average residential internet connection speed in the USA. The math would work out that the average residential internet connection speed is 10/10. We know that is not true.

This disparity in Google Fiber statements has led to some interesting speculation. If the first assertion about 5/1 is true, then maybe Google fiber will fall short of its stated objective and deliver only 500/500 performance. If the second assertion is true, then maybe the low cost option will really deliver a 10/10 experience.

From the stories I have seen Google Fiber has only shown a maximum capability of 622 Mbps symmetrical. That is half of what they should be able to do to provide a truly great "Gigabit" symmetrical experience. If that 622Mbps becomes the de facto Google Fiber experience, then perhaps the low cost option's real performance may be 6.22 Mbps symmetrical.
kbowman

join:2010-10-30
Pasadena, CA
btw its 5/1 not 5/5
dfxmatt

join:2007-08-21
Evanston, IL
I don't think you have any idea how many people would kill for that, myself included. I'd happily pay $70/mo for 100/100. You also have an actual local fiber ISP, which almost nobody has. My options are comcast or an extremely limited ATT option for more money for less speed.

What google is opening up, is an area where there is no current competition.
Androidian

join:2012-12-14
Purcellville, VA
Reviews:
·Comcast
said by dfxmatt:

100% wrong. majority public pays $150+ for tv + internet. If you think the majority isn't willing to pay $100 for tv+internet via google, you are willingly ignorant and/or blind.

Agreed. I'm paying $100/mo for Internet now and don't necessarily mind. And I also pay around $130/mo for DirecTV.

I think people are more concerned about getting good speed connections with high (or no) caps to allow them to stream video, make video calls, make voice calls, work from home, etc.
--
The only difference between Bush and Obama is the group they're wasting our taxpayer money on. It's time to elect responsible legislators.
Kamus

join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX
said by elray:

said by aciddrink:

If they are willing to offer 1gbps symmetrical connections to homes for the same price Google is, then demand would be overwhelming.

Nope. The price is too high, regardless of speed.

Google's $70+/month is beyond the desired reach of majority public. They simply aren't interested or willing to pay that much.

(I count myself among that crowd, though we've paid much more in the past, and I *am* willing and able to pay whatever amount is necessary to obtain a given level of service - we just don't need FTTH speeds.)

The price is too high? for people like you there's a FREE version.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000
What do you pay now for tv and internet?

••••••••••••••
jakesoftware

join:2013-02-17
Minneapolis, MN
I live in MN and Comcast is $49-$75 for home internet already. If Google offered that up here, the majority of people that currently have internet would make the move immediately. The first person being myself. The companies I work with daily would be next. I am not sure what the port access is with Google's service, but it has to be better than Comcast.
SunnyD

join:2009-03-20
Madison, AL

But are they willing to deliver on pricing...

... how the customer wants it?

Didn't think so.

floyd007

join:2004-06-07
Richmond, VA

1 GbPs speed is not warranted at this time for homes

unless you happen own a small to medium business. Google is losing money each and every time they lay fibre optics to a dwelling. Then again Google has irresponsibly spent shareholder money on frivolous ventures.

••••••••

Elite

join:2002-10-03
Orange, CT
Reviews:
·Optimum Online

1 recommendation

We should have 1Gps fiber

I've reached a point where my LTE is faster than my cable internet at home. Verizon has no intentions of deploying 1Gbps fiber in the immediate future. If they were "ready and willing", they would be offering it right now. You would literally be able to call them up and order it.

Nice try, Verizon. As for the Google Fiber situation, why be mad at Google? They're the ones pushing this whole fiber thing the hardest. And look what the other ISPs are doing in those areas, they're losing customers because they offer a poor value paired with a crappy infrastructure. The fact that so many ISP's/telco's/cableco's are dwelling on copper is the only thing stopping widespread fiber adaptation. Copper will not be sustainable in the long run, but nobody wants eat the initial upfront costs of deploying fiber... except for Google, who had no fucking copper infrastructure to begin with in any of the towns they deployed fiber to. Then, they decide to modestly start rolling out cheap, fast fiber. $70 for 1Gbit/1Gbit? They're setting an example of how the internet should be.

Saddest part: I'll still be using bullshit cable with no upstream and marginally faster downstream in 5 years. And my bill will have gone up!
--
QUAD!!!!

•••

Smith6612
Premium,MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
kudos:24
Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Frontier Communi..

What if I wanted it...

... but the price wasn't right? I would take a Gigabit connection irrespective of the usage I have now for the sake of having it. I never see a problem with having too much, but I'd rather not have not enough during a time where I actually need the connection.

NotTheMama
What Would Earl Do?

join:2012-12-06

Dear Verizon,

If you can provide synchronous 1gbps for $70/month, then feel free to go ahead with that. (Given that's only a few dollars more than your 3/1 offering, I won't be holding my breath.) Do I demand it? Do I need it? Do I even want it? No, not especially, not for the speed anyway... the speed isn't really the point, is it. Internet access with no caps and at a fair price... yeah, that's the point.


--
"Face piles of trials with smiles; it riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave."
Os

join:2011-01-26
US

Verizon: Cheapskates

The network will handle anything they want to throw at it, but they have no interest in having a product significantly better than what cable companies are offering.

Outside of upload speeds, they've sacrificed every advantage they had. The download speeds of Comcast and Cox have caught up. And very few people really value high upload speeds, and those have caught up too, at least at Comcast.

With the Quantum speed increases (and price increases), I don't know why they didn't keep upload symmetrical to download.

When it comes to TV offerings, they've maxed out their HD channels, and they're falling behind the other providers there too. Their only advantage left is premium movie channels, and that's really only against Comcast who seems to hate them.

FiOS increasingly looks like a flash in the pan, even starting with so much promise. Verizon's plan is little different than what Frontier is doing in the divested markets, keep things the same, increase prices, and get whatever cash you can from it instead of really marketing something better.

•••••••

Eddy120876

join:2009-02-16
Bronx, NY

Give me the damn Fiber Already!!!

I don't care if they think that just give the fiber and compete with google if you think that nobody wants 1GBPS then please look around the world where we are losing more and more when it comes to internet speed. The French are leading the way so lets do the same when it comes to the internet. If they offer me 1GPBS under 100 then i would jump the gun since I'm a cord cutter.

antdude
A Ninja Ant
Premium,VIP
join:2001-03-25
United State
kudos:4

2 edits

Just give me fast FIOS service!

Come on Verizon. Come to my home neighborhoods so I can get off TWC!!

•••••••••••

HaloFans

join:2006-12-18

STFU and deliver service first before talking about speeds

Seriously.
Kamus

join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX

gib

"We've already demonstrated we can deliver 1Gbps and even 10 Gbps speeds over the same fiber to a home. As consumer demands and needs grow, we can increase our speeds. But offering a high speed connection to the home does not tell the full story when it comes to delivering the best possible and most capable broadband service. A high number of bits-per-second-connection alone isn't sufficient, because other factors aside from speed affect the quality and capability of a connection."

I DEMAND 1gbps. there, now give it to me.

Care to explain the "full story" then? and it's not like the two are mutually exclusive.

uverseguy14

@sbcglobal.net

having fast connection for practicality vs just because

I don't download a lot or upload, I simply stream most of time and I have 12 Mb connection which I enough. I added basic TV and HBO to get out more of fun in my free time and now I can stream HBO which makes my internet connection more useful. Simply increasing download speed and paying more for internet connection would not add any personal benefit for me other than just I have faster connection.

ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA

I want it

NOW!! Oh, wait, they elected to bypass my subdivision when deploying FiOS not more the 200' down a main 4 lane highway..

So how again are they going to deply this when I want it?

NOCMan
MacChatter
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO

Lack of Competiton

If Google descended on Flower Mound Texas where FIOS is available and offered a competing product for a fraction of the price for the highest tier of FIOS, I'm sure Verizon would be singing a different tune. For now they have no reason to do anything because they're on top of their respective FTTH food chains and Cable is barely able to keep up.
--
Ski News - Ski Colorado Blog
Web Hosting - www.FrontRangeHosting.com
tmc8080

join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY
Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS

1 edit

huh...

When you take into account I wouldn't be buying video and phone service from Verizon.. $70 seems like a great deal for 1 gigabit... heck, for most of the country and it's geography symmetrical 100 would be a great deal compared to what's offered today...

Today they offer 15/5 for $70... 25/15(20) for $80 and 50/25(30) for $90... prices need to come down and speeds go up..Raising prices was clearly a bad idea which hurt uptake rates. Where they go from here is anybody's guess.. but expect to be disappointed upfront more than being surprised.

Verizon STILL advertises that they are the ONLY company offering the fastest speeds in the country when it is a bold faced lie... that's a un-acknowledgement of the national market where they choose not to participate.

Still, many of the SAME technologies that can 100 deploy megabits can also offer 1 gigabit service.. which is to say coax & fiber based internet. Deploying that and investing the kind of money that makes these pipes primarily wide-band ultra fast internet with other services simulcast is where the future is if they choose to build it and charge a reasonable price-- most of which they choose not to do because they make more money this way.

Around May I'm going to be looking for the best deal I can get as my $45 50 megabit internet deal expires.
pkorx8

join:2003-06-19
San Francisco, CA

can someone start a petition?

can someone start an online petition to quantify the "demand" for 1Gbps for $70, and make Mr Hoewing eat his words?

My current Comcast is out of the promo period and is $72/month for 16/6?
So I too demand 1Gbps for $70.
manuetdeo

join:2012-01-04
Sun City, CA

Re: can someone start a petition?

»www.facebook.com/onegbforseventm···roadband
34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
said by pkorx8:

My current Comcast is out of the promo period and is $72/month for 16/6?
So I too demand 1Gbps for $70.

What?! $72 for 16/6?!? That is straight up robbery.

Lone Wolf
Ready For Retirement
Premium
join:2001-12-30
USA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL

I'll never get 1Gbps at my address

Here's what Verizon offers me in the city of Philadelphia:

$19.99/month

For 1 yr. plus taxes & fees. Speeds .5 to 1 Mbps. Verizon home phone service required.

This plan is available at your address!

or

$29.99/month

For 1 yr. plus taxes & fees. Verizon home phone service required.

High Speed Internet Enhanced 3.1 to 7 Mbps is available at your address.

Of course it forces me to get their landline service too.
--
Another 4 years of Hope and Change.
The rich will still get richer and the poor get an Obamaphone and Food Stamps. lol


••••
BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

Servers

Most servers won't pump out that kind of bandwidth. I've found that many top out about 10-15mbps anyways, so 75/35 can easily support multiple simultaneous users doing heavy downloading and uploading. Of course there are exceptions, but FIOS users are already a few steps ahead of the curve bandwidth wise.

ImAnonymous

@verizon.net

Why can't we just get 30 Mbps for $30?

Come on Verizon.
bonorum

join:2004-04-03
Winston Salem, NC
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse

Verizon will deliver a giant bill, nothing else

BroadbandforAmerica.com (verizon) is spending lots of money to counter the facts that they are restricting American rights to free speech. Don't fall for their garbage. You have a right to receive internet service priced based on the cost to provide it.