how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
194 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT | I disagree with Comcasts assessment I think that Stand alone DSL is a threat to their business and why the Telco's haven't really pursued it before now is really beyond me.
And, the even bigger question is, why comcast hasn't realized this and gotten agressive with a lower tiered structure of their own is also beyond me.
For whatever reason, comcast has simply refused to come down and play hardball with DSL at the lower tier levels.
Unless, of course..you refer to their 384k (some say it might be now going to 768k soon) tier..that they sell at a whopping value price of about 25.00 per month.
And, it's been the most untalked about tier i think in the history of cable..often times reserved only as a last resort for folks who don't want to pay 43 to 53.00 per month for their regular and enhanced package.
Meanwhile...AT&T and others, out of necessity..have been all about their low speed..low priced tiers.
10.00 ~ 25.00 for 768k to 3Mb.
Not a bad deal at all..until you factor in..the dreaded landline.
Really, what AT&T and others need to do..today..is to just drop that requirement..realize that many people are not using their DSL service BECAUSE of that..and basically..get with the program.
There ARE cable customers out there who want a lower bill...and who wouldn't mind taking the slower speeds to go along with it.
Just as there are cable customers like myself..who see the value in staying with the higher tiers.
Is choice really such a bad thing for these companies?
What comcast needs to do..right now..is recognize this..
and start to compete on the lower end as well.
Get with the 768k to 3Mb programs...at competitive prices.
And, what Telco needs to do is to drop the landline requirements.
And just face it. Lot's of people will never go back to them.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
 NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
 ·Comcast
 ·Callcentric
| said by Rick:I think that Stand alone DSL is a threat to their business and why the Telco's haven't really pursued it before now is really beyond me. And, the even bigger question is, why comcast hasn't realized this and gotten agressive with a lower tiered structure of their own is also beyond me. For whatever reason, comcast has simply refused to come down and play hardball with DSL at the lower tier levels. The main reason why is because the technologies are so different. DSL is not available as widely as cable is. Cable providers have always known that their technology isn't better, but its got the distance factor on its side which means it can get access to more customers. Take my parents for example. They live in a very small town and have no DSL options. They do have cable internet though, but they must pay the $42.95 for it.
Now if SBC figured out a way to increase their distance on their DSL or some kind of other fast internet, then you would see a price war. | |
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
1 edit | reply to Rick
All companies want $$$
It comes down to what service people will pay for.
MOST people will pay for TV service (HD service for those that paid for HD sets).
Some people will pay for phone service - many think its overpriced... VoIP is basically killing POTS. POTS is regulated, so it won't change, and Telco isn't profiting. Uverse (i.e. no connection to the CO physically) removes the regulated part, and Telco can attempt to make $$$ if they do their job right.
DSL on its own, HSI on its own ? It exists, BUT, there's a cap on profits (i.e. no 'PPV' add on, no HD add on, no DVR), and none of these companies break out the basic infrastructure costs (i.e. the cost of maintaining the line).
AT&T is attempting to have their cake and eat it too...Uverse + DSL and POTS/LD. They haven't marketed CallVantage VoIP with Uverse AT ALL, most likely assuming the average person would keep their POTS line. BAD
None of the companies want 'lower' prices.. but they'll combine items to give you a lower per item cost, as long as they get more money, they'll be happy.
If AT&T offered 'naked dsl' here for $5 more than the existing, I'd take it, and keep my TV service on DirecTv.
Monthly bill:
DTV (3 tuners +package): $50.40
DSL $29.95
VoIP $24.95
Cellphone (already have it): $60 (after taxes on 2 lines) | |
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
1 edit | reply to Nightfall
"Cable providers have always known that their technology isn't better"....
.. are you kidding me with that? You're in MI and I know the service up there via cable isn't the greatest.. however, there are MANY locations where cable service is rock solid where the system is well designed, well maintained, and operated correctly. I have my hands on and access to hundreds of different HSI installs including both cable and DSL from all providers from Comcast, TWC, Cox, Charter, MediaCrap, AT&T, Verizon, Qwest, Huxley Com, SureWest and others... and to be honest, I've seen PLENTY of cable accounts that have better speeds, faster ping times and just all around more reliable than other DSL installs.
The moral to the story is that ANY 'network' connection is only as good as the individual installation and ANY WAN connection can suck under the right conditions.
But to say that cable technology isn't better?? that's reaching.
As for your parent comment.. let me counter that to you.. in the middle of Wisconsin, just east of Wassau, the ONLY internet connection, way out in the boonies, IS DSL.. cable is almost non-existent. But, $42.95 for HSI? A drop in the bucket. Back in 1999, I was paying $300 to install DSL, 1 Year commit, $150 for the modem, and $89.99 a month for the service.. all for an up to 1.5 x 128 line. $40 a month for service is MORE than a good price for what you get.
SBC can increase their distance on DSL.. install remote terminals! They don't want to ... in Sacramento CA.. the capitol of the 3rd largest state in the nation, there is a HUGE black hole in South Sacramento / Freeport-Fruitridge area. There are three COs that serve almost a 12 mile linear range.. and both COs are at opposite ends of town.. They've promised RTs for about 7 years now and still nothing.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI Reviews:
·Site5.com
·Comcast
·Callcentric
1 edit | said by fiberguy:"Cable providers have always known that their technology isn't better".... .. are you kidding me with that? You're in MI and I know the service up there via cable isn't the greatest.. however, there are MANY locations where cable service is rock solid where the system is well designed, well maintained, and operated correctly. I have my hands on and access to hundreds of different HSI installs including both cable and DSL from all providers from Comcast, TWC, Cox, Charter, MediaCrap, AT&T, Verizon, Qwest, Huxley Com, SureWest and others... and to be honest, I've seen PLENTY of cable accounts that have better speeds, faster ping times and just all around more reliable than other DSL installs. The moral to the story is that ANY 'network' connection is only as good as the individual installation and ANY WAN connection can suck under the right conditions. But to say that cable technology isn't better?? that's reaching. As for your parent comment.. let me counter that to you.. in the middle of Wisconsin, just east of Wassau, the ONLY internet connection, way out in the boonies, IS DSL.. cable is almost non-existent. But, $42.95 for HSI? A drop in the bucket. Back in 1999, I was paying $300 to install DSL, 1 Year commit, $150 for the modem, and $89.99 a month for the service.. all for an up to 1.5 x 128 line. $40 a month for service is MORE than a good price for what you get. SBC can increase their distance on DSL.. install remote terminals! They don't want to ... in Sacramento CA.. the capitol of the 3rd largest state in the nation, there is a HUGE black hole in South Sacramento / Freeport-Fruitridge area. There are three COs that serve almost a 12 mile linear range.. and both COs are at opposite ends of town.. They've promised RTs for about 7 years now and still nothing. Cable service, or any broadband service for that matter, is very area specific. Cable service not the greatest? Where are you pulling those statistics from? In my area, Comcast cable is awesome. The techs I have talked to in person are very knowledgeable. This is a far cry from the Comcast service I got in another part of the city. Point is, you really can't compare services across the board with each other. Your experiences are no indication on how a service will work for someone else 100 miles away. You have to compare them from the area you live in. You even mentioned that point in the next paragraph. 
Cable technology isn't a better technology than DSL, its just a different technology. I really can't say cable is better than DSL because of the price point. Just as I can't say DSL is better than cable due to the distance limitation. Course, we can go back and forth on this one as you have different factors to dictate which is better.
Unfortunately, SBC and cable providers are not strong into broadband deployment as 99% of the users would like them to be. It has become less of a service and more of a price point to them. There obviously must be a reason why that 12 mile area doesn't have DSL, and I would bet dollars to donuts that its a money issue when it comes to upgrading the lines. Either that or people wouldn't purchase the technology. Who knows for sure though.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal | |
|
