how-to block ads
|
tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
| reply to swhitney2003
Re: They have been running out of modems!
said by swhitney2003  :Agreed. I would take 5/5 for same price I pay now, maybe a little more. This is not an attack on swhitney2003 ,Just an observation on a common group of comments posted here)
Why is it that people think they should get the choice of higher speeds and can set the price at or below (in Mbps) what they now pay?
Frequently posted in between upgrade cycles:
"I would pay/do anything for more speed/more upload/etc."
frequently posted when a new tier is offered:
" It costs too much" "it's not enough upload" "They should give me twice as much, for half the price" {ok, the last one is paraphrased) Strangely (or not)these comments frequently come for the same people
If you understand how cable technology works(actually everything but dedicated line service faces this limitation), you know it will always offer an unbalanced DN/UP ratio, and the price will be set by the relative cost to provide the service vs market demand.
They current tier pricing is what it is because {1 it is above the cost of providing the service (we call that return on investment/profit) and {2 the majority of potential customers (or at least enough to provide {1 at the current scale) are willing to pay that much (even if they whine about it)
a smaller percentage of customers will pay a premium price, for a premium service.
| |
jgkolt
Premium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH
clubs: | we know the upload/download speed will not be the same for cable BUT the ratio doesn't need to be as bad between the two.
--
Learning how to invest. Sign up to get 3 free trades for you and me each. Personal Message me. Thanks | |
Matt
Running Free
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
 ·Corporate Colocation
| reply to tshirt
tshirt,
The fact of the matter is, most companies do not want to provide more upload for a couple of reasons:
1) Technical limitations: Time Warner Business Class would not provide you more than 5Mbps upstream, on a pristine line, on their current DOCSIS 1.1 technology. Even if the technology allowed for it, they moved you to fiber.
2) Business Class defections: Companies don't want to provide you with higher upstream speeds. They'd rather have you upgrade to the pricier, usually with a contract, business class tier. FiOS seems to be the exception here.
There is an obvious shift in the way people are using their internet connections at home that no one but FiOS seems to get. These trends start with the geeks who frequent sites like this, then filter down. Just like in any other industry. We realize we're at the limit of what additional downstream can do. Most people here are extremely happy with 10Mbps-15Mbps of downstream, but they want to see more upstream to do things like Slingbox their movies and music, share video and lots of pictures with their family; and yes, a percentage want to be warez kiddies and pirate movies.
I have a 15/2 connection and it has afforded me the opportunity to work form home. 2Mbps is BARELY adequate when I have to reload a server and remotely mount an ISO CD image, but it works. A 10/10 connection would be absolutely wonderful and 100/100 would make me wet my pants.
There is a paradigm shift happening and DOCSIS 3.0 isn't going to be the long term solution the Cable Companies hope, which is why they aren't jumping all over it and are taking a "wait and see" approach. | |
tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
| said by Matt :tshirt, The fact of the matter is, most companies do not want to provide more upload for a couple of reasons: 1) Technical limitations: ... they moved you to fiber. Exactly, dedicated line (fiber is one type)is more appropriate for balanced service, and at least until very recently (FIOS is notable here)been price accordingly.
Shared line like cable HSI is unbalanced, and they could offer you 5/5 or 10/10, but then need to be able to PROFITABLE sell the other 95% of the downstream to pay for the plant.
said by Matt :2) Business Class defections: ........I have a 15/2 connection and it has afforded me the opportunity to work form home. 2Mbps is BARELY adequate when I have to reload a server and remotely mount an ISO CD image, but it works. . correct, you just described yourself as someone who formerly (and maybe still should) would have had a business class connection, but instead chose the cheaper, highend residental service apparently willing to live with the limitations.
said by Matt : A 10/10 connection would be absolutely wonderful and 100/100 would make me wet my pants.. They don't want to be responsible for workplace 'accidents' 
said by Matt :There is a paradigm shift happening and DOCSIS 3.0 isn't going to be the long term solution the Cable Companies hope, which is why they aren't jumping all over it and are taking a "wait and see" approach. It is a major investment/commitment, those waiting by the sidelines want to see if the business model/pricing ComCast has set, sells, pays the costs.
The fear is
{1 some apps may kill there profit/repayment of the capital costs (as VoIP is doing to phone companies)
[2 some other technology (wireless,powerline, FTTx) can build out faster, and undercut/match the price, which will dilute their return schedule.
The risk is waiting too long and creating the window for the other technology to develop. | |
hopeflicker
Capitalism breeds greed
Premium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
edit:
April 23rd, @12:26PM
| reply to tshirt
said by tshirt :said by swhitney2003 :Agreed. I would take 5/5 for same price I pay now, maybe a little more. They current tier pricing is what it is because {1 it is above the cost of providing the service (we call that return on investment/profit) If that's the case then Verizon must but losing money big time. 
I call greed on this one.
--
Religion does three things quite effectively: Divides people, Controls people, Deludes people. | |
espaeth
Misanthrope
Premium
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
 ·voip.ms
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
 ·Comcast
·Embarq
| said by hopeflicker :said by tshirt :They current tier pricing is what it is because {1 it is above the cost of providing the service (we call that return on investment/profit) If that's the case then Verizon must but losing money big time. I call greed on this one. Verizon is losing money on FiOS right now. Just a couple months ago were showing only a 16% adoption rate on the service, which isn't nearly good enough to justify the rollout expense.
The driver behind footing the expense was being able to get into the video services market, not providing higher upload speeds. HSI alone wouldn't deliver any kind of reasonable ROI for Verizon. | |
tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
| reply to hopeflicker
Verizon sells a number of different Internet services, but I'm assuming you're comparing current FIOS prices to this comcast offering.
without looking at their books, and weighting the longterm costs and benefits of each of these different technologies but both aiming to capture a share of the lucrative triple play+ market it's not possible to access their cost/profit ratio
Judging how investor have treated Verizon stock, I'd say there is a feeling that their current service prices are far too low, however they are still trying for higher market share/penetration rates.
No one can really say what the longterm charges will be.
Corporations don't have GREED, they balance demand vs supply to achive the highest possible return for their investors. | |
mod_wastrel
join:2008-03-28
·magicjack.com
| reply to espaeth
If they're anything like me, then those who could "adopt" Verizon's FiOS TV (or triple play) don't do so solely because they just KNOW Verizon's going to screw-up their monthly bill once they move off of having just FiOS (or any single service). Once Verizon shows me they have the billing for their bundles straightened out, then I'll jump all over their TV product (though I doubt I'll ever use their phone service again, unless it's effectively free, as in, 3 for the price of 2). | |
moko
join:2002-12-22
Fayetteville, GA | reply to tshirt
if corporations are run by humans....than theere will always be greed in it....thats when they "don't" balance supply and demand | |
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Corporations are, essentially, amoral. Neither greed, nor altruism are a part of their essence. A corporation is just an organized mob. Do some research on "mob psychology". People in groups (mobs, or corporations) are capable of doing things that they would not do individually.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
justaguy
@lmco.com | reply to tshirt
Why is it that people think they should get the choice of higher speeds and can set the price at or below (in Mbps) what they now pay?
In most cases, it is because they feel that they are being overcharged to begin with. | |
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| said by justaguy :
Why is it that people think they should get the choice of higher speeds and can set the price at or below (in Mbps) what they now pay?
In most cases, it is because they feel that they are being overcharged to begin with.
Or, they're aware of other companies giving away better deals. I'm happy with my 10/1 connection from Time Warner, but I have to admit it does irk me that select areas of Los Angeles get 15/2 for the same price I'm paying. | |
punker
deleted by moderator
Premium
join:2004-06-21
Palmdale, CA
clubs:
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by djrobx :said by justaguy :
Why is it that people think they should get the choice of higher speeds and can set the price at or below (in Mbps) what they now pay?
In most cases, it is because they feel that they are being overcharged to begin with.
Or, they're aware of other companies giving away better deals. I'm happy with my 10/1 connection from Time Warner, but I have to admit it does irk me that select areas of Los Angeles get 15/2 for the same price I'm paying. me want faster upload
i rather my download be 1mbps and my upload 10mbps | |
lamapper
@rr.com
|  reply to tshirt
said by tshirt :said by swhitney2003 : Why is it that people think they should get the choice of higher speeds and can set the price at or below (in Mbps) what they now pay? You really need to check out this article about how we are far behind other parts of the industrialized world for high speed / broadband access...it is enlightening
Less than $40 per month for 100Mbps... if I was wealthy I would invest, light up some dark fiber and capture up to 40% of the broadband market here in the U.S. from the Cable and Telcos who now control over 90% of the broadband market here.
How much money would 40% of their market bring in to me at $40 per month. Each and every month, cash flow is King! Better than Auto Insurance most likely.
I could even offer Cable TV; ON Demand; High definition diagnostics for hospitals and doctors; and many other products and services; talk about services at home...wow.
And if you consider that one strand of fiber can be multiplied x 1024 with the right technology, heck I think X 1024 is now two or more years old.
You want 100/100, no problem we have plenty of bandwidth and thanks to technology we aren't going to run out any time soon! Gotta love Fiber! Enough rambling, check out the article:
»www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···larticle
In case the article is pulled, here are some highlights below:
Keep in mind these are 'Median' download speeds, some are higher and some are lower:
Japan: 61 Mbps
S. Korea: 46 Mbps
Finland: 21 Mbps
Sweden: 18 Mbps
Canada: 8 Mbps
U.S: 2 Mbps
The next graph stated that, "The United States has fallen far behind other industrialized nations in high-speed interactive service..."
Broadband subscribers in industrialized nations: (Per 100 inhabitants in 2005)
S. Korea: 24.9
Canada: 17.6
Switzerland: 17.0
Sweden: 15.1
Norway: 15.0
Israel: 14.3
Japan: 14.1
Finland: 12.8
U.S.: 11.4
France: 11.2
Britain: 10.3
"In 2000, the Japanese government seized its advantage in wire. In sharp contrast to the Bush administration over the same time period...In short order, broadband exploded."
"Even DSL service in Japan is much faster (than the U.S.) 10 to 20 times"
The next figure had the following with it: "Monthly rates in Japan for fiber-optic connections are often lower than for slower connections in the U.S.: (Monthly price and download speed in megabits per second)
Japan
Fiber: $36.58 / 100 Mbps (NTT West)
$39.22 / 100 Mbps (Yahoo BB)
Cable: $98.20 / 30 Mbps (J-Com)
Washington metropolitan area:
Fiber: $39.99 / 5 Mbps (Verizon)
DSL: $29.99 / 3 Mbps (Verizon)
Cable: $52.95 / 8 Mbps (Comcast)
$41.99 / 5 Mbps (Cox)
Sources were circa 2006 and are listed.
Interesting quotes:
"The experience of the last seven years shows that sometimes you need a strong federal regulatory framework to ensure that competition happens in a way that is constructive" - Vinton G. Cerf, a VP at Google.
"Once you have very high speeds, I guarantee that people will figure out things to do with it that they haven't done before." - Vinton G. Cerf.
"Masayoshi Son, head of a company called Softbank, offered broadband that was much cheaper than and more than six times as fast as NTT's. He added marketing razzmatazz to the mix, dispatching young people to street corners to give away modems that would connect users to a service called Yahoo BB (The U.S.-based Yahoo owns about a third of it.) The company's share of the DSL business in Japan has exploded in the past five years, from zero to 37 percent."
Again I ask, any millionaires want to light up some 'dark' fiber run the last mile to some concentrated areas and take up to 40% of the U.S. market in about a year....think about those numbers, somebody would be even richer! Wish I had the money I would definitely go for it! Imagine having 100 Mbps for $30 - $40 per month. The company would take the market by storm! Makes me sick to think are corporations are selling us "technologically" down the river to much of the industrialized world.
What would 30 - 40% of the cable market be worth at $40 per month per user? (Each and every month...probably better than Auto Insurance as far as cash flow!)
"The growing addiction to speed, ironically, is returning near-monopoly power in fiber to NTT, which owns and control most new fiber lines to homes."
"Growth of new fiber connections exceeded DSL growth two years ago. Fiber is how all of Japan will soon be connected -- for phones, television and nearly all other services." | |
mberlant
join:2007-12-25
Japan
| You're philosophy is right, but your numbers are out of date.
I live in Japan and enjoy FTTH. Currently, $60 is the going rate from all ISPs for 100Mbps/100Mbps fiber service. That is the onward rate following "new customer" discounts. These discounts, which vary from ISP to ISP, all include waiver of the $130 construction/installation fee and either the first two or three months free or a discounted price for the first 6 or 12 months. In my case, I chose an ISP that offered $40 each month for the first year.
It is also interesting to note that this is residential service. The same fiber drop can be configured either for commercial service ($400 for 1Gbps/1Gbps) or "mansion" service, where a 1G fiber drop is demuxed into 100MBps copper for distribution into small apartment houses.
ADSL service is still readily available within about 4km of any NTT CO. Service runs about $25 for 8Mbps/1Mbps service. Downstream speeds can be had, subject to distance constraints, up to 40Mbps, with the same 1Mbps upstream speed. Slower speeds are available for slightly less money.
When the installer finished his work, I observed on his laptop that my home was passing 86Mbps in each direction. As I am too cheap to replace my routers with faster ones, I simply run two Linksys routers (30Mbps throughput, each) in parallel.
As lamapper said, NTT enjoys virtual monopoly control of FTTH drops (and copper DSL drops, as well), and this is good for consumers. For all ISPs except YahooBB, NTT retains control of the drop, the CPE modem and the DSLAM. You may pay for your drop in a bundled bill from your ISP, but NTT retains "control" of this piece.
What that means to the consumer is that you can switch ISPs (or add a second ISP for diversity) without incurring a new installation charge or suffering any downtime. Your new ISP simply gives you a new PPPoE user name and password, which includes @NewISPname in the user name, and the connection routes through the DSLAM to the ISP's access router. No muss, no fuss.
Except for political wrangling, and the intransigence of the entrenched operators, it's hard to comprehend why the US is so far behind the rest of the world. Certainly, this kind of service should be achievable in every urban and suburban market in the US. All it takes is for Congress to force the ILECs to offer the FTTH drops to all ISPs and to force them to drop their unnecessary bundling of network service with ISP content provisioning.
I guess if that's all it takes I shouldn't hold my breath. | |
lamapper
@rr.com
| said by mberlant :...Currently, $60 is the going rate from all ISPs for 100Mbps/100Mbps fiber service All I can say is WOW! Thanks for providing updated information, especially updated figures. I would happily pay $60 for 100 / 100 MB. I think most of us would.
Many of us in Canada and the US, wish we were offered this...wishing...wishing... and with many companies (since 2000 in Canada and since 2006 in the US) throttling service another option would be welcome in every market. Because of this action alone many would readily churn given an option even at more money per month.
In L.A. where I have plenty of options (ISP providers) I pay between $30 and $35 (yes I have been eyeing those sub $20 per month offers too - I am figuring I will need to switch once my provider starts 'throttling' my bandwidth as they are doing in other parts of the country...big mistake, but nothing new there either) however in other parts of this country and Canada it is not unheard of to pay closer to $100 per month for less bandwidth (under 10 MB) than what other countries are providing today. (Typically there is little or no competition in those areas)
Again I ask, any millionaires want to light up some dark fiber and go for it!!! You WILL GET RICHER!
said by mberlant :Except for political wrangling, and the intransigence of the entrenched operators, it's hard to comprehend why the US is so far behind the rest of the world. Certainly, this kind of service should be achievable in every urban and suburban market in the US. All it takes is for Congress to force the ILECs to offer the FTTH drops to all ISPs and to force them to drop their unnecessary bundling of network service with ISP content provisioning. Milking their investment in non-Fiber infrastructure.
Not investing in a fiber infrastructure (esp when times are good).
Preferring to blame a few customers on their usage, rather than take responsibility for their inaction at improving their own infrastructure.
...and on
...and on
It really makes the consumers sick and many would gladly pay more for more bandwidth. Some would pay more just to have a second option rather than who they are stuck with. The markets here are ripe for the picking!
You said a mouthful, "unnecessary bundling of network service with ISP content provisioning” you could add in pathetic marketing, such as providing customers with only 'one bill' rather than multiple bills for services. As if customers would over look poor service; restricted service; higher priced service just because you are combining their phone + internet + TV...please! I was in the telco industry when this was all the buzz, and I know for a fact that I was not the only one who thought it was a pathetic marketing attempt by the providers. (And yes I am ashamed to admit that many consumers were simple minded enough to buy into it) That was the early 1990s and here we are almost 20 years later and companies are still trying to sell this as a plus. How pathetic is that!
Guess if you don't have it, you can't sell it. Old dogs with no new tricks...really, really sad.
Sadly here in the US, companies have gotten very, very good at confusing their customers (and voters) with what they are really saying, offering (voting on). It is this 'confusion' that prevented Congress from doing the right thing a few years back when they had the chance too.
What is worse, is the very providers that are so entrenched and against this are the very ones that will benefit the most when it happens. It would be a customer service and market coup if they would do it on their own without being forced to do it. Now that is marketing that would work, assuming of course they get rid of their current 'customer - no service' mentality.
Many companies in the US have forgotten what it means to 'provide service' to customers. Yes, every market in the US and Canada is ripe for the picking!
The only thing that will get them out of their 'rut' is competition.
So I say again, any millionaires want to invest some money, buy some dark fiber, light it up and go after over 40% of the current US and Canada market?
I will come to work for you and help you to do this, as you will have more than enough profit to pay salaries and benefits! And if you went public after lighting up the first city, you would have more than enough capital to light up more dark fiber and perhaps even run some of your own...all the while making even more money.
Sprint seems to understand the need to run Fiber as they have been for years in many cities around the country, sadly they have the same 'customer no service' habits of all the companies currently in their marketplace. There are no exceptions to this that I have seen, heard of or experienced.
In fact you do not have to be that creative to google problems with all the providers in the telco, cable, dsl, cellular and internet market places. None of them can claim the high ground and they honestly believe that the American public will continue to put up with it. As we have over the last two decades.
Start a company, light up fiber, lay new fiber, PROVIDE SERVICE, don't allow representatives to be rude (Note you can be FIRM without being RUDE) and alienate customers. Provide bandwidth at current world prices (not the inflated US/Canada prices) and you will be rich, very RICH!
I can wish, can't I?
Thank you mberlant! Many in this country don't believe that others have it better elsewhere and rather than get upset with their providers as they should, mistakenly defend them; their slower services; their restricted bandwidth policies, etc, ad nausea.
As if its their customer's fault that they are choosing to milk their investment rather than improve their infrastructure and provide better products and services. After all they can't offer what they don't have, can they! The same companies will probably want the government to bail them out when a wealthy investor / business purchases and lights up the dark fiber that is already out there and takes away their business.
Its not a matter of IF, only a matter of WHEN. And yes I am available to travel!  | |
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
edit:
June 19th, @02:03PM
| said by lamapper :said by mberlant :...Currently, $60 is the going rate from all ISPs for 100Mbps/100Mbps fiber service All I can say is WOW! Thanks for providing updated information, especially updated figures. I would happily pay $60 for 100 / 100 MB. I think most of us would. Who is this "Us"? My price point for Internet is ~$30 per month. I don't care about the speed, just what I am paying to get there. I would rather keep the difference and apply it to アニメと漫画。
Again I ask, any millionaires want to light up some dark fiber and go for it!!! You WILL GET RICHER!
There is no "dark fiber" to light up in my neighborhood. There is little fiber at all, there. Some to a couple of VRADs on Castle Glen Way, and an "Alpha" box on a pole near Ora and Huntington; none to the premises. If you are a millionaire, you will spend, maybe, 150% of your fortune to run your own fiber into that neighborhood, and then you have to figure out the per premises cost to take it to the premises.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
