 wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | It all comes down to price.... While the majority of the people on this website would chose Verizon for the higher speeds, that is simply not the priority for the rest of the country. 9+ out of 10 people would chose a cheaper option (for instance a 768k connection) versus a 100Mbps connection. There is a reason the fastest growing tier for both cable operators and (DSL) telcos is the "light" tier (generally 768k). I would suspect that unless Verizon wanted to lose money on a rollout, ATT would likely win more customers in a greenfield area simply because they can offer cheaper service without losing (as much, if any) money. Uverse is far cheaper to deploy than FIOS, and that means cheaper prices for customers (unless VZ takes a loss per sub).
--
If history teaches us anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly.
-Ronald Reagan-
|
|
| I agree. The typical DSLR reader represents a very small portion of the market. I would think if Verizon crossed the line that AT&T would do the same in those markets. Since U-Verse is IP based it doesn't have to be constrained to copper plant. |
|
|
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to wifi4milez
One problem with your line of thinking is that AT&T is running fiber to almost all new greenfield deployments, just limiting it to U-Verse speeds.
So their cost to greenfield deployments may actually be HIGHER per sub than Verizon since Verizon has likely negotiated better contracts with their suppliers and contractors. |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to EngineerDave
I'm all with the 'bottom line' approach, however, I've always seen 2 distinct arguments.
1. Bottom line pricing: I'll take a 3Mbps/512kbps for $25/month and be happy (for now). I'll save $25x12) = $300/year
2. Cheaper in bulk pricing: Some will say that 12-15Mbps for $50 is a better deal. Well, it is on a per Mbps rate. If you can justify the price, then maybe its worth it - I.e. online gamers, BT, etc.
I'm typically more of the option #1 approach, while I know most companies attempt to sell item #2 with packages.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
 XBL2009------
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL | reply to wifi4milez
Currently paying $14.99 for 3 megabits which is ok for the price but it's still to slow to upload at 512kbps.
Hell we all should be seeing 25mbps for $25 by now or better. |
|
| reply to wifi4milez
You've seen uptake on the Basic DSL packages for one main reason. Thats the level of service AT&T pushes when they talk about bundling for 75 or 99. |
|
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | said by OSUGoose:You've seen uptake on the Basic DSL packages for one main reason. Thats the level of service AT&T pushes when they talk about bundling for 75 or 99. No, the "light" tiers are offered as stand alone product by most providers. The only requirement most providers have with the light tiers is that you sign a 12 month (or greater) term to get them.
--
If history teaches us anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly.
-Ronald Reagan-
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Insight Communic..
| No, i was refering to their popularity, not offering. Every at&t ad you see Talks about bundling home phone, internet and tv or wireless for 75 or 99/mo. Jo Consumer calls in to switch from cable, and says i want that 75 or 99 bundle deal, and i bet most reps dont say but thats for our cheepest dsl speed, for 5 or 10 bucks more a month you can double or tripple ur speed. |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by OSUGoose:No, i was refering to their popularity, not offering. Every at&t ad you see Talks about bundling home phone, internet and tv or wireless for 75 or 99/mo. Jo Consumer calls in to switch from cable, and says i want that 75 or 99 bundle deal, and i bet most reps dont say but thats for our cheepest dsl speed, for 5 or 10 bucks more a month you can double or tripple ur speed. Same with Time Warner's $99 triple play or the 3 for $29 each promos they have going. |
|
Warez_ZealotRural land of the rising sun
join:2006-04-19
japan | reply to wifi4milez
said by wifi4milez:While the majority of the people on this website would chose Verizon for the higher speeds, that is simply not the priority for the rest of the country. 9+ out of 10 people would chose a cheaper option (for instance a 768k connection) versus a 100Mbps connection. There is a reason the fastest growing tier for both cable operators and (DSL) telcos is the "light" tier (generally 768k). I would suspect that unless Verizon wanted to lose money on a rollout, ATT would likely win more customers in a greenfield area simply because they can offer cheaper service without losing (as much, if any) money. Uverse is far cheaper to deploy than FIOS, and that means cheaper prices for customers (unless VZ takes a loss per sub). How do you know that? Why do ISP's always advertise speeds then? Me thinks you are trying to pass off your opinions as facts. |
|
 CUBS_FANNext Year Again..
join:2005-04-28
Chicago, IL
kudos:1
 ·magicjack.com
·Comcast
·Vonage
| reply to XBL2009
said by XBL2009:Currently paying $14.99 for 3 megabits which is ok for the price but it's still to slow to upload at 512kbps. Hell we all should be seeing 25mbps for $25 by now or better. Where in Chicago can you get 3mb's for $14.99? Im paying like 5 times that right now for 6mb's with Comcast. I don't care about uploads, in the past year or so I was just upgraded to 1mb but for the longest I had 384k. |
|
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | reply to Warez_Zealot
said by Warez_Zealot:said by wifi4milez:While the majority of the people on this website would chose Verizon for the higher speeds, that is simply not the priority for the rest of the country. 9+ out of 10 people would chose a cheaper option (for instance a 768k connection) versus a 100Mbps connection. There is a reason the fastest growing tier for both cable operators and (DSL) telcos is the "light" tier (generally 768k). I would suspect that unless Verizon wanted to lose money on a rollout, ATT would likely win more customers in a greenfield area simply because they can offer cheaper service without losing (as much, if any) money. Uverse is far cheaper to deploy than FIOS, and that means cheaper prices for customers (unless VZ takes a loss per sub). How do you know that? Why do ISP's always advertise speeds then? Me thinks you are trying to pass off your opinions as facts. If you are asking me how I know what the fastest growing tier is, I suggest you do your own research if you dont believe me (its been mentioned/discussed multiple times). You can start right here on this very website in fact. If you are asking me how I know people prefer cheaper tiers, I suspect once you research what I just mentioned your answer will be fairly clear as well.
--
If history teaches us anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly.
-Ronald Reagan-
|
|
