FiOS Keeping Cable Prices In Check > Non sequitur

reply to jester121

Re: Non sequitur

I've been seeing a bit of a price/performance war in my region between Comcast and FiOS.

When Comcast came out with their digital voice service, Verizon immediately fired back with a similarly priced free nationwide phone service with all of the premium features like caller ID and call forwarding included at the exact same price. I'm also seeing the $90 price for the FiOS 50/20 tier, although Verizon publicly advertises this tier at $140.

I believe the competing FTTH technology is forcing many cable providers to expedite their move to a DOCSIS 3.0 system much sooner than they would have otherwise been prompted to do so on their own accord. Even those areas not in direct competition with FiOS may reap the benefits of improved infrastructure and service. If they cannot improve their product in many of these regions, when FiOS or a similar service is made available, it will be very difficult to retain customers if the gap in service is too great. Some of the improvements being made are simply attempts to proactively keep FiOS from stepping in with a vastly improved product and gobbling up an established user base.

And while the cable companies are able to offer similar speed packages on the surface, the reality is that this is more of a marketing gimmick. The fact is that in many of these areas they are simply overselling the service and have to use drastic measures to regulate and throttle the bandwidth consumption at these inflated speed offerings. With some exceptions, a 16/2 Comcast service with PowerBoost is not an equal product to a 20/5 FiOS connection. Having had FiOS now for a couple of months after being with Comcast for over 2 years, I'd prefer a 10/2 fiber service to my previous Comcast cable service. It's simply a more robust, higher quality product through and through for me.

reply to aaronwt

reply to aaronwt
Comcast has been talking about 100mb speeds since back in 1997. And, that conversation was held in Sacramento CA which is no where near Verizon territory. I'm sure that cable speeds have been pushed solely and purely on Verizon's FiOS product.

I think the so-called professional analysts and the not-so professional analysts want people to think that we'd not see new technology ever to come unless there was competition. I can't say that I'd agree that services would not have improved. Cable, alone, went from a simple antenna feed run through the hills picking up locals for the neighbors to a small amplified system, to microwaved, to fiber links to nodes all with out real competition. It was done to improve service and also add more capacity. Does this give more selling options? Sure.. that alone would drive the improvements. However, keeping the prices down? ... that's another story..

.. the moral to the story is that (and as I've been saying here for years) competition doesn't necessarily keep the prices down.. regulation GENERALLY does more-so. If you don't believe me, look at gas stations on opposing corners. One simply waits to raise the price when the others do. Airlines are also guilty of this as well. As soon as one raises their fare, the others generally follow.

This who article is nothing but someone's speculation and not fact... but in the end, the author has to write an article to get paid.

reply to jmn1207
The others that "tend to agree" are again speculating. The reason that Comcast Minnesota got the new speeds first is in part of its system rating in the bunch.

The keyword in your quoted paragraph was "probably" to which I can tell you was pretty much a false guess.

Comcast Minnesota is a A/B rated system. Its in good condition, the leakage is very low, the return path system here is clean, and many other factors made this system a good choice for it. The St. Paul system has always been a very well run system for comcast... and the system was just ready for it. Compared to other cities, St Paul is a very clean, well run system and has always been ahead of the curve of other systems.

To be honest, products have launched in other markets that were not quite perfected. Comcast simply works through all the good and bad along side the competition. I don't think anyone here can say why Comcast does anything they way they do.. the decisions that are made never seem to follow any pattern from before. Also, Comcast has, over the years, been more tight lipped on it's plans vs shouting them out to the world as they had in the past.

My opinion on the matter, despite reading Comcast's defensive squirming about the Minnesota deployment of DOCSIS 3.0 not being about competition, remains unchanged. There are plenty of systems that Comcast could have chosen, but they preferred to implement this in an area with little or no competition offering anything comparable. This is the perfect climate to trial something new and relatively untested. The environment was more controlled.

And now that Comcast has started deploying DOCSIS 3.0 almost exclusively in FiOS areas, such as Fort Wayne, Indiana, or proposed FiOS locations, such as their threatened Philadelphia base of operations, I feel even more strongly about this position. The Minneapolis test site was chosen out of all the possible locations due, in large part, to competition from FiOS. This is despite Comcast's claims stating otherwise.

I simply believe that Comcast would not make such a critical decision without careful consideration of their competition.

Defensive squirming huh?

Almost exclusively?

Sounds like those two statements, alone, allow me to put my money on the fact that it really is just 'your opinion'... I gave you some pretty clear facts as to why the system was chosen for DOCSIS 3.0.. also, while some people think that everything revolves about the internet, you may also not know that the MN system was also a test bed for many other products and services too...

.. but again, it's all about HSI theories.

You are simply repeating what Comcast has already stated back in April.

»www.lightreading.com/document.as···site=cdn

"...the Twin Cities have established a solid track record in testing and deploying new technologies..."

I agree that the test site selection was chosen, in part, because of the excellent condition of the system. That much is obvious to me. Great infrastructure, a metropolitan area with plenty of potential customers and traffic, and no real competition in the area with a product that currently competes with the services undergoing testing.

I don't know why it's so difficult for you to believe that the lack of competition had anything to do with the test site selection. Unless this is personal to you for some reason? Nobody wants to test a race car in an actual competition before going a few laps on a test track.

It's clear to me that the pricing models and speed tiers that Comcast decided upon while testing are currently set to compete directly with Verizon's FiOS offerings. This is all about competition with FiOS, including the choice in where to begin their testing. Comcast's denial plays right along with how they always seem to react when FiOS is mentioned. Their actions tell a different story. I'm right in the midst of this cable/fiber battleground, so it's difficult to ignore.

reply to jmn1207
I'm living in Fort Wayne, IN so I thought I would post this. Its from the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette.

»www.journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs···12160305

Its was announced back in November 23, 2008 about Comcast speed increases coming before the end of year. I've enclosed that link below.

»www.journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs···11230367