dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
20074
share rss forum feed

Lazlow

join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
reply to GyroCaptain

Re: ISP/Video Competition

My apologies for my typo. I should always have caffeine before I type. Despite my typo, I think everybody understood my point.

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
reply to myokitis
Ok, then take it from someone that has been in the industry for many years when I tell you that I disagree with you 1001% on what you said.

Billing by the byte is not necessary.. its a much better billing model for THEM. RIGHT NOW, they say "most only use about 5g to 10g of data" which is about right... for RIGHT NOW. So, there IS urgency to get this plan in place NOW rather than later. NOW, it's true, LATER, when people will start moving over that 5 to 10g of data per month, NOW it makes sense to have that kind of billing system in place. HOWEVER, by that time, where AVERAGE data (which is important to say AVERAGE in billing terms) IS exceeding say even 50gb a month AVERAGE, then it will be easier to justify a higher charge AND the "back haul" systems will be able to more than accommodate. If they CAN'T handle that kind of data flow, then the consumer is being screwed.

Profits from broadband are very high right now and with those profits they need to be reinvesting into their pipes. If they are not, they are simply screwing the customer. Internet use IS on the rise, however, with the profits they make they need to be keeping up with those demands.

Billing by the byte is insurance in advance protection so secure more revenue as they need it in the future. They need to ALL simply be honest and charge for the service what it's worth. I don't think that DSL at $25 a month, and cable service at $40 a month is an honest price. I believe they need to raise the price about $10 on average.. if they did that, alone, they could EASILY rebuild their networks sooner, rather than later, and make everyone happy.

The consumer needs to realize that broadband prices are a deal right now - that I will say is true. You can't expect lower prices and demand better service at the same time. The consumer is also demanding that they see return on their monthly fees in the form of improvements.

I can't disagree with you ANY more on your post and if there was EVER a shill on this site, it's you.

The most dangerous thing you can say on this site is "Take it from somebody in the business"... becuase you just opened yourself of for attacks, and quite honestly, you sound totally arrogant at the same time. Not everyone here is stupid OR ignorant. However, in what you are talking about, which is mostly speculative and opinionated, to say "take it from someone in the business" you just told everyone they have no clue what they are talking about. You look dumb saying this.

No, the competition is NOT intense as you think.. Much of the DSL providers have contracts so their base is somewhat secured. Cable doesn't go by contract but they sell on speed and value. They have a harder job keeping a customer than phone. AND, I find it ironic that cable is actually being more consumer friendly in the lack of contract over phone any day.

"It's the difference between being an armchair quarterback and actually being in the game."

Good one..

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
reply to myokitis
said by myokitis:

said by jimbo2150:

said by myokitis:
But that doesn't change the fact that both groups of companies are indeed intensely competing against each other for survival.
At every post, you're displaying arrogance. Survival? Hardly.. dominance? Sure..

In the SMALLER areas, you may have a provider, such as Embarq, competing for survival.. bu that just goes to show why all the smaller companies merged and sold to larger ones back in the late 90's/2000's.

No.. right now, it's about dominance and king. But, it's not an over blown survival game like you say it is... far from it in MOST cases.

HexCalamity

join:2005-03-16
Salem, OR
reply to myokitis
said by myokitis:

said by jimbo2150:

said by myokitis:

a highly competitive environment
I highly disagree. I only notice decent to good competition in larger cities.
You obviously don't work for a MSO or Telco. Take it from somebody in the business: The level of competition is intense. They're desperate to win customers from each other, with employment (or lack thereof) implications depending on how the battle goes.

It's the difference between being an armchair quarterback and actually being in the game.
Ahh, competition, sucha wonderous thing. Come on out to Salem OR where its been Comcast and Qwest DSL for years. Qwest is finally competing somewhat with new 12mbps fiber service in some neighborhoods. Many are still 1.5mps or 6mbps. They send me directly 1-2 mailers a month, newspaper ads and tv as well. Their deal is 15.99/month for 6 months for 1.5mbps. Of course that requires a 2 year contract and the price jumps up to 39 I think. It all depends on their packaging deals too. That doesnt include buying their approved modem or renting it at $8/month (which is just insane). Though they have offered deals for cheap modems thru BestBuy etc.. The non contract price is $10 more per month last I saw.

Comcast is almost as bad with their mailers, simply because they want me to reup beyond the basic tv package (which made no sense unless you wanted digital cable until the Feb. HDTV switch over).

myokitis

join:2004-06-19
Alexandria, VA

1 edit
reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy:

I can't disagree with you ANY more on your post and if there was EVER a shill on this site, it's you . . .No, the competition is NOT intense as you think..
This is now getting personal . . .

I won't bother replying to all of your points. But my viewpoint is formed by this: I've seen way too many colleagues laid-off/RIF'd to be comfortable that is is somehow not a competitive industry. The jobs aren't going away because there's not competitive pressure.

According to their annual reports, in 2007 T & VZ combined lost 6.4M residential access lines, and only gained 1.5M broadband lines. To somehow imply that competition is not having a profound impact on these companies is just not rational.

The intensity-level in my daily work environment is constantly escalating. The corporate culture has irrevocably changed. Again, complacency is not causing this.

I care not what you or others on this site say. Myself and all of my colleagues live it daily. We're fighting for our jobs.


Link8

join:2001-12-16
Davis, CA
Don't throw out your unused Rollover Megabytes(tm)! Some customers just aren't lucky enough to be on TimeWarner Cable, the world's most reliable network!


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
reply to Lazlow
said by Lazlow:

If you think TW has been looking ahead, you are deluding yourself. It has been obvious what direction the bandwidth usage has been headed for years. Yet, TW still has a ton of systems still running D1.1 and D2. If they had really been looking forward, a significant amount of their footprint would be D3 today.
That's a little optimistic -- DOCSIS 3 early-use hardware didn't start manifesting itself until Q2/Q3 of 2008, with final full D3 certified gear arriving in Q4.

Comcast appears to be leading the way in DOCSIS3 deployments, and they aren't even close to 50% deployed yet.

Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5
reply to myokitis
said by myokitis:

said by jimbo2150:

said by myokitis:

a highly competitive environment
I highly disagree. I only notice decent to good competition in larger cities.
You obviously don't work for a MSO or Telco. Take it from somebody in the business: The level of competition is intense. They're desperate to win customers from each other, with employment (or lack thereof) implications depending on how the battle goes.

It's the difference between being an armchair quarterback and actually being in the game.
Intense competition? Bullshit. In Hawaii TWC has a complete monopoly on all FOUR ISLANDS. This hell was predicted several years ago when the last holdouts were eaten by TWC. As for DSL, that is from Hawaiian TelCom which is in bankruptcy and doesn't have the funds to compete well with TWC. I live in the second largest city in Hawaii and I cannot get DSL. HawTel refuses to extend it to this very nice area of Hilo where there are three large condos as well a residences. I have no idea what you could possibly mean by "intense competition". I have NO choices. It is TWC or dialup. With TWC we have NO TURBO RR...only standard and lite plans. That is because Oceanic TWC cannot get Turbo working on any of the neighbor islands. Again, where is this intense competition? If HawTel cannot get out of bankruptcy the PUC will likely dump the POTS on Verizon again. You think Verizon would ever build up DSL in Hawaii? They couldn't wait to dump Hawaii after the merger of GTE and Bell Atlantic. So, again where is this "intense competition"?

You see, Hawaii is the VERY PLACE that TWC will force these horrible caps on. And there will be NOTHING that the vast majority of users can do as there is NO competition in many areas of Hawaii, and limited in the areas where there is some, much less any "intense competition" in Hawaii.
--
"The same ferocity that our founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic". Al Gore, The Assault on Reason

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
reply to myokitis
Maybe it's time to stop raping customers for $upwards of $40 for local phone service.

I'm sorry to tell you, but you can spin this how you want, but not many are going to buy it. Residential access line loss? to what? VZ's own cellular service? And, are they losing residential lines to the fact they are charging WAY too much for a land line anyway?

.. get this one. AT&T service.. if you buy a regular POTS line, local service with a typical feature pack is about $40 a month. HOWEVER, when you buy it as part of U-Verse, somehow, that copper line is subject to different rules, terms, etc. SOMEHOW that VERY copper line's Voice Mail becomes no charge, ie: included. They give you the option of using their voip service or remain on copper.. but again, the copper line now falls under a different set of rates and rules DRAMATICALLY lowering the price.

Phone companies I do NOT feel sorry for. It has NOTHING to do with competition. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact they do not want to get into the game.

You call it competition, I call it the loss of a horrendous century of strong holds on consumers and over charging them for sub-par services.

You're not the only one here, guy, that works or has worked in the industry, yet you make it all dramatic and sound like you know more than anyone else. Again, smug..

The providers need to stop manipulating consumers, and the prices they pay. Put out a product, sell the service at a reasonable rate, PROVIDE CUSTOMER SERVICE and the customer will come. But, ANYONE in the industry that thinks the consumer wants to talk to a recording, or have a recording call their home to do the job of a human, or that somehow the copper service provided is worth far more than it really is.. well, it deserves to die.

I, and many people here, are not about supporting a business that continues down the past of yesterday just for the name of it's own survival. The communications industry needs to focus more on the customer's needs like every other's business.


joetaxpayer
I'M Here Till Thursday

join:2001-09-07
Sudbury, MA
reply to myokitis

Re: More Populist ISP Bashing from BBR

said by myokitis:

Consider these factors:
- Demand for bandwidth is growing rapidly as customers use more bandwidth-intensive applications like video, and in the near future, HD video. This would certainly put strain on backend networks.
Whatever their motive, their PR blew it. There was a better way to roll this out. First, put up the account meters, and offer the GB used on the monthly statements. Then, whatever the service level offered are, a customer can see right off the bat where they fall. The stereotypical "emailing Grandma" can see she can save some money, and is happy. TW can state that only X% of our customers use over XGB, and this will cost them more.

You see, I am on Comcast, where the cap is 250GB, and the rants are no different because most users claim to have no idea of their usage. TW should have learned from other ISPs how to introduce the caps and avoided this PR mess.

If the caps are so low that most will pay more, that's another story, I suspect it's about 10% of users that will have real issues.

Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5
said by joetaxpayer:

If the caps are so low that most will pay more, that's another story, I suspect it's about 10% of users that will have real issues.
Many RR users from the time TWC introduced the caps in Texas went and got a free or paid bandwidth meter. I have been using NetMeter (free) since Oct 2007. I have all the stats from that date to present.

The caps proposed by TWC are definitely low enough that MOST will pay more. My bandwidth usage, as seen with NetMeter, varies widely from month to month and is never what I would even begin to consider "excessive". I'm always below 40GB a month but if I started downloading netflix movies or increased my BitTorrent usage from extremely modest to just a small amount more with proper seeding, (necessary to getting a good download speed, plus, not seeding is extremely rude), then I would go over the 40GB quickly some months and I am a very conservative user of bandwidth. I have the standard plan. (That is the only plan here. Turbo does not exist for us).

So, yes, most everyone, except a person who only uses email and only turns on their computer for one hour or less a day, and has no other users in the household, will have to pay more. Since TWC has a monoply here, I don't think they should be allowed to place these low caps ...or any caps for that matter.
--
"The same ferocity that our founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic". Al Gore, The Assault on Reason


jadebangle
Premium
join:2007-05-22
00000
kudos:1
reply to andre2
said by andre2:

said by jadebangle:

Most of us do have a choice its called going back to dialup

You can get it for 5 to 10 bucks a month and there is no limit on bandwidth transfer
And if you leave it running 24/7, you can download almost 15G/month which is 3 times TWC's lowest cap.
That's true... but most of us would probably use a lot less then that since all we gonna do with it is email and buy stuff online
with a slower connection it would be impossible to use 15gb in a month
if road runner want us to use a lot less then offer slower tier for a lot less

256/128kbps for 9.99 a month
512/256kbps for 14.99 a month
1mbps/384kbps for 19.99 a month

They don't want that, it won't make them good money and it will save the consumer lots of money

They want to gouge those high paying user a lot more then what they have already paid
That's 44.95 a month or 59.95 a month plus 1 dollar per GB

For 24.95 a month you're capped at 384k/128k for a mere 5gb pretty shitty matey
10gb at 44.95 a month
20gb at 59.95 a month
doubling that to 10 to 40gb is still pretty much the same crap with the same overage charges of 1 dollar per gb.
Expand your moderator at work