jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·surpasshosting
 ·ViaTalk
| reply to funchords
Re: Statistics are fun
said by funchords  :No, they're all overcharging. The last paragraph of the article linked above says, "However, prices in the U.S. have been relatively flat, which Johnson blames on local markets that are still monopolies or duopolies." Static prices while speeds increase = NOT FLAT PRICES (the entire story is about dollars per Mbps).
If they were overcharging they'd be hemorraging customers, and they aren't. More accurate would be to say "They're charging more than Robb thinks is fair."  |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| said by jester121 :If they were overcharging they'd be hemorraging customers, and they aren't. More accurate would be to say "They're charging more than Robb thinks is fair." Well that line is also true. 
I did the calc once showing that, for $40/mo, we all ought to be running 30 Mbps connections (and that was more than a year ago). This is given the typical costs and capabilities of delivery in telecom equipment. The gatekeeper, in most areas, has been the last-mile ISPs.
I hardly blame them for not wanting to get into a continuous upgrade cycle. But we don't have anything near the competition that would otherwise create fair market prices. I think the article above reflects that. We're stuck in a duopoly where our leverage is low.
When both players have kept prices high and speeds low despite reductions in their own costs or improvements in their own equipment, then consumers have no place to go but to their wallets.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL |
|
PapaMidnight
join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD
| reply to jester121
said by jester121 :said by funchords :No, they're all overcharging. The last paragraph of the article linked above says, "However, prices in the U.S. have been relatively flat, which Johnson blames on local markets that are still monopolies or duopolies." Static prices while speeds increase = NOT FLAT PRICES (the entire story is about dollars per Mbps). If they were overcharging they'd be hemorraging customers, and they aren't. More accurate would be to say "They're charging more than Robb thinks is fair." I disagree, I believe the reason they are not hemorrhaging customers is simple, and for two reasons: 1) There's no other place for said customers to go, and 2) Said customers don't even know how much they're being taken for. |
|
jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
·surpasshosting
·ViaTalk
1 edit | reply to funchords
I know you've worked in the biz, so your calc probably has more validity than a PIOYASWAG* but it's still based on your assumptions, industry-wide averages, and who knows what else. While DC and Chicago might have similar costs, the thousands of small towns spread across the country are drastically different, and aren't served by wide-sweeping generalizations.
Furthermore, your calculations probably didn't take into account the elasticity of broadband pricing. Clearly the duopolies have identified the roughly $40-50 per month price point as the comfort zone for most customers in most places, and they're not willing to budge too much.
I, for one, think it's fair so I pay the price, and in fact I think it's a great deal given what I do with my Comcast connection at home, and the enjoyment and utility I get from it each month. Other people think caps are too low or prices are too high or there's too much latency or newsgroups should be included or whatever else, and they're welcome to their opinion, but that doesn't make the ISP evil or greedy (in a bad way) or draconian.
* - pull it outa your ass scientific wild-ass guess |
|
jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
·surpasshosting
·ViaTalk
| reply to PapaMidnight
said by PapaMidnight :I disagree, I believe the reason they are not hemorrhaging customers is simple, and for two reasons: 1) There's no other place for said customers to go, and 2) Said customers don't even know how much they're being taken for. 1. Sure there is. All customers have a choice to no longer be customers.
2. Sure they do. It's on their monthly bill.
(Oh, did you mean "taken for" as in, "taken advantage of" or "hoodwinked"? Well that's a pretty subjective view isn't it?) |
|
cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX | reply to jester121
Prices have decreased and speeds have increased.
I paid about $80/month for IDSL 10 years ago. I pay $25 for 3meg dsl now. That is a significant price difference. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
 ·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to funchords
said by funchords :I did the calc once showing that, for $40/mo, we all ought to be running 30 Mbps connections (and that was more than a year ago). This is given the typical costs and capabilities of delivery in telecom equipment. The gatekeeper, in most areas, has been the last-mile ISPs. I'd love to see the math on that. Even with a much cheaper delivery solution like Ethernet you're still looking at $7/mbps carrier costs from the rock-bottom players like Telia and Cogent, and that's in a carrier neutral facility where they can put in a box like a Force10 E600 and provide 336 fiber hand-offs within the facility all on one single piece of hardware.
said by funchords :I hardly blame them for not wanting to get into a continuous upgrade cycle. But we don't have anything near the competition that would otherwise create fair market prices. Comparing privately funded and built networks in the US to those funded or heavily sponsored by government funding isn't a good way to arrive at fair market value. That's like comparing the pricing of a T-shirt at Target to the price of a T-Shirt at Good Will; the factors that lead to the pricing are so vastly different that you need to at least be conscious of the differences.
said by funchords :When both players have kept prices high and speeds low despite reductions in their own costs or improvements in their own equipment, then consumers have no place to go but to their wallets. Reductions in equipment costs doesn't help you when you're still paying off your current equipment. That only helps you on your next equipment refresh interval, which for infrastructure is a 3-6 year cycle if you're running things short, and as long as 10-15 years on a conservative cycle. |
|
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
1 edit | reply to jester121
In the UK 71% of people surveyed felt that broadband was as essential a need as food and water. In many cases people's livelihoods depend on their access to the internet. And even when it doesn't, the internet connects people to the rest of the world. Cutting a person off is akin to cutting off phone service. So no, they don't have the "option" to quit.
This is evidenced by the fact that EVEN DURING A RECESSION more and more people are signing up for broadband, even though they're constantly being gouged. |
|
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
1 edit | reply to espaeth
In fact, the amount of money cable providers have spent on their equipment, BOTH OLD AND NEW, has decreased every quarter. So you're either misinformed or a bald-faced liar. Let me bequeath some more meaningful information.
Comcast, for instance, has an operating cash flow margin of 39 percent in the first quarter of 2009, up from 37.8 percent a year earlier and 37.4 percent in the first quarter of 2007—and it has been rolling out the (relatively cheap) DOCSIS 3.0 upgrades for some time already.
Time Warner Cable. Time Warner Cable, which kicked off the most recent debate over metered billing and Internet data caps, likewise posted some excellent first quarter numbers. The company's overall revenues were up five percent from a year before, but when broken down by category, Internet access did much better—11 percent higher. In its 2008 annual report, TWC also indicates that its Internet expenses had dropped by about 12 percent, even as the revenues increased.
Back when it was still issuing statements trying to justify its unpopular data caps, the company stressed that the business was a good one now, but that it needed plenty of future cash to pay for all the upgrades that higher Internet use was forcing on the company. But in the first quarter of 2009, the company substantially cut its capital expenditures, from $846 million a year ago to $769 million for this last three months. |
|
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
| reply to cwh
The flat rate referred to by the article is something that HAS HAPPENED IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. Your cherry picking of "the last 10 years" is so asinine it gives me a headache. No one in the technology industry, in ANY AREA, defines progress over a ten year period.
In my case I've had the same TWC service since 2003. My speed hasn't changed in 6 years. The previous incumbent, Cablevision, has repeatedly upgraded its customers' speeds in the areas that it now serves. Obviously there's something wrong with TWC. |
|
cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX | Well i have not had TW in 3 years. But in the 5 years I had them, I went to 1.5 to 6 without a price increase. This has been a typical consumer experience. |
|
NSA_CIA
@charter.com
| reply to sonicmerlin
said by sonicmerlin :In the UK 71% of people surveyed... Who was surveyed and how was it conducted?
For all we know it could've been an online survey done on the UK equivalent of DSLR. |
|
margaf77
join:2000-12-22
Bayonne, NJ
·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon FIOS
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to jester121
said by jester121 :Static prices while speeds increase = NOT FLAT PRICES (the entire story is about dollars per Mbps). If they were overcharging they'd be hemorraging customers, and they aren't. More accurate would be to say "They're charging more than Robb thinks is fair." If there was legitimate competition the prices would be fair and they would hemorrhage customers. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to NSA_CIA
said by NSA_CIA :said by sonicmerlin :In the UK 71% of people surveyed... Who was surveyed and how was it conducted? Ofcom broadband report: not online is not included
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL |
|
