Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | reply to Romney2012
Re: Customers, not just investors have problems with higher cost I think you can safely add that customers, and not just investors, don't like paying for network upgrades either. Since it is the customers who have to pay higher prices to pay for the higher costs. And also that MOST(not all) customers are more than happy with the speeds they are getting from copper. Feh.
Customers pay higher prices whether it's last-generation DSL (see Frontier's latest plan), or it's next-generation fiber depending on competition in their market. Consumers have no problem paying for connectivity if they're being offered value and quality...and it's not like FTTH upgrades don't allow for carriers to offer slower value tiers.
No, myopic short-sighted investors who prize their own short term gains over the company's long-term health are a much larger reason for stalled upgrade plans. |
|
 spewakR.I.P DadkinsPremium
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA
kudos:1
 ·SureWest Internet
 ·Clear Wireless
| said by Karl Bode:Feh. Customers pay higher prices whether it's last-generation DSL (see Frontier's latest plan), or it's next-generation fiber depending on competition in their market. I second Karls Feh with a Meh:
All one has to do is price compare crappy Frontier's price for 3meg slowski dsl to Surewests' speedy FTTH connection. Frontier 3/512= $49.95
Surewest 25/25= $69.00
Any other questions?
--
The weekend is here, grab a can of beer!
|
|
Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:.and it's not like FTTH upgrades don't allow for carriers to offer slower value tiers. And offering lower price plans don't lower the costs of upgrading to fiber - all that does is lower income to cover the costs. |
|
Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4
2 edits | reply to spewak
said by spewak: All one has to do is price compare crappy Frontier's price for 3meg slowski dsl to Surewests' speedy FTTH connection. Frontier 3/512= $49.95 Surewest 25/25= $69.00 Any other questions? And many many customers would choose the slower speeds in order to pay $19/mo less. Not you, but many customers would, because they don't need or want the higher speeds. Any questions? |
|
spewakR.I.P DadkinsPremium
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA
kudos:1 Reviews:
·SureWest Internet
·Clear Wireless
| said by Romney2012:said by spewak: All one has to do is price compare crappy Frontier's price for 3meg slowski dsl to Surewests' speedy FTTH connection. Frontier 3/512= $49.95 Surewest 25/25= $69.00 Any other questions? Any questions? Have you ever used Frontier?
--
The weekend is here, grab a can of beer!
|
|
|
|
| reply to Romney2012
There's a million ways to make money in this market, from value added services to DNS redirection ads, And it's not like prices are SO DAMN LOW RIGHT NOW that companies can't afford to upgrade. I still don't see your point. |
|
Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | reply to spewak
said by spewak:said by Romney2012:said by spewak: All one has to do is price compare crappy Frontier's price for 3meg slowski dsl to Surewests' speedy FTTH connection. Frontier 3/512= $49.95 Surewest 25/25= $69.00 Any other questions? Any questions? Have you ever used Frontier? No. But I used Comcast 8 yrs ago when the high speed was 1000/128 kbps. And that worked just fine. Even with video streaming that is now std today, 3000/512 is good enough for a majority of the users. |
|
1 edit | reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:I think you can safely add that customers, and not just investors, don't like paying for network upgrades either. Since it is the customers who have to pay higher prices to pay for the higher costs. And also that MOST(not all) customers are more than happy with the speeds they are getting from copper. Feh. Customers pay higher prices whether it's last-generation DSL (see Frontier's latest plan), or it's next-generation fiber depending on competition in their market. Consumers have no problem paying for connectivity if they're being offered value and quality...and it's not like FTTH upgrades don't allow for carriers to offer slower value tiers. No, myopic short-sighted investors who prize their own short term gains over the company's long-term health are a much larger reason for stalled upgrade plans. Speeds offered by FTTH providers also seem to depend on competition in the market.
Why hasn't Verizon offered anything faster than 50Mbps to the general public? With fiber we're supposed to be seeing speeds like 1 gigabit. Instead, Verizon FiOS only seems to want to do slightly better than cable, its primary competition. They also seem to be selling the TV service way more than the internet service. What gives? |
|
| It is my understanding that MOST of the equipment used on older FiOS installs is still BPON (I know mine is from 2007) which can not handle 100Mbit to all users, with newer deployments using GPON they could do 100Mbit but there still limited by bandwidth at the central office which is usually just a couple of 1 gigabit lines. At this point there really is not many sites out there that can even handle 25Mbit except for large company's (MS, Apple etc...) so what is there incentive to push higher speeds when there going to have to upgrade all the hardware at each end of the fiber to do it costing millions. It makes since to just keep up with cable until they start pushing 1080p over IP which will take a lot more bandwidth and they will be forced to upgrade. |
|
| said by flashcore:. At this point there really is not many sites out there that can even handle 25Mbit except for large company's (MS, Apple etc...) That's not true. Any sites using one of the large CDNs (Akamai, Level3 etc) can serve high speed traffic. They are also peered very close to you, either in your ISP or peered with one of your ISP's backbone providers so there are not a lot of hops to go through.
Google also peers with a lot of ISPs. This means that you have a relatively short path to YouTube as well. |
|
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:There's a million ways to make money in this market, from value added services to DNS redirection ads, And it's not like prices are SO DAMN LOW RIGHT NOW that companies can't afford to upgrade. I still don't see your point. What we need are regulations that increase the cost of providing copper based broadband solutions to push incumbents towards building out fiber. If the plan had put major taxes on copper and offset those taxes with subsidies for fiber, you might see AT&T and Verizon announcing new plans for fiber expansion to their customers. |
|
| Hey, that's a good idea! Of course, you will get flack from those who will call it 'social engineering/socialism', but most of those types are heavily invested in the status quo, so those opinions are worthless. Not to mention the 'any taxes are bad' crowd, most of who's leaders fall under the previous category. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Cox HSI
·World Lynx
| reply to spewak
said by spewak:said by Karl Bode:Feh. Customers pay higher prices whether it's last-generation DSL (see Frontier's latest plan), or it's next-generation fiber depending on competition in their market. I second Karls Feh with a Meh: All one has to do is price compare crappy Frontier's price for 3meg slowski dsl to Surewests' speedy FTTH connection. Frontier 3/512= $49.95 Surewest 25/25= $69.00 Any other questions? Wow! 25/25! I would GLADLY cough up the extra $20 for that kind of speed. Could easily make that up each month by eating a couple of extra baloney and cheese sammiches!  |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by N10Cities:Wow! 25/25! I would GLADLY cough up the extra $20 for that kind of speed. Could easily make that up each month by eating a couple of extra baloney and cheese sammiches! I pay $50/month for 20/20 fiber and I can get 30/30 for $60 ... |
|
| reply to sonicmerlin
Sounds like a great idea (in theory)! However, I'm sure Verizon and AT&T would be thrilled to build their fiber networks on the backs of the customers of already struggling companies like Qwest, Frontier, and Fairpoint. A plan like that would be sure to speed up their demise and give the cable companies a monopoly in those areas.... Furthermore, you'd have tons of people on this site crying foul over AT&T and Verizon getting even more tax breaks. The government should be finding ways to encourage competition, not picking winners and losers.  |
|
| I don't like the idea of giving Verizon and AT&T any more money, but in this age of centrist Democrats and wing-nut Republicans, it's a compromise to speed up FTTH adoption. Once the fiber's been built out you can start worrying about regulating the monopolies. |
|
| reply to lakerfan82
said by lakerfan82:Sounds like a great idea (in theory)! However, I'm sure Verizon and AT&T would be thrilled to build their fiber networks on the backs of the customers of already struggling companies like Qwest, Frontier, and Fairpoint. A plan like that would be sure to speed up their demise and give the cable companies a monopoly in those areas.... Furthermore, you'd have tons of people on this site crying foul over AT&T and Verizon getting even more tax breaks. The government should be finding ways to encourage competition, not picking winners and losers. Just to nit pick a little, Qwest would probably be included with Verizon and at&t in this area, as they are still the 3rd largest pots provider, still an RBOC, and a very large isp. It is also no longer seen as struggling (check out the share price and history). As for encouraging competition, I sure would like to hear your ideas. |
|
| reply to sonicmerlin
I disagree, if you take care of the competition problem, the speed problem will take care of itself. Why? Well, if there's enough competition, companies that don't keep up will get left behind. Right now, there isn't much competition, so these companies don't really have to keep up with anybody! We can probably debate all the live long day on how to encourage competition, but in reality this would create better speeds. |
|
| reply to viperlmw
said by viperlmw:Just to nit pick a little, Qwest would probably be included with Verizon and at&t in this area, as they are still the 3rd largest pots provider, still an RBOC, and a very large isp. It is also no longer seen as struggling (check out the share price and history). As for encouraging competition, I sure would like to hear your ideas. I guess that would depend on whether or not a massive tax is levied on their entire network. Qwest's biggest problem is, they don't have a wireless network to help offset their dying landline business. As far as encouraging competition, I won't dare suggest that I am any sort of expert in this industry. I think while most of the damage has already been done, not allowing additional ISP mergers would be a great start. Some have suggested breaking up last mile ISPs from backbone providers, so you don't have a situation where a company like Time Warner or a new entrant is dependent on internet backbones from an incumbent competitor like Verizon or AT&T...Whats the biggest reason for the lack of competition? Cost to start up a new network is huge, so we've got to find ways to lower this cost in order to create competition... |
|
| reply to lakerfan82
said by lakerfan82:Well, if there's enough competition, companies that don't keep up will get left behind. What keeps you from getting to a point where only two companies haven't been left behind? |
|
