dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1617
share rss forum feed

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

Time-Warner for the Win!

In the usual DSLR haze, Karl overlooks the bottom line.
Most households don't want to spend $70 a month for broadband, no matter how fast it might be.

They also don't want to have to pay $70 a month for broadband just to watch TV.

How many low-income households can actually do the math and get Google's "free" $300 service? Not many. $10/month works.

Unless Google responds with a competitively-priced product for everyone, and unbundled pay-tv, Cable will win the round and the battle.


thorin

join:2007-11-08
Liberty, MO

.


thorin

join:2007-11-08
Liberty, MO

delete


osravens

join:2011-01-26
Cumberland, MD
reply to elray

And what will $120 get you at Time Warner? It won't get you every channel known to man and 1Gbps internet.

Typical shill haze.


iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
reply to elray

As I've said before, for Google, TV service is not their bread and butter and that's not where they make their money (look at their lineup and their pricing). So they don't care if they pass up a subscriber who would have gone TV-only. That person can go TV-only with DISH and go along their merry way.

As far as low-income households go, if TWC has their way they would be paying $30-$35 per month for 'net access at 3 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up, after paying $20 per month for the first twelve. Compare this to 5/1 for $300 spread over 12 months and then nothing thereafter, and Google wins. Remember that many low-income families are paying more than $25 for phone service, even if they're on prepaid.



DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to elray

How may low income households do you know of? $10 a month for someone in such a position will likely not even be paid in a timely manner, which will lead to the suspension/cancellation of the services.

Unfortunately, a low income household is more apt to either 1) go completely without or 2) spend beyond their means and have the $100+ monthly service for TV.

I've seen this with my own eyes. I've seen homes that are LITERALLY falling apart with a satellite dish on their roof. Priorities are often misplaced when it comes to "needs and wants".


Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
reply to osravens

Call him a shill if it makes you feel better about yourself, but the reality of the situation is that many consumers will not pay $70/mo for an internet connection. There's a reason why relatively slow but cheap DSL bundles remain popular. There's a reason why Time Warner offers a 1.5/384 product for $20/mo in my market. They don't advertise it, it goes around via word-of-mouth, or comes from retentions, but it's been available for as long as I can remember.

Some people don't NEED anything more than basic web browsing. Many of these people aren't willing to pay $40/mo, let alone $70/mo, and they'd go without internet service if that was their only option.

The typical DSLR reader is not in the mainstream of internet consumers. Many of the people around here (the ones willing to pay $300/mo for the insane FIOS/DOCSIS 3.0 tiers) aren't even in the mainstream of power users.



djrobx
Premium
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VOIPO
reply to elray

said by elray:

In the usual DSLR haze, Karl overlooks the bottom line.
Most households don't want to spend $70 a month for broadband, no matter how fast it might be.

They also don't want to have to pay $70 a month for broadband just to watch TV.

How many low-income households can actually do the math and get Google's "free" $300 service? Not many. $10/month works.

Unless Google responds with a competitively-priced product for everyone, and unbundled pay-tv, Cable will win the round and the battle.

If by "win", you mean get all the lowest-paying customers with the smallest profit margins, you're absolutely right.

AT&T seems to do OK targeting this market, so it won't be the end of the world, but TWC ought to consider stepping up their game some. At the very least they could more fully utilize DOCSIS 3.

-- Rob
--
AT&T U-Hearse - RIP Unlimited Internet 1995-2011
Rethink Billable.

etaadmin

join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
kudos:1
reply to elray

Exactly, and besides are there any guaranties that if something breaks (and often do) in their $300 installation and then 'free' FTTH setup will google replace and fix it for free too? How about technical support is that free too? What prevents google from switching to a pay service in the future?

To me $10/mo sounds reasonable and a bargain.


osravens

join:2011-01-26
Cumberland, MD
reply to Crookshanks

DSL bundles remain so popular that AT&T and Verizon lose hundreds of thousands of customers every quarter.


Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to elray

I must disagree with a lot of your silliness.

Now I can't argue for most households as you can, but I would say several households would be willing to pay $70 for 1gb symetrical. Even more would be willing to pay $120 for that same connection AND a nice TV lineup. That alone would reduce my bill by $70 a month and I only have a 12mb connection and absolutely no premium channels.

I am pretty sure many low-income households are capable of doing simple math, you implying low-income equals complete ignorance is pretty arrogant and stupid on your part. $10's a month would work better, you are correct. However, I have seen many "low-income" neighborhoods that have plenty of BMW's, $4000 rims and several other higher sticker items that they always seem to obtain when they want it. So $300 paid over a period of several months is doable by many more than you give credit too if that is what they want.

I wholeheartedly disagree with your cable will win prediction. Google has already won with TW trying to "compete", if you call it that. TW will either make major concessions to stay relevant in KC or as time goes on Google will take over.


Crusty

join:2008-11-11
Sanger, TX
Reviews:
·Embarq Now Centu..
·CenturyLink
·Speed of Light B..
reply to Crookshanks

said by Crookshanks:

There's a reason why Time Warner offers a 1.5/384 product for $20/mo in my market. They don't advertise it, it goes around via word-of-mouth, or comes from retentions, but it's been available for as long as I can remember.

That's an insane price for that slow of a speed. I was paying a mere $5 more than that nearly a decade ago.

....thus where the reality of the situation is.

Wilsdom

join:2009-08-06
reply to Crookshanks

Google's low tier is cheaper than anything TW offers, and their standard tier is cheaper and better quality than anything TW will ever offer. Where is the room for TW? Maybe 25/2 for $20 or something...


Crusty

join:2008-11-11
Sanger, TX
Reviews:
·Embarq Now Centu..
·CenturyLink
·Speed of Light B..
reply to iansltx

said by iansltx:

As far as low-income households go, if TWC has their way they would be paying $30-$35 per month for 'net access at 3 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up, after paying $20 per month for the first twelve. Compare this to 5/1 for $300 spread over 12 months and then nothing thereafter, and Google wins. Remember that many low-income families are paying more than $25 for phone service, even if they're on prepaid.

^This....$300 spread over equal payments over 12 months...equates to very little. I'd even argue some of the poorest households could easily afford this.


Jim Kirk
Premium
join:2005-12-09
reply to Crookshanks

said by Crookshanks:

Call him a shill if it makes you feel better about yourself, but the reality of the situation is that many consumers will not pay $70/mo for an internet connection. There's a reason why relatively slow but cheap DSL bundles remain popular. There's a reason why Time Warner offers a 1.5/384 product for $20/mo in my market. They don't advertise it, it goes around via word-of-mouth, or comes from retentions, but it's been available for as long as I can remember.

Some people don't NEED anything more than basic web browsing. Many of these people aren't willing to pay $40/mo, let alone $70/mo, and they'd go without internet service if that was their only option.

The typical DSLR reader is not in the mainstream of internet consumers. Many of the people around here (the ones willing to pay $300/mo for the insane FIOS/DOCSIS 3.0 tiers) aren't even in the mainstream of power users.

What part of

In contrast, Google's offering users a 5 Mbps connection over FTTH for "free," after you pay a $300 install fee. That fee can be paid in installments of $25 for a year, after which you don't pay a dime.

says $70/month to you?

Dampier
Phillip M Dampier

join:2003-03-23
Rochester, NY
reply to elray

You can pay off that up front fee in $20 monthly installments. Plus, to get TWC's service you have to jump through a lot of hoops to demonstrate you qualify. Google's 5Mbps tier is available to anyone who wants it.

I agree that $70 for broadband is a steep price at any speed for many families. But within 2 years at the current rate of broadband price hikes, the cable and phone company will be there too for broadband only service.

The double play offer at $120 a month is much more familiar territory for families with a bundled package. Add Ooma or Google Voice and you have a triple play package for that price.

The biggest problem Google will have is customer complacency. If a customer is more or less satisfied with TWC, it will be hard to prod them to switch, if only because of the inconvenience and the aggressive retention deals that will be thrown around.

Verizon learned this with FiOS, and needed $300-500 gift cards in some markets to win switching customers.
--
Phillip M. Dampier
Editor, Stop the Cap!
»stopthecap.com



Jim Kirk
Premium
join:2005-12-09
reply to etaadmin

If you had bothered to even look, you'd see that Google will repair/replace the equipment under warranty as long as you are a subscriber.


xenophon

join:2007-09-17
reply to Crusty

The $300 for 5MB only is a home improvement fee to install fiber (or $25/month first year), not a service fee. If a homeowner pays the $300 then someone else moves in, the next person gets 5MB 'free' for the remaining of 7 years total.


Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..

1 recommendation

reply to Jim Kirk

Cool, who do my friends in Binghamton call to sign up for Google Fiber? Oh wait, it's not available there, and it never will be, because the Google boys have the attention span of a six year old with ADHD. "Sergey, do your math homework." "Ok Mom, 1 plus 1 equals WOW A BICYCLE LET'S RIDE!!!!"

I vaguely recall Google threatening to shake up the status quo by building a nationwide cellular network. How'd that turn out? They didn't sell out when they realized it would cost billions of dollars, did they?



Oh_No
Trogglus normalus

join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL
reply to elray

Technically $300 for 7 years of 5mbps service = $3.57 per month
Now you can pay the $300 up front OR you can pay $25 a month for the 1st year only.


Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
reply to osravens

AT&T and Verizon lose customers because they can't offer a competitive Triple Play product, with the exception of course of those areas lucky enough to have FIOS/U-Verse. Most people need (or think they need) TV, and cable is the preferred choice over satellite for most consumers who have access to it.

Few very non-techie folks actually purchase their internet connections based on promised speed. For most it's the perceived ease of a unified bill, combined with the perceived PITA of switching providers, even when a better product is available.



Jim Kirk
Premium
join:2005-12-09
reply to Crookshanks

Nothing you just spewed has any relevance to your assertion that they only offer $70/month Internet service.


damacu

join:2012-07-18

1 recommendation

reply to elray

It's really not up for debate. Just look at the percentage within the fiberhoods of people committing to getting a fiber-hookup. Look at Hanover Heights (not a wealthy area). Look at how many of them are committing to gigabit over the "free" network.

You're just wrong.


Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..

1 edit
reply to Jim Kirk

Thanks for putting words in my mouth, but I made no such assertion about Google. Nor did the great grandparent. It was simply stated that most people are not willing to pay $70/mo for internet service. It does not matter if said service is coming from Google, a DOCSIS 3.0 provider, FIOS, smoke signals, etc.


kxrm

join:2002-07-18
Fort Worth, TX

You aren't making much sense, the lowest tier that Google offers is $25 per month for 1 year. That's it. Where is that on TW?


Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..

said by kxrm:

You aren't making much sense, the lowest tier that Google offers is $25 per year. That's $2.08 a month.

Which has no bearing whatsoever on the original statement that "few people are willing to pay $70/mo for internet service".

And, it's actually $25/mo, for 12 months, then "free". I put quote marks around "free" because I'm sure Google is data-mining the hell out of these connections (likely the $70/mo tier too) like they do with their other "free" products.

mrjoshuaw

join:2001-12-27
Blue Springs, MO

You sound like a politician by submitting a statement and then focusing on one line of your statement:

"Call him a shill if it makes you feel better about yourself, but the reality of the situation is that many consumers will not pay $70/mo for an internet connection. There's a reason why relatively slow but cheap DSL bundles remain popular. There's a reason why Time Warner offers a 1.5/384 product for $20/mo in my market. They don't advertise it, it goes around via word-of-mouth, or comes from retentions, but it's been available for as long as I can remember."

In you Statement you do say that "that many customers will not pay $70/mo for an internet connection" but then you go on to comapare (whether you wanted to or not) Googles highest tier with Time Warners lowest tier. Which cannot be done, you would need an apples to apples comparison of lowest tier to lowest tier ($20/mo 1.5Mbps to $25/mo 5Mbps).

And anyone who heard Google was getting "into" the ISP business even if only temporarily and DIDNT think that they would be mining all of your data regardless of the price of their service has never paid ANY attention to google in the first place.


Chubbysumo

join:2009-12-01
Superior, WI
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to Crookshanks

said by Crookshanks:

AT&T and Verizon lose customers because they can't offer a competitive Triple Play product, with the exception of course of those areas lucky enough to have FIOS/U-Verse. Most people need (or think they need) TV, and cable is the preferred choice over satellite for most consumers who have access to it.

Few very non-techie folks actually purchase their internet connections based on promised speed. For most it's the perceived ease of a unified bill, combined with the perceived PITA of switching providers, even when a better product is available.

Any "bundled" services are just a ploy to raise your bill, not to save you money. When service providers bump your bill by $10 or $15 a month just because you only have a single service, its highly suspect as to why. Also, with many markets being stuck on old copper DSL lines, and those speeds being abysmal and they are still paying $40 or more a month for it, I know many families that would offer up the $300, or pay $25 a month for a year for free internet for as long as it lasts. hell, I pay $90 for internet per month now, I would happily pay $70 to get a hell of a lot more speed. Also, TWCs lowest offer in the area, besides the "low income" one that no one will qualify for is 3 mbps down and 1mbps upload speed for $20 a month plus "fees and taxes", which comes out to a whopping $33 per month with modem rental. The "free" google tier is $25 per month, and its a symmetrical 5mbps plan. You tell me, which sounds better?

Chubbysumo

join:2009-12-01
Superior, WI
Reviews:
·Charter

1 recommendation

reply to Crusty

said by Crookshanks:

There's a reason why Time Warner offers a 1.5/384 product for $20/mo in my market. They don't advertise it, it goes around via word-of-mouth, or comes from retentions, but it's been available for as long as I can remember.

It is advertised, on their site and their tv ads, and its 3 down and 1 up, for $20 per month. I called the "basic" plan. »www.timewarnercable.com/en/resid···ans.html

Chubbysumo

join:2009-12-01
Superior, WI
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to Crookshanks

said by Crookshanks:

I put quote marks around "free" because I'm sure Google is data-mining the hell out of these connections (likely the $70/mo tier too) like they do with their other "free" products.

Legally, I dont think google can datamine your personal connection, as it could be considered illegal wiretapping, and they would probably not take that risk. Now, the websites you choose to visit can have a script running that datamines you, but your ISP cannot legally monitor your web activites. They need a court order to do so, and they only keep very limited logs outside of that because of the prohibitive cost of storing thousands of things about each customer. Most ISPs just maintain a log of what modem has what IP, and whos account that modem is linked too, and they only store those for a few weeks to a few months at a time because those little points of data for 10000 customers, all with dynamic IPs, yea, that gets a bit huge.