dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
5
share rss forum feed

Skippy25

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

Re: Time-Warner for the Win!

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.

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
said by Skippy25:

I must disagree with a lot of your silliness.
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've worked with low-income households for a very long time, including a stint in financial education/home economics. It isn't arrogant to accurately predict outcomes.

Yes, there are a small number of poor households that, by virtue of necessity, with a strong dose of morality or faith, really understand how to scrimp and save. They tend not to have pay-tv; if they do have a car, its a beater they've kept running for ten years; they don't drink, smoke, and while they do access food stamps or pantries, they don't get fat.

But the majority of "poor" households remain so out of ignorance, the product of the public education monopoly, cultural norms, and the welfare state that rewards fatherless families.

The first group would understand the math, but would be skeptical as to whether they "really need" broadband, since they tend to not use a computer.

The second group... well, the concept of $3.57/month amortization is simply lost. They live week-to-week, regardless of how much public subsidy is applied. Their kids drop out of school in the 9th or 10th grade; those who last another year consistently fail the GED exam. It is extremely hard to reach them with the most basic concepts of household management and wealth-building; they are schooled to be successive generations ever-dependent on the state. They are easy prey for the money-changers and other merchants of instant-gratification.

TW is on the ground in the neighborhood, and knows how to pitch its product, if intermittently, to those who should not afford it. They also know how to compete and win in a race-to-the-bottom.

Google may try to make a case to the audience that they're somehow benevolent and caring for the low-income group (all the while offshoring their profits so as to pay a 3% corporate tax rate), but they are woefully ignorant at delivering customer service or playing the long game, and I don't believe they understand the average low-income household at all.