|reply to Crookshanks |
Re: Time-Warner for the Win!
Yeah I missed that one when I fixed the others, and another one as well but I do not want to take all of your fun by pointing it out!
I worked for a smaller FTTH ISP and I agree with the belief that the majority of users stick with the lower end of the speed spectrum. On our end it was mostly because of the cost, but with talking to the customers themselves, even if we were to lower the cost they would still stick with around the 10Mb range at the most.
On another note, I think what would be more beneficial on the Google impact to the industry would be less of the speed increase and more of a price decrease. I would rather keep the 10Mb or so service I have for a lower cost then get a higher speed at a higher cost (but still relatively cheap in comparison to other providers). Now that is for my typical household usage, if I needed more speed I would order it, but that is my two cents.
said by mrjoshuaw:That isn't going to happen, for better or worse. There are fixed costs a provider has to absorb that will not decrease simply because technology allows for faster transmission speeds. Outside plant maintenance doesn't cost less when you can push more bits across the infrastructure. Your employees won't accept lower salaries as the transmission technology matures. Insurance costs don't decrease, nor do property taxes, or pole rental fees. I could go on all day, but you get the point.
I think what would be more beneficial on the Google impact to the industry would be less of the speed increase and more of a price decrease.
Companies that can offer a Triple Play have incentive to offer a slower "lite" tier as a loss leader of sorts, since you've got other services with them to help pay for the aforementioned expenses, and it doesn't cost them much at all to give you the internet connection. That's not much of a consolation prize though, is it?
Hmmmmm...I kind of agree with you there, but I still think it could be done. BUT that would depend on what reasonable or "inexpensive" is defined as...Do you go for a lower price and get quantity vs. quality (aka WalMart) or do you go with higher price with higher quality and hope you get enough customers. It would also depend on what your acceptable ROI would be. And you cant forget the Shareholders!
I currently pay $40 + applicable taxes and fees (the taxes that AT&T doesn't want to pay) for a 3-6Mbps speeds. Whereas at my old company we charged 29.95 for 5Mbps FTTH connection (which I am sure people here would think is still to high). I am not looking for a company to give me 10Mbps for the low low price of 19.95! But I do know that upgrades on the networks are getting cheaper, optics are coming down, switch prices are coming down, and you can amortize the hardware anyways and do the magic tax shuffle that all large corporations can do at the drop of a hat!
I think I have gone off on a separate tangent on the topic, but I think prices can come down, and Google coming in and forcing the price down of the higher end service should have the other prices come down as well. Probably a pipe dream, but here is to hoping!
NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind awayPremium,MVMReviews:
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
said by mrjoshuaw:Okay, but they are out there. Here is an excerpt from my latest bill:
I am not looking for a company to give me 10Mbps for the low low price of 19.95!
quote:And a speedtest:
Fusion Broadband Information - STI-00xxxxx-0 0.00 0.00
Data $19.97 Voice $19.98
BTW, I wasn't looking for speed, just no caps w/overage fees.
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum