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.

He didn't say $5/month. He said $5 more than "that" ...

AT&T does not sell new DSL any more in this part of Texas, they are slowly killing it off - only "U-verse" (though they do have lots of web presence talking about DSL) and the cheapest they offer hasn't change over the past 6 months ($38/month for 3 Mbit, nothing slower offered, and no DSL offered in this part of the country).

I am not looking for a company to give me 10Mbps for the low low price of 19.95!

quote:

---

Fusion Broadband Information - STI-00xxxxx-0 0.00 0.00
Data $19.97 Voice $19.98

---

I don't know of a single person that has dropped AT&T DSL willingly. Mostly they are losing hundreds of thousands of customers every quarter because they disconnect them!

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.

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.

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

Where do you live that "abysmal" DSL speeds are being sold for $40/mo? Most of the people who have what I would consider "abysmal" (<=1.5mbit/s) connections are in the $20 to $30 range, with both Frontier and Verizon. I have no direct experience with AT&T (thank god), so perhaps they are the provider you're referring to?

Economy of scale is one reason, it costs the same to maintain your connection to the network regardless of how many services you have, so single service customers have a lower ROI than bundled ones. Of course, "because we can" is the other reason.

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.

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.

Any "bundled" services are just a ploy to raise your bill, not to save you money.

but then you go on to comapare (whether you wanted to or not) Googles highest tier with Time Warners lowest tier.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.