Theme

Welcome · log in · join	food

Home

Reviews

Speed Test

	All Forums		Hot Topics		Gallery

Forums →

Sorry, Google Fiber Really Is Just An Experiment → Re: Bell System

uniqs
21

« Really? No kidding? • Won't happen »

This is a sub-selection from Bell System

bbeesley join:2003-08-07 Richardson, TX 2 recommendations	bbeesley to IowaCowboy Member 2012-Dec-12 3:14 pm to IowaCowboy Re: Bell System said by IowaCowboy: AT&T/Bell System wired the nation for telephone, so it is possible for Google to wire the nation for Internet. The sticking point is the political climate (subsidies, USF, etc). The sticking point is that nobody wants a reenactment of the Kingsbury act giving a company like AT&T or Google a more than 50 year monopoly on broadband services to offset the hundreds of billions that they would spend to accomplish a nationwide deployment
	actions · 2012-Dec-12 3:14 pm ·
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ	FFH5 Premium Member 2012-Dec-12 3:20 pm said by bbeesley: said by IowaCowboy: AT&T/Bell System wired the nation for telephone, so it is possible for Google to wire the nation for Internet. The sticking point is the political climate (subsidies, USF, etc). The sticking point is that nobody wants a reenactment of the Kingsbury act giving a company like AT&T or Google a more than 50 year monopoly on broadband services to offset the hundreds of billions that they would spend to accomplish a nationwide deployment +1 As a cable over-builder in existing covered markets, Google can't make the kind of profit margin it is used to in its core search business.
	actions · 2012-Dec-12 3:20 pm ·
IowaCowboy Lost in the Supermarket Premium Member join:2010-10-16 Springfield, MA ·Comcast XFINITY	IowaCowboy Premium Member 2012-Dec-12 4:09 pm said by FFH5: said by bbeesley: said by IowaCowboy: AT&T/Bell System wired the nation for telephone, so it is possible for Google to wire the nation for Internet. The sticking point is the political climate (subsidies, USF, etc). The sticking point is that nobody wants a reenactment of the Kingsbury act giving a company like AT&T or Google a more than 50 year monopoly on broadband services to offset the hundreds of billions that they would spend to accomplish a nationwide deployment +1 As a cable over-builder in existing covered markets, Google can't make the kind of profit margin it is used to in its core search business. But as a competitor, if Google can and is willing to provide better service than the incumbent provider, then people will vote with their wallets and choose the provider that serves them best. I would gladly take FiOS if it were available in Western Mass and I'd even pay VZ their hourly rate to wire my unit as it is a duplex (MDU in their world but our building is wired like two single family houses with Comcast). I'm sure the landlord would gladly take the FiOS install (although it is a renter's right in Mass to install telecom/cable as long as the tenant pays for the install, I paid to have another cable outlet installed in the second bedroom).
	actions · 2012-Dec-12 4:09 pm ·
elray join:2000-12-16 Santa Monica, CA	elray Member 2012-Dec-12 4:57 pm said by IowaCowboy: But as a competitor, if Google can and is willing to provide better service than the incumbent provider, then people will vote with their wallets and choose the provider that serves them best. I would gladly take FiOS if it were available in Western Mass and I'd even pay VZ their hourly rate to wire my unit as it is a duplex (MDU in their world but our building is wired like two single family houses with Comcast). Where FiOS is available, >70% of the people vote with their wallets and choose not to buy it. Google will have similar to worse results if they don't offer a more cost-effective product for the consumer. The "uncompetitive" / "non-upgraded" (as Karl likes to call them) markets are so, because the majority customer base is unwilling to pay for anything better. How is Google going to turn a profit, ever?
	actions · 2012-Dec-12 4:57 pm ·
bbeesley join:2003-08-07 Richardson, TX	bbeesley Member 2012-Dec-12 5:09 pm said by elray: because the majority customer base is unwilling to pay for anything better. That they are unwilling to pay for anything better reinforces that there is insufficient demand - outside of the technology early adopters - to drive companies to build out to attract those customers. The majority of folks are quite happy with DSL speeds and those speeds are good enough for what they want to do with the Internet Once the mainstream catches up to the early adopters and demand increases, the communications providers will trip over each other to fill it.
	actions · 2012-Dec-12 5:09 pm ·
IowaCowboy Lost in the Supermarket Premium Member join:2010-10-16 Springfield, MA ·Comcast XFINITY	IowaCowboy Premium Member 2012-Dec-12 5:42 pm said by bbeesley: said by elray: because the majority customer base is unwilling to pay for anything better. That they are unwilling to pay for anything better reinforces that there is insufficient demand - outside of the technology early adopters - to drive companies to build out to attract those customers. The majority of folks are quite happy with DSL speeds and those speeds are good enough for what they want to do with the Internet Once the mainstream catches up to the early adopters and demand increases, the communications providers will trip over each other to fill it. I have the Comcast extreme 105 and that is fast enough for me. Websites load instantly. DSL is more like today's dial-up. The 105 is nice when you have multiple devices online at the same time.
	actions · 2012-Dec-12 5:42 pm ·
Skippy25 join:2000-09-13 Hazelwood, MO	Skippy25 to elray Member 2012-Dec-12 5:55 pm to elray I remember when the world wasnt willing to pay for computers, then laptops, then smart phones and then tablets and yet look at those markets flourish now. It is amazing that as things progress and people start realizing the benefits of the newer technology that it seems to take off. So you continue with the stupidity of your constant argument that nobody wants it and nobody will pay for it while the rest of the world continues to advance. Leave this internet thing to the big boys and girls. We will take care of it.
	actions · 2012-Dec-12 5:55 pm ·
sonicmerlin join:2009-05-24 Cleveland, OH	sonicmerlin to FFH5 Member 2012-Dec-12 6:21 pm to FFH5 said by FFH5: said by bbeesley: said by IowaCowboy: AT&T/Bell System wired the nation for telephone, so it is possible for Google to wire the nation for Internet. The sticking point is the political climate (subsidies, USF, etc). The sticking point is that nobody wants a reenactment of the Kingsbury act giving a company like AT&T or Google a more than 50 year monopoly on broadband services to offset the hundreds of billions that they would spend to accomplish a nationwide deployment +1 As a cable over-builder in existing covered markets, Google can't make the kind of profit margin it is used to in its core search business. Margins don't matter when you're earning billions every year and have been utterly incapable of diversifying your sorce of profit for years. Infrastructure markets are inherently uncompetitive due to the barrier to entry, and once google establishes a foothold they'll have a steady and reliable source of income without having to worry about competition.
	actions · 2012-Dec-12 6:21 pm ·
sonicmerlin	sonicmerlin to elray Member 2012-Dec-12 6:22 pm to elray said by elray: said by IowaCowboy: But as a competitor, if Google can and is willing to provide better service than the incumbent provider, then people will vote with their wallets and choose the provider that serves them best. I would gladly take FiOS if it were available in Western Mass and I'd even pay VZ their hourly rate to wire my unit as it is a duplex (MDU in their world but our building is wired like two single family houses with Comcast). Where FiOS is available, >70% of the people vote with their wallets and choose not to buy it. Google will have similar to worse results if they don't offer a more cost-effective product for the consumer. The "uncompetitive" / "non-upgraded" (as Karl likes to call them) markets are so, because the majority customer base is unwilling to pay for anything better. How is Google going to turn a profit, ever? They're uncompetitive because of the high barriers of entry and impossibly long RoI period.
	actions · 2012-Dec-12 6:22 pm ·
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ	FFH5 to sonicmerlin Premium Member 2012-Dec-12 6:27 pm to sonicmerlin said by sonicmerlin: Margins don't matter when you're earning billions every year Ever sit down with a CFO? If you had you wouldn't say that.
	actions · 2012-Dec-12 6:27 pm ·
kem09030 join:2004-11-29 Rushville, IL	kem09030 to bbeesley Member 2012-Dec-12 6:52 pm to bbeesley I wouldn't say people are happy with DSL. In many places that is all that is available. Others are sticking with DSL as the cost to switch is high. FiOS is overpriced on lower speed offerings. I'm talking the area where cable blows them away...15-20mbps. I see those plans offered cheaply through cable (I had 10mbps at one time 35/month). The beauty about google is that while 1 gbps seems expensive due to the $70/month internet only it isn't bad once TV is added. Consider for the DSL I have (max 1mbps), phone, and dish is $150/month. DSL and phone are crap and dish is overpriced. The internet typically chugs along at a whopping .1-.4 mbps with 500-1000 ms pings.
	actions · 2012-Dec-12 6:52 pm ·
34764170 (banned) join:2007-09-06 Etobicoke, ON	34764170 (banned) to bbeesley Member 2012-Dec-12 10:10 pm to bbeesley said by bbeesley: That they are unwilling to pay for anything better reinforces that there is insufficient demand - outside of the technology early adopters - to drive companies to build out to attract those customers. The majority of folks are quite happy with DSL speeds and those speeds are good enough for what they want to do with the Internet Once the mainstream catches up to the early adopters and demand increases, the communications providers will trip over each other to fill it. It's not that they're not willing to pay. They're not willing to pay for shitty overpriced service which is so typical of North American providers. On top of that North American companies do not understand the concept of customer loyalty. You deliver a good service and treat the customer properly and they'll be with you for a long time. You treat them like crap and nickel and dime them and is it any wonder that people are jumping ship for other providers on a fairly regular basis? With a post like this it just shows ignorance, but is so typical.
	actions · 2012-Dec-12 10:10 pm ·
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ	FFH5 Premium Member 2012-Dec-12 10:19 pm said by 34764170: On top of that North American companies do not understand the concept of customer loyalty. You deliver a good service and treat the customer properly and they'll be with you for a long time. Wrong!! American consumers have shown again and again that they show no loyalty, even for businesses that went out of their way to provide excellent customer service and good reasonably priced products. The food, dept store, hardware store industries are littered with businesses that did provide excellent service, but went out of business because the average consumer dumped them in a second for prices 5% lower. And that is why Walmart, Target, Home Depot, etc grow and grow.
	actions · 2012-Dec-12 10:19 pm ·

prairiesky join:2008-12-08 canada 1 recommendation	prairiesky Member 2012-Dec-12 10:39 pm It's true, it's all about a buck, not just for the corporations, but for the consumer more than ever. It's why corps need to get their ROI out as soon as possible. The end customers are just as, if not greedier than the corporations. The other problem is that when you're the third one to the party, the best you're hoping for is for 1/3rd of the market. There may be decent margins splitting it in 1/2, and even better in a monopoly, but being the 3rd gal to the ball doesn't leave you much option.
	actions · 2012-Dec-12 10:39 pm ·
34764170 (banned) join:2007-09-06 Etobicoke, ON	34764170 (banned) to FFH5 Member 2012-Dec-12 11:15 pm to FFH5 said by FFH5: said by 34764170: On top of that North American companies do not understand the concept of customer loyalty. You deliver a good service and treat the customer properly and they'll be with you for a long time. Wrong!! American consumers have shown again and again that they show no loyalty, even for businesses that went out of their way to provide excellent customer service and good reasonably priced products. The food, dept store, hardware store industries are littered with businesses that did provide excellent service, but went out of business because the average consumer dumped them in a second for prices 5% lower. And that is why Walmart, Target, Home Depot, etc grow and grow. You're comparing businesses that already were fairly competitive if not very competitive to providers where in most cases you're lucky to have more than 2 options in any particular market and the average consumer does NOT want to have to switch providers. I've seen way too many posts on DSLR or spoken to people that say something along the lines of I've been a loyal customer of XYZ provider for 10 - 15 - 20 or more years but they screwed me over with bad customer service, nickelled and dimed or something else to that effect and the response was all too often pretty poor from the provider.
	actions · 2012-Dec-12 11:15 pm ·
aaronwt Premium Member join:2004-11-07 Woodbridge, VA Asus RT-AX89	aaronwt to elray Premium Member 2012-Dec-13 8:51 am to elray said by elray: said by IowaCowboy: But as a competitor, if Google can and is willing to provide better service than the incumbent provider, then people will vote with their wallets and choose the provider that serves them best. I would gladly take FiOS if it were available in Western Mass and I'd even pay VZ their hourly rate to wire my unit as it is a duplex (MDU in their world but our building is wired like two single family houses with Comcast). Where FiOS is available, >70% of the people vote with their wallets and choose not to buy it. Google will have similar to worse results if they don't offer a more cost-effective product for the consumer. The "uncompetitive" / "non-upgraded" (as Karl likes to call them) markets are so, because the majority customer base is unwilling to pay for anything better. How is Google going to turn a profit, ever? Just the opposite here. The uptake on FiOS is easily over 70% in my community. At one point it was almost 100%, just about everyone dropped Comcast when FiOS was first available here in 2007.
	actions · 2012-Dec-13 8:51 am ·
bbeesley join:2003-08-07 Richardson, TX	bbeesley to sonicmerlin Member 2012-Dec-13 9:43 am to sonicmerlin said by sonicmerlin: markets are inherently uncompetitive due to the barrier to entry, and once google establishes a foothold they'll have a steady and reliable source of income without having to worry about competition. That Google is doing this in one market seems to deflate the barrier to entry argument there is little to nothing preventing anyone from launching their own broadband ISP....other than the willingness to take on risk the scale might have to be smaller than a whole city like Google and one might have to be creative and select alternative technologies, but it is possible. As an example, a co-worker of mine who lived in a fairly rural area well outside of Dallas received wireless broadband that was built out by a local farmer who built and ran the network as a side job. It wasn't FIOS but it worked, speeds were generally as good as DSL, and the price was reasonable.
	actions · 2012-Dec-13 9:43 am ·
Crusty join:2008-11-11 Sanger, TX	Crusty to elray Member 2012-Dec-13 10:47 am to elray said by elray: Where FiOS is available, >70% of the people vote with their wallets and choose not to buy it. Google will have similar to worse results if they don't offer a more cost-effective product for the consumer. One time install fee of $300 paid out evenly over 12 months for FREE 5MB symmetrical connection isn't a "more cost-effective product for the consumer"??????? I'd gladly take that over my crappy DSL service anyday. Heck, I'd be MORE than willing to take the $70 or even the $120 package being offered. That would save me $100 a month.
	actions · 2012-Dec-13 10:47 am ·
elray join:2000-12-16 Santa Monica, CA	elray to 34764170 Member 2012-Dec-13 4:12 pm to 34764170 said by 34764170: It's not that they're not willing to pay. They're not willing to pay for shitty overpriced service which is so typical of North American providers. On top of that North American companies do not understand the concept of customer loyalty. You deliver a good service and treat the customer properly and they'll be with you for a long time. You treat them like crap and nickel and dime them and is it any wonder that people are jumping ship for other providers on a fairly regular basis? With a post like this it just shows ignorance, but is so typical. Yes, they are unwilling to pay. Nationwide survey data bears this out. Broadband is not overpriced. The average household pays $47/month. North American providers DO understand customer loyalty. Not all of them, and not all the time - management does change, but they understand. Verizon has done very well 9 out of the last 10 years, and Time Warner has been well-behaved for the last four in our neck of the woods, as has Cox and Charter. Comcast, AT&T and Frontier ... they're still learning.
	actions · 2012-Dec-13 4:12 pm ·
34764170 (banned) join:2007-09-06 Etobicoke, ON	34764170 (banned) Member 2012-Dec-13 5:22 pm said by elray: Yes, they are unwilling to pay. Nationwide survey data bears this out. Broadband is not overpriced. The average household pays $47/month. You know what I meant but you keep talking and make yourself look like a fool.
	actions · 2012-Dec-13 5:22 pm ·
drew Radiant Premium Member join:2002-07-10 Port Orchard, WA	drew to bbeesley Premium Member 2012-Dec-14 10:20 am to bbeesley said by bbeesley: there is little to nothing preventing anyone from launching their own broadband ISP....other than the willingness to take on risk Cost is a big thing here. You either have to have the money to burn or have investors willing to burn their money for you. Then with investors, they want a return on that money... A small, rural WISP works for a small community that is completely unserviced by other providers. And as your example shows, it was somebodies side job, not a full-time job and business that was hoping to grow into more.
	actions · 2012-Dec-14 10:20 am ·
bbeesley join:2003-08-07 Richardson, TX	bbeesley Member 2012-Dec-14 10:43 am said by drew: A small, rural WISP works for a small community that is completely unserviced by other providers. And as your example shows, it was somebodies side job, not a full-time job and business that was hoping to grow into more. Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Google, and a plethora of others were once somebody's side job. You don't have to start big and borrow money, you can start small with a good idea and build it.
	actions · 2012-Dec-14 10:43 am ·
drew Radiant Premium Member join:2002-07-10 Port Orchard, WA	drew Premium Member 2012-Dec-14 10:46 am My wife and I are pretty comfortable but we couldn't stand a WISP up with our savings without opening ourselves up to major risk if something were to happen to either one of us (such as the loss of a job.) I think you underestimate the amount of money something like this takes.
	actions · 2012-Dec-14 10:46 am ·
prairiesky join:2008-12-08 canada	prairiesky Member 2012-Dec-14 10:57 am said by drew: My wife and I are pretty comfortable but we couldn't stand a WISP up with our savings without opening ourselves up to major risk if something were to happen to either one of us (such as the loss of a job.) I think you underestimate the amount of money something like this takes. Starting a wisp can be VERY reasonable, there are many people on this site that have done it with under $1000 to their name. Everyone hopes their buisness will grow into more and grow bigger. The problem is, there's just not enough money in it. The guys that make an OK living for themselves, have hundreds of customers and are run ragged. The ones that stay small and maintain their networks make enough to make a decent side wage, but still need a 9-5 to support their families.
	actions · 2012-Dec-14 10:57 am ·
bbeesley join:2003-08-07 Richardson, TX	bbeesley to drew Member 2012-Dec-14 10:59 am to drew said by drew: I think you underestimate the amount of money something like this takes. I worked as a Director at a major cable company for 13 years, prior to that I worked operations at the largest dialup ISP in Oklahoma. Got a really good idea how much.....could do it for mid-five figures on a small scale.
	actions · 2012-Dec-14 10:59 am ·
elray join:2000-12-16 Santa Monica, CA 1 recommendation	elray to 34764170 Member 2012-Dec-14 11:37 am to 34764170 said by 34764170: said by elray: Yes, they are unwilling to pay. Nationwide survey data bears this out. Broadband is not overpriced. The average household pays $47/month. You know what I meant but you keep talking and make yourself look like a fool. I prefer fact over rhetoric. If we are to achieve results that benefit us all, we have to be able to discuss in clear terms, not lob hyperbole. I hold most of the industry in just as much contempt as Karl does, but it is patently unfair to do so without acknowledging them when they deliver a decent product. When we examine why some households or individuals choose to not buy a service, there usually is hard data available.
	actions · 2012-Dec-14 11:37 am ·
drew Radiant Premium Member join:2002-07-10 Port Orchard, WA	drew to bbeesley Premium Member 2012-Dec-14 3:24 pm to bbeesley said by bbeesley: You don't have to start big and borrow money, you can start small with a good idea and build it. said by bbeesley: Got a really good idea how much.....could do it for mid-five figures on a small scale. Does not compute.
	actions · 2012-Dec-14 3:24 pm ·
TheRogueX join:2003-03-26 Springfield, MO	TheRogueX to elray Member 2012-Dec-15 4:24 am to elray Compare broadband prices in the US to broadband prices in some other countries, and it is extremely overpriced.
	actions · 2012-Dec-15 4:24 am ·
TheRogueX	TheRogueX to sonicmerlin Member 2012-Dec-15 4:25 am to sonicmerlin It's only an 'impossibly long' RoI period because investors in the US are myopic and think anything more than 90 days is too long to wait on it.
	actions · 2012-Dec-15 4:25 am ·
prairiesky join:2008-12-08 canada 2 recommendations	prairiesky Member 2012-Dec-15 9:29 am said by TheRogueX: It's only an 'impossibly long' RoI period because investors in the US are myopic and think anything more than 90 days is too long to wait on it. For an investor its about risk. Theyre risking their money over a long term for the hope that they make money. If you had a million bucks to invest and had to choose between 2 companies. One that would return your money over 3 years and another that would return it over 10. Which would you choose. The effects of competition dont just affect the consumer market, they affect the business markets aswell. If the big companies want investors they have to supply an ROI that competes with others.
	actions · 2012-Dec-15 9:29 am ·

« Really? No kidding? • Won't happen »

This is a sub-selection from Bell System