dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1066
share rss forum feed


aciddrink

join:2000-08-26

Demand

They will never see the "demand" they are talking about at the prices they would charge for such services.

If they are willing to offer 1gbps symmetrical connections to homes for the same price Google is, then demand would be overwhelming.


elray

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

said by aciddrink:

If they are willing to offer 1gbps symmetrical connections to homes for the same price Google is, then demand would be overwhelming.

Nope. The price is too high, regardless of speed.

Google's $70+/month is beyond the desired reach of majority public. They simply aren't interested or willing to pay that much.

(I count myself among that crowd, though we've paid much more in the past, and I *am* willing and able to pay whatever amount is necessary to obtain a given level of service - we just don't need FTTH speeds.)

rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

If you can pay $70/month for 1Gpbs with no caps, you can cut the cord (be that FIOS TV, cable or U-Verse) and use the savings over a typical TV + HSI subscription to pay for some streaming services.

I'd drop $70/month on a 1 Gbps link with no limits and cut the cord in a heartbeat.


dfxmatt

join:2007-08-21
Evanston, IL
reply to elray

100% wrong. majority public pays $150+ for tv + internet. If you think the majority isn't willing to pay $100 for tv+internet via google, you are willingly ignorant and/or blind.

There's a reason verizon and TW among others are freaking out, and it's called they don't want to compete and enjoy their monopolies.


Kamus

join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX
reply to elray

said by elray:

said by aciddrink:

If they are willing to offer 1gbps symmetrical connections to homes for the same price Google is, then demand would be overwhelming.

Nope. The price is too high, regardless of speed.

Google's $70+/month is beyond the desired reach of majority public. They simply aren't interested or willing to pay that much.

(I count myself among that crowd, though we've paid much more in the past, and I *am* willing and able to pay whatever amount is necessary to obtain a given level of service - we just don't need FTTH speeds.)

The price is too high? for people like you there's a FREE version.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 recommendation

reply to dfxmatt

said by dfxmatt:

100% wrong. majority public pays $150+ for tv + internet. If you think the majority isn't willing to pay $100 for tv+internet via google, you are willingly ignorant and/or blind.

There's a reason verizon and TW among others are freaking out, and it's called they don't want to compete and enjoy their monopolies.

He is being wilfully ignorant.


morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000
reply to elray

What do you pay now for tv and internet?


elray

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

We pay $30/month for what is now 15/1 cable modem service.

Fios remains unavailable to us, at any price, as does the 10Gbit AT&T/taxpayer-funded muni fiber that has teased us for a decade, sitting just beneath my front window.

No TV service for 3.5 years, since her "travel channel" jumped to a mandatory box rental digital tier. Yes, we cut the cord.

No, we don't stream anything.

In the distant past, we paid $100+/month for just internet service; the price has declined steadily over the years. I don't mind paying a premium for decent and necessary service - but 15/1 is already overkill.


elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
reply to rradina

Those streaming services don't provide the same content that is available on pay-tv.


elray

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

said by dfxmatt:

100% wrong. majority public pays $150+ for tv + internet. If you think the majority isn't willing to pay $100 for tv+internet via google, you are willingly ignorant and/or blind.

There's a reason verizon and TW among others are freaking out, and it's called they don't want to compete and enjoy their monopolies.

Households do subscribe to cable, and often triple-play, but they aren't paying $70+/month for broadband.

TWC, not TW, isn't freaking out.
They don't have a monopoly.
They certain DO compete.


keithps
Premium
join:2002-06-26
Soddy Daisy, TN
Reviews:
·EPB Fiber Optics
reply to dfxmatt

Well here's a reality. My ISP (EPB) offers 50/50 for $57 and 100/100 for $69. The majority take the $57 deal. Why? Because 50/50 is plenty for the average joe, and the higher tiers are just for folks who like the speed (like myself). Google is selling well because your option is 5/5 or 1000/1000. There is no middle ground. 5/5 is rapidly becoming to slow except for the most basic stuff. So if you want more than 5/5 with google, it's $70/month, no other option. I'd bet if they offered 100/100 for $49/month, they'd have a ton more people on that plan than 1000/1000.
--
RIP Dad (10-28-1955 to 4-10-2010)


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to elray

said by elray:

They certain DO compete.

When they start offering 100Mbps at around $50 then they would be competing. Until then they're not.

AlfredNewman

join:2010-03-25
Columbus, OH
reply to elray

said by elray:

Households do subscribe to cable, and often triple-play, but they aren't paying $70+/month for broadband.

TWC, not TW, isn't freaking out.
They don't have a monopoly.
They certain DO compete.

Yes they are or else they wouldn't have slightly increased their bandwidth speeds, ran promos to get users to come back to TMW from other ISPs, and providing money to those who can provide info on Googles deployment

Yes they do or else they wouldn't also pass laws to keep other competitors out of their locations, sometimes entire states

No, no they don't.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to elray

said by elray:

I don't mind paying a premium for decent and necessary service - but 15/1 is already overkill.

Sure it is when you do shit all with your Internet connection, but for plenty of people that is a joke.

rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
reply to elray

Who cares. I don't watch a lot of TV anyway and if I have to switch from time-filling crappy reality TV shows and old crappy movies, what's the difference?


davidhoffman
Premium
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA
kudos:3
reply to keithps

The Google low cost option is actually 5Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload or 5/1. Google Fiber claims this is the average speed for a residential internet connection in the USA.

Curiously Google Fiber also claims that the high cost option of 1000/1000 is 100 times the average residential internet connection speed in the USA. The math would work out that the average residential internet connection speed is 10/10. We know that is not true.

This disparity in Google Fiber statements has led to some interesting speculation. If the first assertion about 5/1 is true, then maybe Google fiber will fall short of its stated objective and deliver only 500/500 performance. If the second assertion is true, then maybe the low cost option will really deliver a 10/10 experience.

From the stories I have seen Google Fiber has only shown a maximum capability of 622 Mbps symmetrical. That is half of what they should be able to do to provide a truly great "Gigabit" symmetrical experience. If that 622Mbps becomes the de facto Google Fiber experience, then perhaps the low cost option's real performance may be 6.22 Mbps symmetrical.


kbowman

join:2010-10-30
Pasadena, CA
reply to keithps

btw its 5/1 not 5/5


elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
reply to rradina

The public cares. If you can't obtain equivalent services via streaming, cord-cutting ain't gonna happen much.


elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
reply to 34764170

They offer several internet tiers at or below $50 that provide more than adequate broadband speeds, as evidenced by Karl's weekly attributions regards DSL flight to cable. You may not like the price:performance, but it is most certainly competition, and devastating to telco.

Cable probably can and will offer up 50M @ $50 in a few more years; 100M is a bit more difficult without more upgrades, which they're unlikely to do at that price point, and again, since few of us want to pay $70, they don't have much incentive to re-wire the neighborhood a 3rd or 4th time.


elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
reply to 34764170

I've yet to see any legit or necessary application that requires anywhere near that amount of bandwidth.

If and when there is such an application, then one should be willing to pay the premium necessary to feed it.


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to elray

They're still not competing.


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to elray

It is only a "premium" because of the lack of competition.


elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

There is competition. If not, the premium will induce it.


elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
reply to 34764170

They certainly are.

If they weren't, they would enjoy the majority share of customers.



LightS
Premium
join:2005-12-17
Greenville, TX
reply to elray

Not everywhere!


dfxmatt

join:2007-08-21
Evanston, IL
reply to elray

they have yet to actually compete, and it is a monopoly - in that area what other options are even equivalent to TWC's offering? Google is the first, and thus why they bitch about it. Why? TWC's offering is not even competitive in the first place.


dfxmatt

join:2007-08-21
Evanston, IL
reply to elray

you know, there's these things which tend to contain marketshare. I believe the phrase is monopoly.

you might want to learn what competition is, and competitive offerings are - because TWC is neither competitive nor have they had competition before google.


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to elray

said by elray:

There is competition. If not, the premium will induce it.

I'd love to know what drugs you're smoking.

dfxmatt

join:2007-08-21
Evanston, IL
reply to elray

really? I can give you an example, immediately.

Have you ever had more than one computer in your house? if so, you're going to instantly need more than that. Have you ever worked from home? If so, again. Have you ever listened to a streaming station (I know, what an idea!) without denying it? Such as youtube, listening to radio online, etc while someone else is trying to do anything? Maybe a computer and 2-3 phones?

The average household needs a TON more than you do. 4 phones in a house on 15/1 is going to be choked on bandwidth.


dfxmatt

join:2007-08-21
Evanston, IL
reply to elray

No, there isn't. If their offering is below the true baseline (which is 50/50 for $35/month, roughly - anything less is about 5 years behind), then their offer is not competitive. Hell, LTE is faster than your 15/1 - as in mobile. That's how far back the speeds are. I don't get how you deny things so much, but nobody else lives in the world you do - that is clear.