Topic 'Re: Demand' in forum '' - dslreports.com

Re: Demand

Mon, 18 Feb 2013 00:09:07 EDT

jakesoftware posted : I live in MN and Comcast is $49-$75 for home internet already. If Google offered that up here, the majority of people that currently have internet would make the move immediately. The first person being myself. The companies I work with daily would be next. I am not sure what the port access is with Google's service, but it has to be better than Comcast.

Re: Demand

Fri, 15 Feb 2013 16:28:47 EDT

brad posted :

said by elray:

Wrong. Time Warner Cable did offer up "less", only to be silenced by Karl Bode and his merry band of populists.

Todays' offerings are substantially cheaper than they were a decade ago, for 3-20x the speed. Hardly a "rip off".

The way they were planning on doing things and their long term plan was a bad idea for customers and customers let them know what they thought about it. If they offered up a better option and not had the intention of forcing the model on all customers down the road I'm sure it would be Ok and not have such a backlash from customers.

Except what is offered now all too often is a rip off.

Re: Demand

Fri, 15 Feb 2013 12:58:12 EDT

elray posted :

said by brad:

and? That's quite common now.

Only in your dream world are neighbours underwriting anything.

Except ISPs don't want to offer your version of "less". All they want to offer is rip off or more.

Re: Demand

Fri, 15 Feb 2013 12:09:44 EDT

anon posted : The majority of people in Canada would pay at least triple that. Many would pay ten times that.

Re: Demand

Thu, 14 Feb 2013 16:45:15 EDT

Androidian posted :

said by elray:

Cable is not a monopoly.

Correct. Cable vs. Telco - when you're talking about one cable provider and Verizon - is a particular type of oligopoly called a duopoly. Take your pick of either of these terms; either way a simple search on them will indicate a market condition that's far from the competitive free market landscape envisioned by Adam Smith.

For things to become truly competitive, all cable companies need to be able to compete in all areas for each person's business using existing network connections to each home. Consumers need to have a choice between several - at least 4 or 5, and ideally more - options offering a relatively similar product.

A market in which an ISP solely determines service offerings, policies (such as caps), and pricing tiers can hardly be called competitive.
--
The only difference between Bush and Obama is the group they're wasting our taxpayer money on. It's time to elect responsible legislators.

Re: Demand

Thu, 14 Feb 2013 16:36:48 EDT

Androidian posted :

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.

Agreed. I'm paying $100/mo for Internet now and don't necessarily mind. And I also pay around $130/mo for DirecTV.

I think people are more concerned about getting good speed connections with high (or no) caps to allow them to stream video, make video calls, make voice calls, work from home, etc.
--
The only difference between Bush and Obama is the group they're wasting our taxpayer money on. It's time to elect responsible legislators.

Re: Demand

Wed, 13 Feb 2013 22:50:37 EDT

brad posted :

said by elray:

That's multiple applications, not one.

If you have more than one computer operating in your household, and you're consuming additional bandwidth, you should be willing to pay for it, not expect your neighbors to underwrite it.

There is certainly room for all pricing models to co-exist. But the one you want ("more") inevitably will have to cost more than the one that respects the single, low-volume subscriber.

and? That's quite common now.

Only in your dream world are neighbours underwriting anything.

Except ISPs don't want to offer your version of "less". All they want to offer is rip off or more.

Re: Demand

Wed, 13 Feb 2013 22:49:28 EDT

dfxmatt posted : I don't think you have any idea how many people would kill for that, myself included. I'd happily pay $70/mo for 100/100. You also have an actual local fiber ISP, which almost nobody has. My options are comcast or an extremely limited ATT option for more money for less speed.

What google is opening up, is an area where there is no current competition.

Re: Demand

Wed, 13 Feb 2013 22:07:07 EDT

rebus9 posted : My household is very happy with 30-some channels of free over-the-air broadcast TV, much of it in HD. Plus we have Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Crackle.

Total cost of video content is under $10/month, and we get way more than everything we want to watch. I don't count the cost of Amazon Prime because we've been using it (for free Amazon.com shipping) since long before they included free streaming-- and we'd continue our Prime membership even without streaming. Crackle is free.

Re: Demand

Wed, 13 Feb 2013 20:36:27 EDT

elray posted : Indeed. Cord-cutting simply isn't happening in any significant or measurable way.

Its the "cord nevers" (could you invent a more awkward term?), who may actually become relevant, as they grow and couple up and multiply and play house, and try their best to avoid buying double/triple-play.

Re: Demand

Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:16:55 EDT

AVD posted :

said by elray:

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

you'd be surprised what is legally available.
--
* seek help if having trouble coping
--Standard disclaimers apply.--

Re: Demand

Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:42:12 EDT

elray posted : That's multiple applications, not one.

If you have more than one computer operating in your household, and you're consuming additional bandwidth, you should be willing to pay for it, not expect your neighbors to underwrite it.

There is certainly room for all pricing models to co-exist. But the one you want ("more") inevitably will have to cost more than the one that respects the single, low-volume subscriber.

Re: Demand

Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:23:42 EDT

elray posted :

said by dfxmatt:

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.

Cable is not a monopoly.
Perhaps you should learn what the term means.

They and they alone, have recognized the opportunity to compete with telco, who has chosen to offer only overpriced and/or underperforming product lines. Broadband speeds and rates reflect the extent of their investment, and that is why they enjoy their market share.

Telco is failing, precisely because cable competes.

Cable franchises are not protected. There no legal barrier for entry to market for legitimate private overbuilders.

If you want to make a case for yet another round of re-regulation, in which cable's former monopoly would be legally re-established, complemented by wholesale requirements, you are so welcome.

But be careful what you wish for, as that will result in only short-term gains, followed by long-term pain, as you will eliminate the competition and competitive threat that exists today and replace it with slovenly postal service efficiency.

Re: Demand

Wed, 13 Feb 2013 12:10:40 EDT

brad posted : He goes out of his way to be ignorant.

Re: Demand

Wed, 13 Feb 2013 10:40:37 EDT

rradina posted : Yeah, cord cutters aren't real and are of no concern:

»Dish Boss Ergen: Cord Cutters Very Real

Re: Demand

Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:30:12 EDT

dfxmatt posted : 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.

Re: Demand

Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:28:35 EDT

dfxmatt posted : 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.

Re: Demand

Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:27:11 EDT

brad posted :

said by elray:

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

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

Re: Demand

Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:26:14 EDT

dfxmatt posted : 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.

Re: Demand

Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:25:33 EDT

dfxmatt posted : 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.

Re: Demand

Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:11:48 EDT

LightS posted : Not everywhere! :)

Re: Demand

Tue, 12 Feb 2013 22:21:03 EDT

elray posted : They certainly are.

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

Re: Demand

Tue, 12 Feb 2013 22:20:29 EDT

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

Re: Demand

Tue, 12 Feb 2013 21:13:11 EDT

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

Re: Demand

Tue, 12 Feb 2013 21:11:37 EDT

brad posted : They're still not competing.

Re: Demand

Tue, 12 Feb 2013 20:41:51 EDT

elray posted : 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.

Re: Demand

Tue, 12 Feb 2013 20:28:26 EDT

elray posted : 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.

Re: Demand

Tue, 12 Feb 2013 20:23:58 EDT

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

Re: Demand

Tue, 12 Feb 2013 20:03:23 EDT

kbowman posted : btw its 5/1 not 5/5

Re: Demand

Tue, 12 Feb 2013 19:59:36 EDT

davidhoffman posted : 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.

Re: Demand

Tue, 12 Feb 2013 19:10:25 EDT

rradina posted : 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?

Re: Demand

Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:26:02 EDT

brad posted :

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.

Re: Demand

Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:25:58 EDT

AlfredNewman posted :

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.

Re: Demand

Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:22:21 EDT

brad posted :

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.

Re: Demand

Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:56:05 EDT

keithps posted : 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)

Re: Demand

Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:36:21 EDT

elray posted :

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.

Re: Demand

Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:32:41 EDT

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

Re: Demand

Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:31:56 EDT

elray posted : 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.

Re: Demand

Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:34:48 EDT

morbo posted : What do you pay now for tv and internet?

Re: Demand

Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:01:10 EDT

brad posted :

said by dfxmatt:

He is being wilfully ignorant.

Re: Demand

Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:43:08 EDT

Kamus posted :

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.

Re: Demand

Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:38:43 EDT

dfxmatt posted : 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.

Re: Demand

Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:18:39 EDT

rradina posted : 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.

Re: Demand

Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:14:06 EDT

elray posted :

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.

Demand

Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:42:14 EDT

aciddrink posted : 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.