1 edit |
to Kuro
Re: Does it still have a datacap?A friend lives in one of the complexes down on Riverside that has GigaPower. I'll have him post here when the upgrade hits for him . my guess is that it'll take a bit before anyone actually sees the gigabit speeds, judging by the speed at which AT&T goes stuff. That said, even with the 1TB cap I'm envious of the connection he's got. Predictable, lower latency and of course much higher speeds than what I can get with TWC, even with Maxx. Heck, even if I went way over that 1TB cap (I wouldn't; my usage varies from 100-400GB per month) I wouldn't be paying any more per month than I am right now for my 300/20 connection. EDIT: Still only 300/300 for now. |
|
|
Kuro
Anon
2014-Aug-11 1:33 pm
Only reason I ask is because it seems dumb to even purchase this over capless google fiber because you would hit it faster. No point in buying a car that can go 150 mph over one that goes 50 mph if you hit a brick wall after a mile regardless of your purchase. Although that also assumes you have a choice between the two. |
|
|
Can pretty much guarantee that areas with GigaPower won't get GFiber. AT&T probably has exclusivity agreements with any apartment complex that they run fiber through; I know that that friend can't get TWC residential where he is. |
|
·AT&T U-Verse ·Time Warner Cable (Software) pfSense Humax BGW320-500 TP-Link EAP610
1 recommendation |
to Kuro
said by Kuro :Only reason I ask is because it seems dumb to even purchase this over capless google fiber because you would hit it faster. No point in buying a car that can go 150 mph over one that goes 50 mph if you hit a brick wall after a mile regardless of your purchase. Although that also assumes you have a choice between the two. And what's even more dumb is that, you have to pay extra $30/month for the whatever "privacy protection". I think they will still check you anyway. |
|
|
to Kuro
said by Kuro :it seems dumb to even purchase this over capless google fiber Is it possible to have a choice between AT&T Gigapower and Google Fiber at the same address? |
|
BiggA Premium Member join:2005-11-23 Central CT
1 recommendation |
to iansltx
That sucks. Exclusivity deals like that should be illegal... |
|
|
It's private property. Until telecom is a utility they do what they want because it's more efficient that way. |
|
elray join:2000-12-16 Santa Monica, CA |
to BiggA
said by BiggA:That sucks. Exclusivity deals like that should be illegal... Wrong. Exclusive MDU deals are often the only way you're going to get the advanced service. No one is forcing you to live there. |
|
BiggA Premium Member join:2005-11-23 Central CT |
to iansltx
I *think* that sort of thing is illegal here in CT. Every complex I know of has access to both cable companies plus whatever AT&T can offer there... |
|
BiggA
2 recommendations |
to elray
said by elray:Wrong. Exclusive MDU deals are often the only way you're going to get the advanced service.
No one is forcing you to live there. People shouldn't be forced to choose where they live based on what cable or telco is available there. Exclusivity deals are NOT the only way to get advanced service. A lot of condos in MA have gotten FIOS, even though they already have cable. Some buildings in NYC have FIOS, RCN, and TWC. Conversely, providers shouldn't be blocked from a building because of some shady/corrupt deal that the management cut with another provider. The grey area is a bundled deal where the condo bundles expanded basic cable, making it uneconomical for other providers to come in, even if they aren't blocked per se. That's an instance where AT&T is unlikely to put a VRAD in to a complex where there is bundled expanded basic, although I suppose they could try to grab internet/voip subs. The bottom line is that an exclusivity deal is a corrupt and unethical way of doing business, and should be illegal. Unfortunately, our government has no backbone to create and enforce such rules. |
|
|
|
to BiggA
RCN and Comcast, or which? |
|
BiggA Premium Member join:2005-11-23 Central CT ·Frontier FiberOp.. Asus RT-AC68
|
BiggA
Premium Member
2014-Aug-11 11:41 pm
Here in CT? We don't have RCN. We have TVC (local) and Comcast in Groton. Both suck. Comcast is running a 650mhz system, so they're missing a lot of stuff, and TVC is even worse, and is still running a lot of analog, although their claim to fame is that they don't re-compress HD channels. That would be great if they had a decent HD lineup. I think they only have like 50-60 HDs. |
|
rtfm join:2005-07-09 Washington, DC |
to iansltx
said by iansltx: AT&T probably has exclusivity agreements with any apartment complex that they run fiber through; I believe the FCC put a major beatdown on such exclusive "lockups" a while back... |
|
|
to Kuro
Shit, I'd rather have my capless Time Warner Cable 50 Mbps connection over some shitty 1 TB capped 1,000 Mbps connection.
I've used over 5 TB in a month on a 50 Mbps Time Warner connection before.
This AT&T service is useless. Don't be envious because there's nothing to be envious about. |
|
elray join:2000-12-16 Santa Monica, CA |
to BiggA
said by BiggA:People shouldn't be forced to choose where they live based on what cable or telco is available there. They aren't. said by BiggA:Exclusivity deals are NOT the only way to get advanced service. Indeed, they aren't. But they are the most practical way to do so, especially if you're surrounded by neighbors unwilling to pay market rate to obtain those services. said by BiggA:A lot of condos in MA have gotten FIOS, even though they already have cable. Some buildings in NYC have FIOS, RCN, and TWC. Conversely, providers shouldn't be blocked from a building because of some shady/corrupt deal that the management cut with another provider. MDU contracts lose their value if they aren't exclusive. You are, in effect, wanting to punish those buildings that have chosen to leverage their position and group purchasing power, instead, forcing everyone accept the lowest common denominator of service at the highest price - or worse, no service. Management's job is to manage - and obtain the best service packages for the building. said by BiggA:The bottom line is that an exclusivity deal is a corrupt and unethical way of doing business, and should be illegal. Unfortunately, our government has no backbone to create and enforce such rule The bottom line is that exclusivity is not corrupt or unethical - it is just a means to an end, for those groups or buildings who wish to enter into contracts for it. If you don't want to partake, that is your choice - you don't have to reside in one of those buildings. Fortunately, our government generally recognizes the rights of people to associate as groups, and the rights of building owners to negotiate such contracts. |
|
BiggA Premium Member join:2005-11-23 Central CT ·Frontier FiberOp.. Asus RT-AC68
2 recommendations |
BiggA
Premium Member
2014-Aug-12 9:33 pm
said by elray:They aren't. They in effect are if providers can be blocked out of certain locations. said by elray:Indeed, they aren't. But they are the most practical way to do so, especially if you're surrounded by neighbors unwilling to pay market rate to obtain those services. NO. That concept is patently false. Except for one, every MDU that I know of in my area has access to both cable companies. Both of them built out to each and every MDU, and AT&T serves not much of anywhere. MDUs are attractive in the first place, no need for exclusivity. said by elray:MDU contracts lose their value if they aren't exclusive. You are, in effect, wanting to punish those buildings that have chosen to leverage their position and group purchasing power, instead, forcing everyone accept the lowest common denominator of service at the highest price - or worse, no service.
Management's job is to manage - and obtain the best service packages for the building. Why do you need a contract in the first place? The concept of having one is somewhat corrupt in the first place. Most MDUs that I know of are served directly by the utilities just like SFUs are, with the same products and services available. There is no deal between the provider and the MDU. The apartment complex that I lived in previously recommended Comcast to new tenants, and it's possible that there was money changing hands there, but tenants were free to choose the other cable company if they wanted to, and I know for a fact that some did. Many also mounted dishes, which were allowed well outside of the OTARD-protected areas. DirecTV is pretty popular there. Allowing multiple providers into a complex is in no way forcing people to use the lowest common denominator. Quite to the contrary. It's giving the residents more choices, and forcing the providers to compete for business. said by elray:The bottom line is that exclusivity is not corrupt or unethical - it is just a means to an end, for those groups or buildings who wish to enter into contracts for it. If you don't want to partake, that is your choice - you don't have to reside in one of those buildings.
Fortunately, our government generally recognizes the rights of people to associate as groups, and the rights of building owners to negotiate such contracts. It's absolutely corrupt. The monopoly system isn't good in the first place, but it is often the only system that works, since it costs too much to have multiple providers in many areas. HOWEVER, where there are multiple providers, artificially creating a monopoly within a building is just plain corrupt, as it shuts the other providers out, and eliminates choice and competition for the affected users. Tenants in a building should have an absolute right to every provider that wants to serve them. No building association or ownership should EVER be able to shut a provider out. And that includes Verizon in NYC with FIOS. For that matter, no building should be allowed to stop Verizon from running fiber directly to the units in order to get the same level of service that other subscribers get. No entire building is ever going to agree on what service they want, so the individual users should be allowed to choose the service that they want if multiple providers serve that area. And MDU residents should have the exact same choices that SFU residents have to the maximum extent practicable (this would include ALL wireline providers and maybe satellite providers depending on the circumstances, although that is protected by OTARD). |
|
BiggA
1 recommendation |
BiggA
Premium Member
2014-Aug-12 9:38 pm
Where it gets really murky is situations like where my grandparents live. They are in a large MDU that has a bundle with BHN for expanded basic TV. I don't think AT&T has put U-Verse VDSL in their complex, although I'm not 100% sure. I know a lot of people there have DSL for internet, although the incentives all point to cable triple play like they have, since there is a discount for residents in that property.
That kind of deal, if there was no other TV provider when they made it, is murky, since there wasn't really any other provider to provide service, but it may have dissuaded AT&T from putting a VRAD in if they really could only compete with phone and internet... |
|
fg8578 join:2009-04-26 San Antonio, TX 1 edit |
to iansltx
said by iansltx:AT&T probably has exclusivity agreements with any apartment complex that they run fiber through; I know that that friend can't get TWC residential where he is. Under FCC rules, a provider is not allowed to sign exclusive contracts for cable or phone; the rules don't cover Internet.My bad; the rules ban such deals for phone, cable and Internet: » apps.fcc.gov/edocs_publi ··· 08A1.pdf |
|
fg8578 1 edit |
to elray
said by elray:Wrong. Exclusive MDU deals are often the only way you're going to get the advanced service. FCC rules prohibit carriers from signing exclusive deals for cable or phone. The rules don't apply to Internet.My bad. The ban applies to phone, cable and Internet: » apps.fcc.gov/edocs_publi ··· 08A1.pdf |
|
|
to fg8578
...however they can just so happen to not let TWC install cabling when the complex is built, which gives that company an uphill battle on competing with AT&T. Which looks to be enough in these cases that TWC won't sell a residential connection there. |
|
fg8578 join:2009-04-26 San Antonio, TX |
fg8578
Member
2014-Aug-13 4:36 pm
said by iansltx:...however they can just so happen to not let TWC install cabling when the complex is built, which gives that company an uphill battle on competing with AT&T. Which looks to be enough in these cases that TWC won't sell a residential connection there. It all depends on what you state law says. In NY, VZ can sue building owners that won't let them in to serve a customer. |
|
BiggA Premium Member join:2005-11-23 Central CT ·Frontier FiberOp.. Asus RT-AC68
|
to fg8578
I've heard of places that do though. It seems pretty complicated, since there's a bunch of factors at play here... said by fg8578:It all depends on what you state law says. In NY, VZ can sue building owners that won't let them in to serve a customer. There's the key... it depends on the state. NY surely has better consumer protection than other states, including with stuff like this. |
|