dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
49

rebus9
join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay

3 recommendations

rebus9

Member

If only...

If THIS kind of service was offered across the country, this nation's broadband industry would ROCK. Instead, the big Cableco and Telco giants are perfectly satisfied to milk the cow dry while we languish well below the top 10 or top 20, depending on the survey. »www.netindex.com/downloa ··· untries/

Yes, I'm looking straight at you, Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, and TWTC.

bockbock
@hcs.net

2 recommendations

bockbock

Anon

Well, that would be all gravy in a perfect world. Unfortunately, the big cable companies and telcos are too greedy to listen to the consumer. We live in a greedy world, and the telecommunications companies in the U.S. are pitching fits about the FCC (trying) regulating faster broadband. Grande communications is exactly what this country needs... more competition.

fg8578
join:2009-04-26
San Antonio, TX

fg8578

Member

said by bockbock :

Well, that would be all gravy in a perfect world. Unfortunately, the big cable companies and telcos are too greedy to listen to the consumer. We live in a greedy world, and the telecommunications companies in the U.S. are pitching fits about the FCC (trying) regulating faster broadband. Grande communications is exactly what this country needs... more competition.

Speaking of greed and competition.

Alamo Heights is the richest enclave in San Antonio. Grande may not be redlining exactly, but it's interesting that's the area they chose to deploy first in San Antonio. Unlike Google, which deployed in South Austin, which is a relatively depressed part of town, rather than deploy in Westlake Hills, a rich area comparable to Alamo Heights. I'm glad Grande is deploying, don't get me wrong.

But they aren't exactly white knights in all of this -- they're doing it to make money
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx

Member

My guess is that they're deploying first there because that had FTTP there to start with rather than cable. Looks like the 400M speeds are DOCSIS based at this point...maybe 24-channel plant, which would be a first in the US.

bockbock
@hcs.net

bockbock to fg8578

Anon

to fg8578
Do you think people in South Austin would be able to even afford the $70/mo Gigabit service? Yes, GF does offer the free 5 mbps plan, but it comes at a hefty $300 setup fee. These companies are going to put fiber where people will be willing to buy it. I don't know how profitable it is to deploy premium fiber services in a community that makes below the poverty level. Then again, like I said, the free 5 mbps plan is great but it also comes at a price.

fg8578
join:2009-04-26
San Antonio, TX

fg8578

Member

said by bockbock :

Do you think people in South Austin would be able to even afford the $70/mo Gigabit service? Yes, GF does offer the free 5 mbps plan, but it comes at a hefty $300 setup fee. These companies are going to put fiber where people will be willing to buy it. I don't know how profitable it is to deploy premium fiber services in a community that makes below the poverty level. Then again, like I said, the free 5 mbps plan is great but it also comes at a price.

I agree with you. But what would public reaction have been had AT&T or VZ decided they'd bypass the economically disadvantaged and instead concentrate their fiber offerings on wealthier parts of town?
existenz
join:2014-02-12

existenz

Member

Google started in the lowest income part of KC too (city of KC, KS is lowest income city in KC metro). Then they went to Central KC, MO and the eastern half is among lowest income, though W half is mixed to very high income. Most high income burbs aren't happening until later, with a few exceptions.
54761437 (banned)
join:2013-01-18
Durham, NC

54761437 (banned) to fg8578

Member

to fg8578
said by fg8578:

said by bockbock :

Do you think people in South Austin would be able to even afford the $70/mo Gigabit service? Yes, GF does offer the free 5 mbps plan, but it comes at a hefty $300 setup fee. These companies are going to put fiber where people will be willing to buy it. I don't know how profitable it is to deploy premium fiber services in a community that makes below the poverty level. Then again, like I said, the free 5 mbps plan is great but it also comes at a price.

I agree with you. But what would public reaction have been had AT&T or VZ decided they'd bypass the economically disadvantaged and instead concentrate their fiber offerings on wealthier parts of town?

Funny you say that. Verizon has already engaged in redlining in the Northeast, although they deny it (of course).

bockbock
@flmultimedia.com

bockbock to fg8578

Anon

to fg8578
Comcast already has a program that serves low-income families with affordable high-speed internet. I think it's called Internet Essentials? Correct me if I'm wrong. Anyways, I don't disagree with that. I think everyone of every socioeconomic background should have access to a broadband internet connection (or at least a 3 mbps cable/DSL connection) for an affordable price. You would think AT&T and Verizon have similar programs? If the public were so discontent on them expanding expensive fiber optic service to the wealthy suburbs, then they might as well compensate with low-income programs like what Comcast is already doing. AT&T and Verizon should provide at least a 3 mbps DSL connection to poorer residents for an affordable rate, especially with this title II thing passing in D.C.

Shangsta
@verizonbusiness.com

Shangsta to bockbock

Anon

to bockbock
Or you can have it amortized in a 12 month plan at $25/month. That price alone beats a lot of DSL value and trumps Uverse/TWC in terms of not exceeding $300 after you've paid it off.