dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
17
share rss forum feed
« More hoopla.
This is a sub-selection from The next Bell System

elray

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

Re: The next Bell System

said by BiggA:

Yeah, it's penetration into the market has been poor. It just shows the utter stupidity of people. Verizon builds an incredible fiber network with super-fast internet, and people still have cable or DSL? What on earth are they thinking?

Spending an extra $40-50 a month for a service level you don't need.
Who is utterly stupid?

No insult intended - but the bottom line is a strong majority of consumers don't have a need for "super-fast internet" beyond what cable is already offering at half the entry price.

We were fine with 1Mbit DSL. In fact, we were fine with 256K DSL.
Today we have 10Mbit cable for $30/month, which yields 25Mbits, though we are considering dropping to the new 3M tier @ $20/month.
(Modem rental nonsense not withtstanding - that will be resolved this month.)

Why on earth would we contract with Verizon for $75+/month?

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
said by elray:

No insult intended - but the bottom line is a strong majority of consumers don't have a need for "super-fast internet" beyond what cable is already offering at half the entry price.

And along those lines, many consumers don't care about the transmission medium, only that it works. It's typically us geeks that get all excited about fiber. As you've suggested, cable can relatively easily match current FiOS offerings and price tends to win out for most consumers.

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
said by openbox9:

said by elray:

No insult intended - but the bottom line is a strong majority of consumers don't have a need for "super-fast internet" beyond what cable is already offering at half the entry price.

And along those lines, many consumers don't care about the transmission medium, only that it works. It's typically us geeks that get all excited about fiber. As you've suggested, cable can relatively easily match current FiOS offerings and price tends to win out for most consumers.

Moreover, for most consumers, Cable doesn't need to match Fiber speed.
Contrary to the geek mantra repeated here 10x daily, no one needs those speeds.

While with the introduction of 4K HD, the "want" for such speeds could experience an uptick, again, few are going to pay a premium for it, and it isn't going to happen under net-neutrality rules. Any uber-bandwidth will be local-only for the MSO.

BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH
Considering that a lot of people still don't understand why HD is so important, I'm not counting on a lot for UHD. Plus, we still have a ways to go in terms of getting to 1080p and reducing the quality hit that compression introduces.

elray

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

Considering that a lot of people still don't understand why HD is so important, I'm not counting on a lot for UHD. Plus, we still have a ways to go in terms of getting to 1080p and reducing the quality hit that compression introduces.

UHD will happen. But it will be a premium home-theater product only, until such time as someone (Sony, Microsoft, Apple) chooses to pony/partner up for the last-mile delivery.

BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH
I don't think we will see any linear delivery to the home. Of course people with high-bandwidth connections will have at least a small amount of content out there on the global interwebs, but the domain on UHD will largely be limited to discs, which are a dying breek for most anyways. Even if I had a UHDTV, I'd probably use streaming 1080p before I bothered with a Blu-ray with UHD. And most people are fine with 720p, if that.