dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
26
share rss forum feed
« Google FiberUnadulterated greed »
page: 1 · 2 · next
This is a sub-selection from Time-Warner for the Win!

Os

join:2011-01-26
US
reply to elray

Re: Time-Warner for the Win!

And what will $120 get you at Time Warner? It won't get you every channel known to man and 1Gbps internet.

Typical shill haze.


Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Call him a shill if it makes you feel better about yourself, but the reality of the situation is that many consumers will not pay $70/mo for an internet connection. There's a reason why relatively slow but cheap DSL bundles remain popular. There's a reason why Time Warner offers a 1.5/384 product for $20/mo in my market. They don't advertise it, it goes around via word-of-mouth, or comes from retentions, but it's been available for as long as I can remember.

Some people don't NEED anything more than basic web browsing. Many of these people aren't willing to pay $40/mo, let alone $70/mo, and they'd go without internet service if that was their only option.

The typical DSLR reader is not in the mainstream of internet consumers. Many of the people around here (the ones willing to pay $300/mo for the insane FIOS/DOCSIS 3.0 tiers) aren't even in the mainstream of power users.


Os

join:2011-01-26
US

DSL bundles remain so popular that AT&T and Verizon lose hundreds of thousands of customers every quarter.


Crusty

join:2008-11-11
Sanger, TX
Reviews:
·Embarq Now Centu..
·CenturyLink
reply to Crookshanks

said by Crookshanks:

There's a reason why Time Warner offers a 1.5/384 product for $20/mo in my market. They don't advertise it, it goes around via word-of-mouth, or comes from retentions, but it's been available for as long as I can remember.

That's an insane price for that slow of a speed. I was paying a mere $5 more than that nearly a decade ago.

....thus where the reality of the situation is.

Wilsdom

join:2009-08-06
reply to Crookshanks

Google's low tier is cheaper than anything TW offers, and their standard tier is cheaper and better quality than anything TW will ever offer. Where is the room for TW? Maybe 25/2 for $20 or something...



Jim Kirk
Premium
join:2005-12-09
reply to Crookshanks

said by Crookshanks:

Call him a shill if it makes you feel better about yourself, but the reality of the situation is that many consumers will not pay $70/mo for an internet connection. There's a reason why relatively slow but cheap DSL bundles remain popular. There's a reason why Time Warner offers a 1.5/384 product for $20/mo in my market. They don't advertise it, it goes around via word-of-mouth, or comes from retentions, but it's been available for as long as I can remember.

Some people don't NEED anything more than basic web browsing. Many of these people aren't willing to pay $40/mo, let alone $70/mo, and they'd go without internet service if that was their only option.

The typical DSLR reader is not in the mainstream of internet consumers. Many of the people around here (the ones willing to pay $300/mo for the insane FIOS/DOCSIS 3.0 tiers) aren't even in the mainstream of power users.

What part of

In contrast, Google's offering users a 5 Mbps connection over FTTH for "free," after you pay a $300 install fee. That fee can be paid in installments of $25 for a year, after which you don't pay a dime.

says $70/month to you?

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

1 recommendation

Cool, who do my friends in Binghamton call to sign up for Google Fiber? Oh wait, it's not available there, and it never will be, because the Google boys have the attention span of a six year old with ADHD. "Sergey, do your math homework." "Ok Mom, 1 plus 1 equals WOW A BICYCLE LET'S RIDE!!!!"

I vaguely recall Google threatening to shake up the status quo by building a nationwide cellular network. How'd that turn out? They didn't sell out when they realized it would cost billions of dollars, did they?


Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
reply to Os

AT&T and Verizon lose customers because they can't offer a competitive Triple Play product, with the exception of course of those areas lucky enough to have FIOS/U-Verse. Most people need (or think they need) TV, and cable is the preferred choice over satellite for most consumers who have access to it.

Few very non-techie folks actually purchase their internet connections based on promised speed. For most it's the perceived ease of a unified bill, combined with the perceived PITA of switching providers, even when a better product is available.



Jim Kirk
Premium
join:2005-12-09
reply to Crookshanks

Nothing you just spewed has any relevance to your assertion that they only offer $70/month Internet service.


Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

1 edit

Thanks for putting words in my mouth, but I made no such assertion about Google. Nor did the great grandparent. It was simply stated that most people are not willing to pay $70/mo for internet service. It does not matter if said service is coming from Google, a DOCSIS 3.0 provider, FIOS, smoke signals, etc.


kxrm

join:2002-07-18
Fort Worth, TX

You aren't making much sense, the lowest tier that Google offers is $25 per month for 1 year. That's it. Where is that on TW?


Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

said by kxrm:

You aren't making much sense, the lowest tier that Google offers is $25 per year. That's $2.08 a month.

Which has no bearing whatsoever on the original statement that "few people are willing to pay $70/mo for internet service".

And, it's actually $25/mo, for 12 months, then "free". I put quote marks around "free" because I'm sure Google is data-mining the hell out of these connections (likely the $70/mo tier too) like they do with their other "free" products.

mrjoshuaw

join:2001-12-27
Blue Springs, MO

You sound like a politician by submitting a statement and then focusing on one line of your statement:

"Call him a shill if it makes you feel better about yourself, but the reality of the situation is that many consumers will not pay $70/mo for an internet connection. There's a reason why relatively slow but cheap DSL bundles remain popular. There's a reason why Time Warner offers a 1.5/384 product for $20/mo in my market. They don't advertise it, it goes around via word-of-mouth, or comes from retentions, but it's been available for as long as I can remember."

In you Statement you do say that "that many customers will not pay $70/mo for an internet connection" but then you go on to comapare (whether you wanted to or not) Googles highest tier with Time Warners lowest tier. Which cannot be done, you would need an apples to apples comparison of lowest tier to lowest tier ($20/mo 1.5Mbps to $25/mo 5Mbps).

And anyone who heard Google was getting "into" the ISP business even if only temporarily and DIDNT think that they would be mining all of your data regardless of the price of their service has never paid ANY attention to google in the first place.


Chubbysumo

join:2009-12-01
Superior, WI
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to Crookshanks

said by Crookshanks:

AT&T and Verizon lose customers because they can't offer a competitive Triple Play product, with the exception of course of those areas lucky enough to have FIOS/U-Verse. Most people need (or think they need) TV, and cable is the preferred choice over satellite for most consumers who have access to it.

Few very non-techie folks actually purchase their internet connections based on promised speed. For most it's the perceived ease of a unified bill, combined with the perceived PITA of switching providers, even when a better product is available.

Any "bundled" services are just a ploy to raise your bill, not to save you money. When service providers bump your bill by $10 or $15 a month just because you only have a single service, its highly suspect as to why. Also, with many markets being stuck on old copper DSL lines, and those speeds being abysmal and they are still paying $40 or more a month for it, I know many families that would offer up the $300, or pay $25 a month for a year for free internet for as long as it lasts. hell, I pay $90 for internet per month now, I would happily pay $70 to get a hell of a lot more speed. Also, TWCs lowest offer in the area, besides the "low income" one that no one will qualify for is 3 mbps down and 1mbps upload speed for $20 a month plus "fees and taxes", which comes out to a whopping $33 per month with modem rental. The "free" google tier is $25 per month, and its a symmetrical 5mbps plan. You tell me, which sounds better?

Chubbysumo

join:2009-12-01
Superior, WI
Reviews:
·Charter

1 recommendation

reply to Crusty

said by Crookshanks:

There's a reason why Time Warner offers a 1.5/384 product for $20/mo in my market. They don't advertise it, it goes around via word-of-mouth, or comes from retentions, but it's been available for as long as I can remember.

It is advertised, on their site and their tv ads, and its 3 down and 1 up, for $20 per month. I called the "basic" plan. »www.timewarnercable.com/en/resid···ans.html

Chubbysumo

join:2009-12-01
Superior, WI
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to Crookshanks

said by Crookshanks:

I put quote marks around "free" because I'm sure Google is data-mining the hell out of these connections (likely the $70/mo tier too) like they do with their other "free" products.

Legally, I dont think google can datamine your personal connection, as it could be considered illegal wiretapping, and they would probably not take that risk. Now, the websites you choose to visit can have a script running that datamines you, but your ISP cannot legally monitor your web activites. They need a court order to do so, and they only keep very limited logs outside of that because of the prohibitive cost of storing thousands of things about each customer. Most ISPs just maintain a log of what modem has what IP, and whos account that modem is linked too, and they only store those for a few weeks to a few months at a time because those little points of data for 10000 customers, all with dynamic IPs, yea, that gets a bit huge.

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
reply to mrjoshuaw

said by mrjoshuaw:

but then you go on to comapare (whether you wanted to or not) Googles highest tier with Time Warners lowest tier.

Your critique of my post would have more impact if you proof-read it for spelling and grammatical errors.

No comparison between Google's product and any other product was intended. The statement was "many consumers will not pay $70/mo for an internet connection", which is true, regardless of who the provider of that connection is.

Google's "free" tier may attract some converts, and it's certainly nice of them to offer it, but it really has nothing at all to do with my statement about $70/mo connections. The people willing to pay for the higher DOCSIS/FIOS tiers are in the minority, and I suspect the people willing to buy the $70/mo Google product are as well.

Bash Time Warner all you want, personally I hate them for many reasons, but the truth is that their standard speed tiers are more than ample for the overwhelming majority of internet connections. Realistically, anything >6mbit/s or so is gravy for most people, and the higher end (25mbit/s, 50, 100, etc) tiers are mostly just marketing ploys.

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
reply to Chubbysumo

said by Chubbysumo:

Any "bundled" services are just a ploy to raise your bill, not to save you money.

You're preaching to the choir here.

said by Chubbysumo:

When service providers bump your bill by $10 or $15 a month just because you only have a single service, its highly suspect as to why.

Economy of scale is one reason, it costs the same to maintain your connection to the network regardless of how many services you have, so single service customers have a lower ROI than bundled ones. Of course, "because we can" is the other reason.

said by Chubbysumo:

Also, with many markets being stuck on old copper DSL lines, and those speeds being abysmal and they are still paying $40 or more a month for it

Where do you live that "abysmal" DSL speeds are being sold for $40/mo? Most of the people who have what I would consider "abysmal" (<=1.5mbit/s) connections are in the $20 to $30 range, with both Frontier and Verizon. I have no direct experience with AT&T (thank god), so perhaps they are the provider you're referring to?

said by Chubbysumo:

hell, I pay $90 for internet per month now, I would happily pay $70 to get a hell of a lot more speed.

You're in the minority. Most people will not pay $90/mo for internet service. Hell, I couldn't afford it even if I was willing to pay for it.

said by Chubbysumo:

Also, TWCs lowest offer in the area, besides the "low income" one that no one will qualify for is 3 mbps down and 1mbps upload speed for $20 a month plus "fees and taxes", which comes out to a whopping $33 per month with modem rental. The "free" google tier is $25 per month, and its a symmetrical 5mbps plan. You tell me, which sounds better?

It's a no brainer if you live in KC. Alas, this is just a play thing for Google, and nobody outside of KC is ever going to see it. Google is not going to get into the last mile business nationwide.

Even if they did, I'd start to worry about anti-trust implications, because that kind of vertical integration ought to scare the hell out of anybody. Of course, so should Comcast and NBC, and nobody said anything about that...

mrjoshuaw

join:2001-12-27
Blue Springs, MO
reply to Crookshanks

Yeah I missed that one when I fixed the others, and another one as well but I do not want to take all of your fun by pointing it out!

I worked for a smaller FTTH ISP and I agree with the belief that the majority of users stick with the lower end of the speed spectrum. On our end it was mostly because of the cost, but with talking to the customers themselves, even if we were to lower the cost they would still stick with around the 10Mb range at the most.

On another note, I think what would be more beneficial on the Google impact to the industry would be less of the speed increase and more of a price decrease. I would rather keep the 10Mb or so service I have for a lower cost then get a higher speed at a higher cost (but still relatively cheap in comparison to other providers). Now that is for my typical household usage, if I needed more speed I would order it, but that is my two cents.


Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
reply to Chubbysumo

said by Chubbysumo:

Legally, I dont think google can datamine your personal connection, as it could be considered illegal wiretapping, and they would probably not take that risk.

Umm, they read your e-mails.....

said by Chubbysumo:

Most ISPs just maintain a log of what modem has what IP, and whos account that modem is linked too, and they only store those for a few weeks to a few months at a time because those little points of data for 10000 customers, all with dynamic IPs, yea, that gets a bit huge.

It's not that much data at all:

DATETIME - 8 bytes
IPADDRESS - 16 bytes (actually only 4 for IPV4, but why not future proof it for IPV6)
CUSTOMERNO - indeterminate, call it 8 bytes to make the total a round number of 32, though an efficient table design could get away with a 4 byte value, since that would allow for >4 billion references to a customer table.

In reality IP addresses don't change that often, but let's say they change once a day, for ten million customers:

10,000,000 x 32 = 305.17 megabytes

That's nothing in this day and age. A terabyte would give you nearly ten years worth of logging, and likely more than that, since I'm being conservative with my numbers here.

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
reply to mrjoshuaw

said by mrjoshuaw:

I think what would be more beneficial on the Google impact to the industry would be less of the speed increase and more of a price decrease.

That isn't going to happen, for better or worse. There are fixed costs a provider has to absorb that will not decrease simply because technology allows for faster transmission speeds. Outside plant maintenance doesn't cost less when you can push more bits across the infrastructure. Your employees won't accept lower salaries as the transmission technology matures. Insurance costs don't decrease, nor do property taxes, or pole rental fees. I could go on all day, but you get the point.

Companies that can offer a Triple Play have incentive to offer a slower "lite" tier as a loss leader of sorts, since you've got other services with them to help pay for the aforementioned expenses, and it doesn't cost them much at all to give you the internet connection. That's not much of a consolation prize though, is it?

Chubbysumo

join:2009-12-01
Superior, WI
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to Crookshanks

said by Crookshanks:

Economy of scale is one reason, it costs the same to maintain your connection to the network regardless of how many services you have, so single service customers have a lower ROI than bundled ones. Of course, "because we can" is the other reason.

It costs the same regardless of how many services you have, and most of the time, the infrastructure is long since paid for. Its more of a "because we can" than anything else, since very few places need to have their drops replaced every year, and even at that, outdoor(quad shielded) rated RG4 is about $2.00 per foot retail, and im sure TWC does not pay retail prices for their 500 foot rolls of RG4 and RG6.

said by Crookshanks:

Where do you live that "abysmal" DSL speeds are being sold for $40/mo? Most of the people who have what I would consider "abysmal" (<=1.5mbit/s) connections are in the $20 to $30 range, with both Frontier and Verizon. I have no direct experience with AT&T (thank god), so perhaps they are the provider you're referring to?

My grandmother lives 20 minutes outside of a major town(superior) and she has to pay $35 per month for Centurylinks 3mbps/768k DSL plan, and she hardly ever gets more than 1.5 down and 500k up. Anyone in the country, away from a city, can tell you how ISPs take advantage of their customers because they can, and have no alternative except satellite, which is even worse.

said by Crookshanks:

You're in the minority. Most people will not pay $90/mo for internet service. Hell, I couldn't afford it even if I was willing to pay for it.

I know plenty of families that would be happy to pay more for more or better services. it sounds backwards, but many times you see low income households(ones that are on welfare and food support) with high internet speeds and larger TV packages. I know this from personal experience, but maybe you do not. Low income households seem to have everything they want, and have highly misplaced priorities as to where their money should be going. Also, im just curious what you do pay for your internet services per month, or maybe your phone? You probably waste money every month like the rest of us. I know me and my wife eat out too much, which costs us about $300 a month more than it should cost for food. Im sure there are places you could easily trim back to get faster service if you wanted to bad enough. the problem is that people are creatures of habit, and you are too. Everyone has a wasteful "expense" somewhere, and is unlikely to change that.

said by Crookshanks:

It's a no brainer if you live in KC. Alas, this is just a play thing for Google, and nobody outside of KC is ever going to see it. Google is not going to get into the last mile business nationwide.

I hope the one thing that comes out of this "experiment" is that people see how much other ISPs are grossly overcharging them, and that there is some call for government action and regulation on the subject. If anything, i would like to see many more FTTH community initiative spring up and grab the market because they see the success of this project and others like it. Alas, those projects must deal with anti-competitive laws that were written by the incumbent providers to protect their business models, and those laws need to seen and challenged as such.

said by Crookshanks:

Even if they did, I'd start to worry about anti-trust implications, because that kind of vertical integration ought to scare the hell out of anybody. Of course, so should Comcast and NBC, and nobody said anything about that...

I doubt any other provider would raise anything related to vertical integration or any kind of other anti-trust claims against google, because google would likely fire right back at how much the Comcast/NBC/universal merger is working so hard and prices are dropping so much as it was promised they would.

I don't believe Content creation, content ownership, and content transmission and dissemination should ever be under a single roof of ownership, because its very easy to exploit in anti-competitive ways, and I believe that the comcast/NBCU merger will become the poster child of a massive anti-trust investigation in the next 10 years(and probably breakup).

Edit: fixed formatting.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to Crookshanks

said by Crookshanks:

Where do you live that "abysmal" DSL speeds are being sold for $40/mo? Most of the people who have what I would consider "abysmal" (<=1.5mbit/s) connections are in the $20 to $30 range, with both Frontier and Verizon. I have no direct experience with AT&T (thank god), so perhaps they are the provider you're referring to?

Not AT&T. They are only charging $20 to $30 for .768 mb/s to 1.5 mb/s. I think a very small ILEC up north ("Siskiyou Telephone", aka "Siqtel") charges about $40 for their 3.0 mb/s service.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to Crusty

said by Crusty:

That's an insane price for that slow of a speed. I was paying a mere $5 more than that nearly a decade ago.

I've never seen Internet sold for a mere $5 a month, ever; not even dial-up. An online service called, "GEnie" ("General Electric network for information exchange") was once available via dial-up for $5 a month; but that was about twenty years ago, and not the TCP/IP Internet we now have. And definitely not 1.5 mb/s.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


PaulHikeS2

join:2003-03-06
Manchester, NH
Reviews:
·Comcast

said by NormanS:

said by Crusty:

That's an insane price for that slow of a speed. I was paying a mere $5 more than that nearly a decade ago.

I've never seen Internet sold for a mere $5 a month, ever; not even dial-up. An online service called, "GEnie" ("General Electric network for information exchange") was once available via dial-up for $5 a month; but that was about twenty years ago, and not the TCP/IP Internet we now have. And definitely not 1.5 mb/s.

He didn't say $5/month. He said $5 more than "that": "that" being $20/month. Therefore, $25/month. The initial reading was unclear, though. I had to read it twice.
--
Jay: What the @#$% is the internet???
Expand your moderator at work

cmarslett

join:2006-11-22
Pflugerville, TX
Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
·NetTalk
·T-Mobile US
·Clearwire Wireless
reply to Os

Re: Time-Warner for the Win!

I don't know of a single person that has dropped AT&T DSL willingly. Mostly they are losing hundreds of thousands of customers every quarter because they disconnect them!

I certainly won't pay for a disconnected DSL line. In fact the disconnect also resulted in me dropping my land line - I'd been thinking of it for some time, and that was the final straw.

The reason they are losing customers is that they don't want them: they want nothing but cell phone customers....


mrjoshuaw

join:2001-12-27
Blue Springs, MO
reply to Crookshanks

Hmmmmm...I kind of agree with you there, but I still think it could be done. BUT that would depend on what reasonable or "inexpensive" is defined as...Do you go for a lower price and get quantity vs. quality (aka WalMart) or do you go with higher price with higher quality and hope you get enough customers. It would also depend on what your acceptable ROI would be. And you cant forget the Shareholders!

I currently pay $40 + applicable taxes and fees (the taxes that AT&T doesn't want to pay) for a 3-6Mbps speeds. Whereas at my old company we charged 29.95 for 5Mbps FTTH connection (which I am sure people here would think is still to high). I am not looking for a company to give me 10Mbps for the low low price of 19.95! But I do know that upgrades on the networks are getting cheaper, optics are coming down, switch prices are coming down, and you can amortize the hardware anyways and do the magic tax shuffle that all large corporations can do at the drop of a hat!

I think I have gone off on a separate tangent on the topic, but I think prices can come down, and Google coming in and forcing the price down of the higher end service should have the other prices come down as well. Probably a pipe dream, but here is to hoping!


cmarslett

join:2006-11-22
Pflugerville, TX
Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
·NetTalk
·T-Mobile US
·Clearwire Wireless
reply to NormanS

How about Austin, TX: Time Warner's cheapest Internet is $49+/month for a 12 month intro package, then it goes up.

AT&T does not sell new DSL any more in this part of Texas, they are slowly killing it off - only "U-verse" (though they do have lots of web presence talking about DSL) and the cheapest they offer hasn't change over the past 6 months ($38/month for 3 Mbit, nothing slower offered, and no DSL offered in this part of the country).

So $25/month beats both by a lot! And it ends after a year, rather than going up...

It's a no-brainier, Google wherever they show up....


Chubbysumo

join:2009-12-01
Superior, WI
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to Crookshanks

They only read your Emails if your dumb enough to use their email service, and at that, even that is currently illegal in the USA. Your email are considered private until they are 180 days old, or unopened, or in the face of any government agent or official.

Im sure its more than 305MB/day if it were logged, and hardware to do so isnt free, thus, why ISPs probably have smaller HDDs and just simply log the most recent few. Keep in mind, those logs would likely show general chatter between the CMTS and the modem as well, and then anything else they are set up to log. We all know corporations are excellent at wasting money by inefficiencies.