dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
267
share rss forum feed


S1R1US

join:2002-08-25
Clearwater, FL

1 recommendation

Google Fiber

I think TWC is simply doing what should come naturally for any company; offering similar free ancillary features that their competitors are offering, whenever possible.

"Neither initiative is new, and neither really does much to counter Google's competitive karate chop to the center of the cable giant's forehead. "

Kansas is just one market. I would definitely call it a 'karate chop to their pinky toe' though heh...

"Time Warner Cable's largest effort to counter Google Fiber? Trying to lock customers into long-term contracts"

I actually hadn't heard about that. Is anyone here able to verify that part of the article?

said by elray:

In the usual DSLR haze, Karl overlooks the bottom line.
Most households don't want to spend $70 a month for broadband, no matter how fast it might be.

They also don't want to have to pay $70 a month for broadband just to watch TV.

How many low-income households can actually do the math and get Google's "free" $300 service? Not many. $10/month works.

Unless Google responds with a competitively-priced product for everyone, and unbundled pay-tv, Cable will win the round and the battle.

I think you bring up an important point. Customers just want an affordable rate for service that does what they need it to. If it's 2Mbit or 200Mbit, they just want to have a seemless experience. 1Gbit offerings from Google or 50/50 packages from FiOS, it's all marketing gimmicks. Granted, I believe Google's initiated is much more innovative and forward advancing, but it's not practical for markets across the rest of the country.

said by Os:

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

I think this is a bit magnified, but certainly there are still DSL and lower tier customers for a reason.

said by 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.

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.

Does that make it any less worth it? Think about that statement for a minute. The fact that someone was paying that much a decade ago suggests that the cost has been kept from rising despite the economy and increasing costs of living. I just wrote in another post earlier that for a decade my Road Runner price stayed at 44.95, from 1998 to 2008. Throughout that time though the speed increased from 2mbit to 5, 7, 10, and then 15. Does that make 2Mbit any less worth the same price? All that's happened is over time we've become accustomed to getting more for last. Our expectations are changed. We should still keep in mind that a single dinner for two can easily cost more than this amount, yet it's available for use 24 hours a day, every day of the month. I think no matter what speed we're getting, we're certainly getting our money's worth.

said by DaSneaky1D:

How may low income households do you know of? $10 a month for someone in such a position will likely not even be paid in a timely manner, which will lead to the suspension/cancellation of the services.

Unfortunately, a low income household is more apt to either 1) go completely without or 2) spend beyond their means and have the $100+ monthly service for TV.

I've seen this with my own eyes. I've seen homes that are LITERALLY falling apart with a satellite dish on their roof. Priorities are often misplaced when it comes to "needs and wants".

Sad but true. It's not geographical or race related either, just pure human nature for some reason..

said by djrobx:

AT&T seems to do OK targeting this market, so it won't be the end of the world, but TWC ought to consider stepping up their game some. At the very least they could more fully utilize DOCSIS 3.

-- Rob

I'm curious about your specific thoughts on that topic. Obviously DOCSIS 3 allows for more capacity than what most providers are offering; what do you think would be an acceptable amount of bandwidth?

xenophon

join:2007-09-17

Google fiber is only released in one KC fiberhood so far out of about 200 they will target over the next year. TWC doesn't need to do anything drastic until customers start leaving in droves.


Crusty

join:2008-11-11
Sanger, TX
Reviews:
·Embarq Now Centu..
·CenturyLink
reply to S1R1US

said by S1R1US:

Does that make it any less worth it? Think about that statement for a minute. The fact that someone was paying that much a decade ago suggests that the cost has been kept from rising despite the economy and increasing costs of living. I just wrote in another post earlier that for a decade my Road Runner price stayed at 44.95, from 1998 to 2008. Throughout that time though the speed increased from 2mbit to 5, 7, 10, and then 15. Does that make 2Mbit any less worth the same price? All that's happened is over time we've become accustomed to getting more for last. Our expectations are changed. We should still keep in mind that a single dinner for two can easily cost more than this amount, yet it's available for use 24 hours a day, every day of the month. I think no matter what speed we're getting, we're certainly getting our money's worth.

Or the ISP has kept the cost from shrinking to an acceptable level these days. Yes, plenty of people will accept that rate/speed but do so either 1) blindly or 2) have no other choice or 3) all there available ISP's are screwing them.

1.5/386k should be in the line of $5 a month or mirror what google is doing and basically make it free. That would be worth it.

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

1 edit

said by Crusty:

1.5/386k should be in the line of $5 a month or mirror what google is doing and basically make it free. That would be worth it.

$5/mo doesn't even cover the cost of maintaining the outside plant, let alone provide any revenue for meaningful upgrades, to pay employee salaries and benefits, or dividends for the shareholders.

On the last point, I know that profit is a dirty word around here, but it is the ultimate goal of any business, including Google. They aren't doing this to be altruistic...


S1R1US

join:2002-08-25
Clearwater, FL

said by Crookshanks:

said by Crusty:

1.5/386k should be in the line of $5 a month or mirror what google is doing and basically make it free. That would be worth it.

$5/mo doesn't even cover the cost of maintaining the outside plant, let alone provide any revenue for meaningful upgrades, to pay employee salaries and benefits, or dividends for the shareholders.

On the last point, I know that profit is a dirty word around here, but it is the ultimate goal of any business, including Google. They aren't doing this to be altruistic...

Ok so we want a service that costs less than a #4 combo at McDonald's, unlimited use of it for a full month, and free tech support and trouble calls? Just clarify me where I'm missing, because I'm really trying to understand.

dra6o0n

join:2011-08-15
Mississauga, ON
Reviews:
·ITalkBB
reply to S1R1US

Actually I think it's not because they are simply doing it naturally, they are doing it out of fear.

When you think about competition, you think about the future, and Google's future with fiberhoods is extremely scary for corporate ISPs.

Google has a ton of knowledge and fundings to do anything they feel like, while it seems like a bad thing from a biased point of view, has Google once did something morally wrong, but NOT in the scope of human bias?

Sure there were privacy issues, but privacy laws and bias were STARTED by humans. Did Google did some sort of crime against nature? Probably not.

By not taking heed of other people's bias, Google is immune to the stupidity that is privacy laws and bias.

Even then, people want privacy laws on the internet for the sake of protecting themselves, when the internet is like the real world... No one is going to stop someone who is aiming a sniper rifle at your face because it'll be too late then. If something ends up happening, it will happen, and you cannot prevent it, just react to it.

So as a result, the laws are designed to punish or reap from the bias.



S1R1US

join:2002-08-25
Clearwater, FL

My last post was in response to daddyg_76266's suggestion that 1.5/386k should be $5/month.

I have no issue with Google Fiber, and in fact openly embrace it. I think my opinions relate to nationwide expectations of consumers changing because of what Google's offering. I think it's selfish view. Just because something is one speed or one price in a certain place, doesn't mean it should or can be the new standard for other providers to follow everywhere else. If 99% of providers offered 1.5/386k for free, it doesn't make the 1% charging whatever they charge any less worth it. It simply means in certain places with certain companies there are different offerings. Frequently there are trade-offs. Not always though. I'm just saying it's a bit ridiculous to suggest 24/7 internet access for the low-tier speed should be the price of a McDonald's combo meal.