dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
10
share rss forum feed

Crookshanks

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

Re: Time-Warner for the Win!

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...

Chubbysumo

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

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

cmarslett

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

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....



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

said by cmarslett:

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).

What part of "U-verse HSI" isn't DSL? Everybody talks like DSL is going away. Well, AT&T ADSL is going the way of DOCSIS 1.1/2, to be sure. But U-verse HSI is DSL, just as cable Internet is DOCSIS. But cable is upgrading to DOCSIS 3, and AT&T is upgrading to ADSL2+/VDSL.

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....

No need in the S.F. Bay Area. I have ADSL2+ ("Fusion", not "U-verse HSI") for $19.97. No promo period.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum