dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
10
share rss forum feed

dfxmatt

join:2007-08-21
Evanston, IL
reply to elray

Re: Demand

100% wrong. majority public pays $150+ for tv + internet. If you think the majority isn't willing to pay $100 for tv+internet via google, you are willingly ignorant and/or blind.

There's a reason verizon and TW among others are freaking out, and it's called they don't want to compete and enjoy their monopolies.


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 recommendation

said by dfxmatt:

100% wrong. majority public pays $150+ for tv + internet. If you think the majority isn't willing to pay $100 for tv+internet via google, you are willingly ignorant and/or blind.

There's a reason verizon and TW among others are freaking out, and it's called they don't want to compete and enjoy their monopolies.

He is being wilfully ignorant.

elray

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

said by dfxmatt:

100% wrong. majority public pays $150+ for tv + internet. If you think the majority isn't willing to pay $100 for tv+internet via google, you are willingly ignorant and/or blind.

There's a reason verizon and TW among others are freaking out, and it's called they don't want to compete and enjoy their monopolies.

Households do subscribe to cable, and often triple-play, but they aren't paying $70+/month for broadband.

TWC, not TW, isn't freaking out.
They don't have a monopoly.
They certain DO compete.


keithps
Premium
join:2002-06-26
Soddy Daisy, TN
Reviews:
·EPB Fiber Optics
reply to dfxmatt

Well here's a reality. My ISP (EPB) offers 50/50 for $57 and 100/100 for $69. The majority take the $57 deal. Why? Because 50/50 is plenty for the average joe, and the higher tiers are just for folks who like the speed (like myself). Google is selling well because your option is 5/5 or 1000/1000. There is no middle ground. 5/5 is rapidly becoming to slow except for the most basic stuff. So if you want more than 5/5 with google, it's $70/month, no other option. I'd bet if they offered 100/100 for $49/month, they'd have a ton more people on that plan than 1000/1000.
--
RIP Dad (10-28-1955 to 4-10-2010)


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to elray

said by elray:

They certain DO compete.

When they start offering 100Mbps at around $50 then they would be competing. Until then they're not.

AlfredNewman

join:2010-03-25
Columbus, OH
reply to elray

said by elray:

Households do subscribe to cable, and often triple-play, but they aren't paying $70+/month for broadband.

TWC, not TW, isn't freaking out.
They don't have a monopoly.
They certain DO compete.

Yes they are or else they wouldn't have slightly increased their bandwidth speeds, ran promos to get users to come back to TMW from other ISPs, and providing money to those who can provide info on Googles deployment

Yes they do or else they wouldn't also pass laws to keep other competitors out of their locations, sometimes entire states

No, no they don't.

davidhoffman
Premium
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA
kudos:1
reply to keithps

The Google low cost option is actually 5Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload or 5/1. Google Fiber claims this is the average speed for a residential internet connection in the USA.

Curiously Google Fiber also claims that the high cost option of 1000/1000 is 100 times the average residential internet connection speed in the USA. The math would work out that the average residential internet connection speed is 10/10. We know that is not true.

This disparity in Google Fiber statements has led to some interesting speculation. If the first assertion about 5/1 is true, then maybe Google fiber will fall short of its stated objective and deliver only 500/500 performance. If the second assertion is true, then maybe the low cost option will really deliver a 10/10 experience.

From the stories I have seen Google Fiber has only shown a maximum capability of 622 Mbps symmetrical. That is half of what they should be able to do to provide a truly great "Gigabit" symmetrical experience. If that 622Mbps becomes the de facto Google Fiber experience, then perhaps the low cost option's real performance may be 6.22 Mbps symmetrical.


kbowman

join:2010-10-30
Pasadena, CA
reply to keithps

btw its 5/1 not 5/5


elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
reply to 34764170

They offer several internet tiers at or below $50 that provide more than adequate broadband speeds, as evidenced by Karl's weekly attributions regards DSL flight to cable. You may not like the price:performance, but it is most certainly competition, and devastating to telco.

Cable probably can and will offer up 50M @ $50 in a few more years; 100M is a bit more difficult without more upgrades, which they're unlikely to do at that price point, and again, since few of us want to pay $70, they don't have much incentive to re-wire the neighborhood a 3rd or 4th time.


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

They're still not competing.


elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

They certainly are.

If they weren't, they would enjoy the majority share of customers.


dfxmatt

join:2007-08-21
Evanston, IL
reply to elray

they have yet to actually compete, and it is a monopoly - in that area what other options are even equivalent to TWC's offering? Google is the first, and thus why they bitch about it. Why? TWC's offering is not even competitive in the first place.


dfxmatt

join:2007-08-21
Evanston, IL
reply to elray

you know, there's these things which tend to contain marketshare. I believe the phrase is monopoly.

you might want to learn what competition is, and competitive offerings are - because TWC is neither competitive nor have they had competition before google.


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 recommendation

He goes out of his way to be ignorant.


elray

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

said by dfxmatt:

you know, there's these things which tend to contain marketshare. I believe the phrase is monopoly.

you might want to learn what competition is, and competitive offerings are - because TWC is neither competitive nor have they had competition before google.

Cable is not a monopoly.
Perhaps you should learn what the term means.

They and they alone, have recognized the opportunity to compete with telco, who has chosen to offer only overpriced and/or underperforming product lines. Broadband speeds and rates reflect the extent of their investment, and that is why they enjoy their market share.

Telco is failing, precisely because cable competes.

Cable franchises are not protected. There no legal barrier for entry to market for legitimate private overbuilders.

If you want to make a case for yet another round of re-regulation, in which cable's former monopoly would be legally re-established, complemented by wholesale requirements, you are so welcome.

But be careful what you wish for, as that will result in only short-term gains, followed by long-term pain, as you will eliminate the competition and competitive threat that exists today and replace it with slovenly postal service efficiency.

dfxmatt

join:2007-08-21
Evanston, IL
reply to keithps

I don't think you have any idea how many people would kill for that, myself included. I'd happily pay $70/mo for 100/100. You also have an actual local fiber ISP, which almost nobody has. My options are comcast or an extremely limited ATT option for more money for less speed.

What google is opening up, is an area where there is no current competition.


Androidian

join:2012-12-14
Purcellville, VA
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to dfxmatt

said by dfxmatt:

100% wrong. majority public pays $150+ for tv + internet. If you think the majority isn't willing to pay $100 for tv+internet via google, you are willingly ignorant and/or blind.

Agreed. I'm paying $100/mo for Internet now and don't necessarily mind. And I also pay around $130/mo for DirecTV.

I think people are more concerned about getting good speed connections with high (or no) caps to allow them to stream video, make video calls, make voice calls, work from home, etc.
--
The only difference between Bush and Obama is the group they're wasting our taxpayer money on. It's time to elect responsible legislators.

Androidian

join:2012-12-14
Purcellville, VA
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to elray

said by elray:

Cable is not a monopoly.

Correct. Cable vs. Telco - when you're talking about one cable provider and Verizon - is a particular type of oligopoly called a duopoly. Take your pick of either of these terms; either way a simple search on them will indicate a market condition that's far from the competitive free market landscape envisioned by Adam Smith.

For things to become truly competitive, all cable companies need to be able to compete in all areas for each person's business using existing network connections to each home. Consumers need to have a choice between several - at least 4 or 5, and ideally more - options offering a relatively similar product.

A market in which an ISP solely determines service offerings, policies (such as caps), and pricing tiers can hardly be called competitive.
--
The only difference between Bush and Obama is the group they're wasting our taxpayer money on. It's time to elect responsible legislators.