Time Warner Makes Big Deal Over NYC Business Fiber

Most cable Carriers will bring fiber if you have the cash.

What will be the cost of getting 1 gbit/s from them? 5,000?

More than that, I bet.

Good move by TWC. Business connections is where the money is. They can quickly recoup the cost of deploying fiber.

Perhaps in NYC. Around here a lot of businesses are scaling back on just about everything.

First thing to go is usually an expensive dedicated link for a regular SOHO line.

I've been very busy taking out dedicated circuits for less expensive shared ones all over the city.

$900+ a month vs $120 a month is an easy choice. 99% of businesses I go to do not need a dedicated link.

For sure, for lower speeds it's really hard to justify $1000 for 10 megabit fibre when you can get 25/10 VDSL2 business service for $109 per month in many parts of Montreal and Toronto...

Both connections will give you actual throughput in both directions of at least 10 megabit, but one costs ten times more...

It's also nice for small businesses. Our non-profit can get 10 megabit upstream for a price we can afford, while we could never afford 10 megabit fibre!

Let me know when you can get an SLA on that DSL connection and five nines of reliability.

Rarely is reliability an issue for a vast majority of networks. The SLA "cost" is becoming more and more irrelevant.

Besides it would still be cheaper to get 2 services from 2 different companies and utilize one as a failover.

Most businesses don't need five nines for their office connection, that's what a datacenter is for. For those that do need better reliability, a high speed fallback solution like an LTE connection on a flex plan, or a fully independent second wired connection, can keep them them going through outages.

An SLA isn't terribly useful anyhow, at least if it only provides pro-rated credit. The penalty to the provider for days of downtime in those cases is paltry. An SLA with penalties independent of the monthly rate may be of more use.

Depends on how willing your company is to go without connectivity when the SOHO line goes down. Depends on how willing they are to put up with a slow response to outages, no SLA, and no promise of actual speeds delivered. There's a reason why a lot of outfits stick with T-1s despite being able to obtain much greater speeds at a much lower cost from competing DSL/cable offerings. Dedicated links are expensive for a reason.

TWC's fiber/metro area ethernet products are pretty slick. More impressive than the bandwidth is the latency, one of my customers has five offices scattered across 120 miles of Upstate NY. They get 2-3ms ping times across their point to point links, nearly as good as a wired LAN, and on par with WLANs.

There isn't a SOHO connection in existence that will match that, not even to the first hop, let alone across a VPN to a remote office.

always have been available to anyone willing to pay for it- Which is the whole problem with Karl's half ass reporting on that it NOT being available. Fiber is always available from the MSO and the ILEC. The problem is the customer (or better yet- 99% of the people on this site) think it should be free- the same as cheese is from the gov't.

Why should any customer pay for a company to bring their network to them. A network that they will then go and sell the same services to their neighbors, but yet the first customer paid for all that network to be ran. If companies covered 100% of their footprint then it would be alot easier for a new customer to say "shut up and take my money" if the facilities were already there. Telling a customer in this economy that yea we'd love you to be a customer but we need you to pick up the cost were to cheep to eat and will possibly net us new customers after build. Its also alot easier to compete when you already have the network. Google Fiber et al comes to town, whateves bump up the speed before they even get the first fiber strung up. XYZ company raised their speeds/offered x service, pushht *boom* added it! Those that dont upgrade to Fiber (Mainly ILEC Telcos) to 100% footprint will get left in the dust as others do or other tech comes out that beats what they offer now.

Case in point AT&T refusing to go FTTH, while their own 4G and VZ's 4G LTE beats their current DSL speeds. While cable is also eating them alive on speed. Yea they can jerry rig stuff together to maybe come close to 2008 cable speeds, but even now those are surpassed by cable.

LOL, I was looking into Charter bringing service to a business I do work for. They wanted them to pay $7500 to have a line ran and still charge them their ridiculous prices for their service.

I think it was their way of not telling us they wont service us, by providing a cost they knew we would be unwilling to pay to build out "their" network so they can provide it to us.

Clowns

Check out Acc business. Its an arm of ATT selling the ATT product but much cheaper. 10mbps is $900, 20mbps is $1000, and 50mbps is $1300. if you want an ACC contact let me know. Charters price sounds like they didnt have fiber very close.

I assume you are providing prices monthly there.

Being they currently have AT&T uVerse with 10MB and pay a fraction of those prices I think I will keep them where they are at. In the last 6 years they have only been down once because of a network issue and that only lasted 3 hours.

If uverse is enough for them, then yea no need for anything else. If they need say 20mb upload, obviously uverse isnt going to cut it and fiber is the best route for that.

... a second "residential" fiber provider attempting to win people away for the teleco fiber provider.
NYC is NOT underserved, but a lot of TWC land is and areas just outside TWC land could benefit from this capital injection.
Think carefully TWC, the best you'll get in NYC is 30% take at normal pricing, in many areas you could do much better.

TWC isn't doing residential FTTH at this point, even with these upgrades.

Not that two competing residential FTTH providers would be a bad thing...

The "residential" was meant as Residential Grade, big business won't switch, medium business would need a huge price break to even test it as a backup, some small business might be price driven, but the same investment in wiring and SUPPORT would cover a huge actual residental area and be THE goto service in many areas.

Still don't understand what you're talking about here.

TWC's fiber connections are actually enterprise-grade. Otherwise they wouldn't be used as backhaul for a ton of cell sites that now have 4G (LTE, HSPA+) on them. I know of an ISP or two who uses TWC fiber as one of their paths to the Internet, or even their only path, because it's miles ahead of their HFC network in terms of performance.

Then again, it's also miles more expensive.

But for that expense you get guaranteed speeds and uptimes, with an SLA to credit you if the circuit goes down.

The other cable company in NYC, Cablevision, ofers fiber like this as well. They call it Optimum Lightpath. Same concept (enterprise level, SLA'd direct fiber connectivity at a high price), different company.

If they were actually serious, they'd deploy this in Kansas City.

Exactly.

Why? So they can say we have it too? Google is just a "me too" company with this 1gig service already available in other areas of the Country and Cleveland having it first. KC is just being made a fool of by begging for this crap from Google, only to be later sold down river after that 2 years is up on being required to keep the network.

Why would you be angry at a company pushing the boundaries for residential internet?

As somebody who lives in Kansas City I doubt very much so it will fail or be abandoned in 2 years.

Too much interest in the service here.

Because that is what he does. He doesnt like to see companies spending money and upgrading networks to reasonable speeds.

If he had it his way I think we would all be on dialup still using AOL.

He just hates Google. 'nuff said.

Did I read this right.. the fiber optics is ONLY for businesses, not residential customers of Northern Brooklyn (read: Williamsberg or little Manhattan) and SELECT Manhattan buildings.. read: NO residential customers..

What the hell good is that?!?
Bring $70 1-gigabit fiber to residential customers and THEN I'll be impressed.. $200, $500, $5,000 isn't gonna be impressive, because it's out of financial reach of residential customers.. and bragging rights are moot.

Anyway, i'll be somewhat pissed off I can't get it.. but impressed.. it could spur on Cablevision and Verizon to squeeze the cashbox for upgrades... Mr. Scrooge Verizon could do it now.. but maybe they won't be the first to jump when Bloomy says jump..

Better than Massachusetts which spent $72 million to hook up a few firehouses in half that tiny state with fiber. By magic this is supposed encourage something or other, maybe $60 2mb/s DSL will get hooked into the fiber

As always- you are free to build this on your own. And this is only a thing on this site since Google says they can do it. What happens after those 2 years? Or better yet- what are the shareholders going to do when they want the company to be making $$$$ off that network? They'll price their services just like everyone else. Why do you think their TV services are just has high as Comcast or TWC? Because those companies SAID SO and their investors want ROI on the content they own.

Seems like a lot of guessing on your part.

The reason is that many of the business lines in NYC are served by copper/DSL Verizon. They are dragging their butts getting fiber up which is of course stupid because now TWC can roll it in and charge a boatload. It is not uncommon for phone outages in midtown from copper disrepair.

One would think NYC is wired, it's not. TWC and VZ have been scraping their knuckles there for a long time and franchise requirements are no joke. That's why fiberhoods vs a city franchise is the future. No reason to wire areas w/ 10% uptake. There are plenty of wireless options.

You go TWC. Now I see rational for giving me an ARRIS DOCSIS 3.0 IPV6 at long last. Probably the fastest offered speeds would be ok for most in NY now even tho pricey. Thing is midtown is loaded with residential customers who are so often out a night and working day. Why drop $150+ monthly when never around to play with it? Unusual market to say the least. Today I passed a
mess of paper selling corner boxes.
Lastly TWC already has bad-mouth rep for reliability as to Triple Play. Most just forced to it over worse DSL rep.
When you say that you agree to a thing in principle, you mean that you have not the slightest intention of carrying it out in practice.
-- Otto Von Bismarck

How is this related to google fiber? Charging min of prolly 500dollars a month for t1 speeds compared to 70 with gig speeds. Plus twc is not going to be selling this to residential.