dslreports logo
 story category
Carriers Defend Why They're Not Offering 1 Gbps
"As I understand it, Google Fiber is basically a science experiment," cable overbuilder RCN tells Ars Technica in a piece on why most carriers aren't matching Google Fiber's 1 Gbps speeds (spoiler: limited competition). "I have no doubt that there will come a day that gigabit speeds are necessary in our daily lives, but I'm not sure that day is here yet," insists RCN. "When it's here, RCN will be offering it." As I've noted a few times, carriers would prefer the national conversation be focused on why you don't need 1 Gbps, instead of why their services are slow and very expensive (spoiler: limited competition).
view:
topics flat nest 

EarlyAdopter
@comcast.net

EarlyAdopter

Anon

It isn't needed just because Early Adopters want it

Just because the Early Adopter users want it, doesn't mean it has to be widely provided yet. 1 gbit connections will come online, but it will come on slowly and deliberately based on availability of capital improvement dollars. Early Adopters need to get a life and not whine every time they are made to wait awhile for what they want. The vast majority of users don't need 1 gbit connections no matter how many pundits declare they do.

trebzon
join:2001-09-03
Grandville, MI

trebzon

Member

Re: It isn't needed just because Early Adopters want it

But that misses the point entirely. Of course the vast majority of users don't "NEED" 1 gbit connections. What they do need is disruption in the market place that provides better service, better pricing and doesn't stifle innovation. All things that the current model and dominate players are fighting at every turn.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

1 recommendation

battleop

Member

Re: It isn't needed just because Early Adopters want it

Do you really think that offering 1Gb is going to change any of the big boys approach to customer service? Comcast could offer 100Gb over SONET for $29.95/mo and everyone would still bitch about their crap ass customer service.

trebzon
join:2001-09-03
Grandville, MI

trebzon

Member

Re: It isn't needed just because Early Adopters want it

If there was more than one carrier/provider in any region (real competition) than maybe the crap ass customer service would finally improve.......probably not but one can wish even if hoping is useless.
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

InvalidError

Member

Re: It isn't needed just because Early Adopters want it

If there were many more than one or two providers, each one would need to recover the full network maintenance cost over a much smaller market share and costs would go up anyway.

First mile access like roads, power grids, water and sewers, etc. are all natural monopolies: infrastructure duplication quickly becomes cost-prohibitive so once a market has 1-2 established players, almost nobody else can afford to jump in even if all other forms of red tape were removed.
dfxmatt
join:2007-08-21
Crystal Lake, IL

1 recommendation

dfxmatt to battleop

Member

to battleop
You know what stops bitching?

Giving people what they want. It's not hard.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

1 recommendation

battleop

Member

Re: It isn't needed just because Early Adopters want it

No, it does not.
54761437 (banned)
join:2013-01-18
Durham, NC

1 recommendation

54761437 (banned)

Member

Re: It isn't needed just because Early Adopters want it

So is that why people served by municipal and local ISPs (especially those providing FTTH) are generally much happier than those served by incumbents? Case in point: VTel.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop

Member

Re: It isn't needed just because Early Adopters want it

I live in a city with a Muni FFTH network. They released stats a few weeks ago that said they had about 45k subscribers who subscribed to the slowest 100Mb and under 3k who subscribed to 1Gb. There is about an $8/mo difference between 100Mb and 1G.

According to one of the techs I know at EPB the majority of their users are nowhere even close to utilizing their connectoins.
BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN

BlueC

Member

Re: It isn't needed just because Early Adopters want it

Ah, more statistics, which actually show demand.

That's what I've seen elsewhere. It seems like a rather consistent trend. People want cost-effective internet. If there's a cheaper option, they'll take it.

Why else did Google stick with 1 tier @ $70/mo? They knew it'd force everyone to take the service @ $70/mo, and that would help them on the return. However, it seems clear that most consumers would rather spend less for a fraction of the speed. (I don't count Google's base tier, because 5/1 is rather slow for today's standards)

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop

Member

Re: It isn't needed just because Early Adopters want it

Most people would be thrilled at 20/20 @ $20/mo.
54761437 (banned)
join:2013-01-18
Durham, NC

54761437 (banned) to battleop

Member

to battleop
said by battleop:

I live in a city with a Muni FFTH network. They released stats a few weeks ago that said they had about 45k subscribers who subscribed to the slowest 100Mb and under 3k who subscribed to 1Gb. There is about an $8/mo difference between 100Mb and 1G.

According to one of the techs I know at EPB the majority of their users are nowhere even close to utilizing their connectoins.

That honestly seems like more of a pricing/marketing problem than a utilization problem. Pricing gigabit $8 higher than 100Mbit is stupid. If they're doing that, it suggests they want to increase their take rate of gigabit...right? People want options and they want pricing flexibility. The average person doesn't understand why gigabit is important, either conceptually or pragmatically. Offer them 100Mbit at half the cost of gigabit and they'll be excited.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop

Member

Re: It isn't needed just because Early Adopters want it

"Pricing gigabit $8 higher than 100Mbit is stupid."

Not when you have to worry about covering your costs. It's just a my pecker is bigger than yours move. They bare taking a gamble that very few will use it.

"People want options and they want pricing flexibility."

Exactly

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

KrK

Premium Member

Re: It isn't needed just because Early Adopters want it

... and are getting neither.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop

Member

Re: It isn't needed just because Early Adopters want it

It's easier to bitch than it is to do anything thing about it. People don't want to make any effort to send a message to the bean counters.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

KrK

Premium Member

Re: It isn't needed just because Early Adopters want it

Yes, the message. "Reduce the price or I'll turn it off."

Watch them call the bluff. Now, if there was competition, they might believe it.
intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15

intok (banned) to battleop

Member

to battleop
said by battleop:

I live in a city with a Muni FFTH network. They released stats a few weeks ago that said they had about 45k subscribers who subscribed to the slowest 100Mb and under 3k who subscribed to 1Gb. There is about an $8/mo difference between 100Mb and 1G.

According to one of the techs I know at EPB the majority of their users are nowhere even close to utilizing their connectoins.

So why not eliminate the 100Mbps tier altogether and offer only 1Gbps? It'd even out the few spikes on patch Tuesday and make billing eaisier.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop

Member

Re: It isn't needed just because Early Adopters want it

"So why not eliminate the 100Mbps tier altogether and offer only 1Gbps?"

Probably because it's leaving a half million dollars on the table per month.
intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15

intok (banned)

Member

Re: It isn't needed just because Early Adopters want it

Make it up by getting more subs. If as you say the unwashed masses don't come close to using the connection:

-Network built to handle 1Gbit over FTTH
-Consumer line 100Mbit guaranteed with burst speed up to 1Gbps
-Business class 1Gbit guaranteed with all of the other things that the huge price increase that buisness class lines come with

Sell it at the cost of the big boys lowest tier service and advertise the hell out of it and eat their customer base right up by offering the fastest service in town as well as the best price.

If things get lean after a year up monthly fees $5-10/month, enough to generate desired revenue but not so much you start chasing off customers.

If as you say most people will never use the speed then thats a net win for you in peering costs vs upgrading the network incrementally 2-5 times over the next decade.

If they do start using that speed the you are the first one in town with it, you become the defacto standard of the region and gain more customers that need that speed without the public backlash on sites like this one complaining constantly about how slow your service is and thus costing potential customers.

People like you lack vision and can only see the here and now, not what is coming, you end up reacting to what has happened instead of being the one that made it happen forcing everyone to react to you.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop

Member

Re: It isn't needed just because Early Adopters want it

You really have no experience in this do you?
intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15

intok (banned)

Member

Re: It isn't needed just because Early Adopters want it

And that matter why? I already know it's technically feasible and has been for years now.

People like yourself come up all the time coming up with excuses about why something can't be done, till someone else does it then act like it doesn't exist.

In the end you are no different then the Verizon execs redlining their FIOS deployments.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop

Member

Re: It isn't needed just because Early Adopters want it

People like you come up all the time with how easy it is yet they fail to understand that if was as easy as you claim everyone would be doing it.

If you have all of the answers then by all means please show us how cheap and easy it and start up your 1Gb to the home service provider and show us all up.
intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15

intok (banned)

Member

Re: It isn't needed just because Early Adopters want it

The fact that it's being done by Muni networks.

The big boys are just greedy and lazy.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop

Member

Re: It isn't needed just because Early Adopters want it

"The big boys are just greedy and lazy."

I take it you have never run a real business before.
intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15

intok (banned)

Member

Re: It isn't needed just because Early Adopters want it

You act like you are an ISP, yet you sound like one of the paid posters hired by the guys you claim not to work for,

As stated, the munis are already doing it.

I take it you don't live or know anyone that lives/d in the areas affected by hurricane sandy where Verizon is ripping out their copper to gouge on cell service. You talk about putting up new lines in a new development, well most of that area was turned into a new development yet no new hardwire service, only oversold cellular that is wholly inadequate for pretty much everything other then Pandora and pulling down restaurant menus. Even if the network wasn't oversold and there was no data cap, the latency is terrible.

Or live where I do where your only option if you don't want to give any money to Time Warner or ATT is only 1/384 DSL service.

Theres money to be made everywhere, but people like you only want to cherry pick only the most profitable and milk it to death instead of getting with the times, hoping that the house of cards doesn't fall apart till the next guy takes over.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop

Member

Re: It isn't needed just because Early Adopters want it

"You act like you are an ISP, yet you sound like one of the paid posters hired by the guys you claim not to work for"

Yea, I think I've said a time or two that I work in the industry, just not for one of the mega huge providers.

"As stated, the munis are already doing it"

And as I stated they are doing it without the first bit of fiscal responsibility. When has the government ever been frugal with our money?

"I take it you don't live or know anyone that lives/d in the areas affected by hurricane sandy where Verizon is ripping out their copper to gouge on cell service."

You could not pay me enough to live in that hell hole part of the country.

" You talk about putting up new lines in a new development, well most of that area was turned into a new development yet no new hardwire service, only oversold cellular that is wholly inadequate for pretty much everything other then Pandora and pulling down restaurant menus. Even if the network wasn't oversold and there was no data cap, the latency is terrible."

Stop re-electing the officials that turn a blind eye to this.

"Or live where I do where your only option if you don't want to give any money to Time Warner or ATT is only 1/384 DSL service."

Support the locally owned and operated providers. Oh wait. Every one left them to save a couple of bucks or to get something that was slightly faster. Maybe look around for a WISP?

"Theres money to be made everywhere, but people like you only want to cherry pick only the most profitable and milk it to death instead of getting with the times, hoping that the house of cards doesn't fall apart till the next guy takes over."

It also does not grow on trees. You have to build out where people will pay for it then you take the profits from that area and build out more. Why would you build out in areas that are going to be a loss first?
intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15

intok (banned)

Member

Re: It isn't needed just because Early Adopters want it

Fiscal responsibility my ass, when the profits are going directly to the executives and shareholders instead of being reinvested in the company that is the definition of fiscal irresponsibility.

The munis are being far more fiscally responsible by actually building a better network at a lower cost.

Wisconsin's republicans have always been hostile to muni ISPs and it's near impossible to remove them from all of the hick districts since they've gerrymandered the districts.

We don't have any locally owned ISPs left, they all got bought out by ATT and there are no WISPs in the city. All there is is TDS Metrocom's slow ass DSL service any they can't upgrade the service because all the equipment is owned by ATT.

Wrong, when you have profits in the billions every year on a network that is falling apart and aren't building out a new network to get a higher return on your stock options is leaving future money on the table, but you don't care because, as I said, you'll be jumping out the window with your golden parachute long before the house of cards falls apart on you.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop

Member

Re: It isn't needed just because Early Adopters want it

"The munis are being far more fiscally responsible by actually building a better network at a lower cost."

Bullshit.... Just one of several examples. Ride around and find an EPB vehicle (power or fiber) and you will find that 9 times out of 10 that the vehicle has been idling while the employee is out of the vehicle working. I've had to baby sit 4 EPB installs for friends and family in the last 18 months. In EVERY case the tech was there for 3-4 hours and his Van idled the entire time. Tell me, is that being responsible or wasteful?
intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15

intok (banned)

Member

Re: It isn't needed just because Early Adopters want it

And? Anecdotal evidence much? I've seen the same thing from all manner of electric, cable, phone, delivery, construction. Doesn't mater, some people just leave the vehicle running and usually wonder where it's goner while they wherren't in it in a bad neighborhood.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop

Member

Re: It isn't needed just because Early Adopters want it

You don't find leaving an unoccupied vehicle for hours wasteful?
intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15

intok (banned)

Member

Re: It isn't needed just because Early Adopters want it

It's a strawman you are trying to use to try and change the subject from the fact that the major ISPs are failing miserably at their jobs.
54761437 (banned)
join:2013-01-18
Durham, NC

54761437 (banned) to intok

Member

to intok
Yeah, it's funny, isn't it? The rationale for not deploying fiber is that customers don't need it. This completely ignores the future of 4K video streaming, operating systems in the cloud, 1080p video conferencing without compression artifacts, etc. And from the ISP's perspective, the real boon in fiber lies in convergence. Seems stupid for cable companies to keep dragging along 30 year old plant, refusing to upgrade anything in smaller markets as their 75MHz spectrum is overcrowded by analog television channels. Instead of jerking around with SDV and this DOCSIS nonsense, they could provide everything over one pipe with plenty of bandwidth to spare (a la Verizon FiOS). Yes, the buildout is expensive, but it's a long term strategy. Don't ISPs know what ROI is anymore? Jesus Christ. The blind ignorance on display from both MSO/telecom executives AND some members here is staggering.

PapaMidnight
join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD

PapaMidnight to battleop

Member

to battleop
If the culture of Comcast's Customer Service was to actually help people rather than chastise and cast out those who do strive to do so when they join their C.S. team, it might improve their public perception - but that's just my opinion.

...and that's Comcastic.

Jammy
Premium Member
join:2000-11-03
Pittsburg, CA

Jammy to battleop

Premium Member

to battleop
I now get 50Gb from Comcast here in Bay Point, CA. I have been around for a long time and the speed wars have always been there. I had Cox while loving in San Diego for several years and as long as my computers were running that was all I cared about. The same up here in No. CA. Comcast is kinda good up here. Most always on time. I called them yesterday and had my speed upped to 60Gb I cannot notice any change yet. And I do not care! Comcast has been good to me so I just move on.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop

Member

Re: It isn't needed just because Early Adopters want it

"Comcast has been good to me so I just move on."

I don't know how Comcast is organized but their offerings and quality can vary from market to market. This year we started to allow customers to BYOB for their voice connections. There are some markets that are a nightmare for voice and some that are perfect. There are some markets that offer a private all fiber vlan network and others that don't. Some markets will allow wholesale, some won't.
shmerl
join:2013-10-21

1 edit

shmerl to EarlyAdopter

Member

to EarlyAdopter
This is wrong. Better technologies can be enabled if better network is available. Think of booting a whole OS from network in a matter of seconds. Current users can't even "need" it because it's not possible, but would it be possible, many would use it. It's like saying that building a spaceship is pointless, since no one needs to do anything in space, since everyone is happily riding horses.

••••••

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK to EarlyAdopter

Premium Member

to EarlyAdopter
It's not a question of capital improvement dollars. It is however a question of dollars to the bottom line. Since competition doesn't warrant spending money on upgrades, they don't. When it does, they will, but gripe about it. Since competition is very limited in most markets, this is the state we are in.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

1 recommendation

battleop

Member

What applications REQUIRE 1Gb today or anytime soon?

What is it that REQURES 1Gb for the normal user (if you are reading this you are likely not a normal user) today or in the next 5 years?

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

buzz_4_20
join:2003-09-20
Dover, NH
(Software) Sophos UTM Home Edition
Ruckus R310

buzz_4_20

Member

Most Consumers

Most People, even geeky early adopters have a price limit on services.

Current pricing keeps most users at the Standard or slightly above standard service level.
It has just about nothing to do with speed.

If they offered Gigabit service at $100 a month, people would question why 20/1 is $50, and they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

The 3 ways to increase speeds overall are as follows:
1. Majority of Customers buying highest level of service - Demand
2. Competition
3. A need arises for much faster internet that the ISP needs to service to meet consumer demand.

The problems.
1. Consumers can't afford this
2. ISPs are fighting tooth and nail against this
3. Cloud services need more bandwidth, but not enough to spur growth.
BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN

1 edit

BlueC

Member

Realistic Demand

Even @ $70/month (e.g. Google Fiber), that is more than what a lot of consumers want to spend on internet access.

It has nothing to do with people not wanting 1gbps, it's just they'd rather pay less for something that will still get the job done. $35-45/month seems like the sweet spot for most consumers, from my experience.

I can almost guarantee if you offered 100mbps/100mbps for $40/mo and 1000mbps/1000mbps for $70/mo, most people would take 100mbps.

It's why I still question the push for 1gbps service, when most consumers simply want cost-effective service. However, there is nothing wrong with constructing 1gbps-capable infrastructure and offering a cost-effective 100mbps. You can always offer 1gbps as a premium or simply offer it down the road. I still find most users cannot fully utilize 100mbps (strictly by CPE and/or online habits).

•••••
SunnyD
join:2009-03-20
Madison, AL

1 recommendation

SunnyD

Member

"As I understand it, fire is basically a science experiment..."

... Said one caveman to another. "I have no doubt that there will come a day that fire will become necessary in our daily lives, but I'm not sure that day is here yet."

But the question becomes, "If it's possible, why wait? INNOVATE."

Probitas
@teksavvy.com

Probitas

Anon

If customers want something

then the market MUST evolve. The reason they are in business is to provide a wanted service, not necessarily a needed one. They've gotten too big for their own pants and Google is just pointing that out. Who cares about need if someone wants to pay for it? STUPID!
jorcmg
join:2002-10-24
USA

jorcmg

Member

Re: If customers want something

The purpose of a business is to create a customer.

And if you want 1 gig symmetrical service you can have it. So long as you are willing and ABLE to pay for it.

Astyanax
Premium Member
join:2002-11-14
Melbourne, FL
·AT&T FTTP

Astyanax to Probitas

Premium Member

to Probitas
Google has so much money they can afford to not care if anyone actually wants to pay for it. They can afford these aptly-described "science experiments" of theirs and never consider actual customer demand. Eventually a grown-up in accounting is going to say "playtime is over" and send the geeks to bed.
majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Medford, NY

majortom1029

Member

argh

Cable cant give 1 gigabits because each node has 250 or so houses on it. That 1 gigabit to 10 gigabits is for the whole node to share. Ftth only has about 32 homes on each node so it can offer faster speeds before things slow down.
TBBroadband
join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH

TBBroadband

Member

Re: argh

MSOs can easily upgrade. They can put in RFoG, and already have massive amounts of fiber deep within neighborhoods. They can push it out faster and quicker than Google.

gatorkram
Need for Speed
Premium Member
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC

gatorkram

Premium Member

Hmmm

If we can't all get it, how on earth can anyone even start to argue if we "need" it or not? How could you know? We know people "want" it, but to measure if we "need" it, I'd say we don't have enough people WITH it to know if its needed.

If no one builds it, we will never know, build it, and in ten years, tell me if you think we need it now.

Its hard to need something you never had, but you can sure want it.

Super Marcel
@responsys.com

Super Marcel

Anon

What we need is muni owned last mile networks

and then we can let the competition provide service over that last mile fiber optic line. Then, we can really figure out what the market will want to pay in terms of $/MBps.

••••

Twaddle
@charter.com

Twaddle

Anon

Innovate or continue to gouge

As much as I'd LOVE a 1Gbps service I'd much rather have a rock solid 100 Mbit service that would be 80-90% utilized ALL the time UP and down streams. What good is the fastest Service technically available if its so unreliable and so expensive its useless. Then there are those that support the stance of this is all we will offer you, take it or leave it and they can do it because there is nothing else to go to compliments of monopolies that have been created thanks to the whoring out of votes by the lobbyist/whore-mongers in Washington and State levels. I'd say make sure there is a stable excellent 100 Mbit solution at a pricepoint that people can afford and those who want 1Gbps service can pay the premium for it and the infrastructure that will support it.
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY

tmc8080

Member

every consumer knows the deal..

consumers get the short end of the stick time and again.. we STILL don't have 100 megabits widely available and affordable by the majority of broadband consumers and this fault can squarely be laid at the major providers themselves who scoffed at deploying robust networks and slowed down deployment of new technologies such as fiber and docsis to the last mile.

yet another year goes by and the vast MAJORITY of the improvements have been in the northeast and other major cities (and just about no place else outside of a google fiber deployment).
davidhoffman
Premium Member
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA

davidhoffman

Premium Member

Re: every consumer knows the deal..

There are some smaller cooperative electric companies and telephone companies, who have been able to get FTTH or FTTP done. They do not offer 1Gbps today, but they have the basic fiber optic cables in place to do so. Compared to the dialup or ADSL they had previously, 10Mbps symmetrical is a wonderful level of service for most of their subscribers.
Hanko
join:2001-12-28
Eatonville, WA

Hanko

Member

The need will come.

Let me say up front that I am an old fart who started working with computers in 1972. Back then 300 baud was state of the art. We ran most everything on BBS's. No one needed 19.2K baud let alone 56K.

Then the internet came along and suddenly 56K was needed. Along came audio files and then image rich web pages. Suddenly 56K was feeling pretty slow. But no one needed 1.5Mb.

Forward to video images being displayed via the internet and now 1.5Mb is getting pretty slow especially if you have more than one machine in your house. Still no one needed 20Mbit.

Along come netflix and xbox's and...and still no one needs Gigabit..... see where this is going.

We never need it until the technology comes along that utilizes it but without it the tech will not materialize. How many of us on here would be happy going back to 56K dialup?? After all you don't really need highspeed to receive text e-mails now do you.

The tired old arguments that we don't need Gigabit are just that old and tired. Of which I am not yet tired.....old maybe.....but I look forward to getting higher speeds and the new things that it delivers.

•••••••

TWC_User
join:2013-07-31
Los Angeles

TWC_User

Member

I just want a decent connection for an affordable price.

I don't mind if they don't provide gigabit internet, but atleast I want something like 100mbps for under $30. Why can't U.S. do it when other countries like Japan and Korea can do it?

•••

TheTechGuru
join:2004-03-25
TEXAS

1 recommendation

TheTechGuru

Member

Time Is Money

In today's business world "TIME IS MONEY" and the faster you can get files moved as needed the more that you can get done in a allotted amount of time.

Mattthe
@charter.com

Mattthe

Anon

need for speed

I have 15Mbps right now. I'm getting upgraded to 30, but after about 8Mbps I quit noticing a difference. Sure a large file downloads faster, but I only do that about a couple times a week and maybe save 30 seconds. I still mostly just do browsing and hardly ever have full screen HD video...I've got too much other stuff to do. I use maybe 20 GB a month in transfer. I'd much rather pay $25/mo for 10Mbps than $75 for 50Mbps.

My cable company took away the slower speeds and only offers 30 and 100... because "people demand it". Ok fine... but I don't need that much...and its not worth $58/month for 30 for me.

But there really is no cheaper alternative here... that why dial up hasn't died. Make a 5Mbps for $15 and dialup will disappear.
intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15

intok (banned)

Member

Re: need for speed

consider yourself in the minority then, given the speed most people will find a use for it once they realize what that speed can do.

A hundred years ago you probably couldn't conceive a reason why you'd want a phone line in your house when a postal service, telegraph and singing telegram where already available, till you had one.

mattthe
@charter.com

mattthe

Anon

Re: need for speed

Well...I was in college back in 1999 with a high speed connection that would top out at about 5 Mbps. I watched full screen video, surfed the net, found music, video conferenced. Back then, most people were on dialup. Internet was free with my room, cable TV was $45/mo. I learned to live without cable. I moved off campus in 2003 and got my cable modem with 384 kbps, over the years they kept bumping up the speed and pretty much kept the same price. 3Mbps, 5Mbps, 8Mbps, 12Mbps, 15Mbps, and now 30Mpbs. Getting bumped to 3 and 5 were a big change, 8 and 12 were a little noticeable, and the jump from 15 to 30 I didn't notice any change at all. I'm guessing if someone isn't a gamer, or don't have 3+ people streaming movies, its not going to make much of a difference. I have a bandwidth monitor and surfing the net it barely goes over 3Mpbs. Big files, I just start the download and go back to doing something else.

Its like a car dealer offering a Porsche and nothing else. You can pay for it and get really high performance, but if you are just going to use it to get groceries, its a bit pointless. But then the dealer sells you on the "everyone wants this car, and thinks its awesome", even though you know its more than you really need.

anonome
@verizon.net

anonome

Anon

Those who can, do...

those who can't, explain why you don't really need it.