| |skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
Re: Oh how sweet of you Comcast.... Then don't buy it.
Re: Oh how sweet of you Comcast.... Is it actually MAE, or is it delivered via DOCSIS on the HFC plant? Haven't seen a definitive answer one way or the other on this. If it's the former then it's an incredible deal. I would not personally be willing to pay for it, but you'd still be hard pressed to top it for value.
Re: Oh how sweet of you Comcast.... Are they charging for build out costs? If they aren't it's an even sweeter dealer...
it's a start.. to the end of all caps Comcast competes in part of the same geographies as FIOS, so not only are they $100 more, but the cap would've made it even more of a non-starter.. or at least put the icing on the cake of a racketeering / price collusion case against Comcast and Verizon.
Re: it's a start.. to the end of all caps
said by tmc8080:There is no legal requirement to compete aggressively across-the-board. It is perfectly legal to decline to compete.
Comcast competes in part of the same geographies as FIOS, so not only are they $100 more, but the cap would've made it even more of a non-starter.. or at least put the icing on the cake of a racketeering / price collusion case against Comcast and Verizon.
It is not price collusion to sell products at a higher price than your competitor. It is also not price collusion if your competitor raise prices and then you match those higher prices -- so long as this was done independently, on the basis of public information or competitive intelligence.
Collusion requires some sort of agreement. For example, you are not allowed to get together and agree to set prices in a certain way. You're also not allowed to tell your competitor of price increases through a non-public channel, because this implies that you're expecting them to do something about it.
Re: But if the Network was so congested.....
said by Os:Umm, you've got this completely backwards. The number of bits does not really matter, but the bit-rate does matter. All things being equal, a customer with a higher peak bit-rate requires greater infrastructure investment than a customer with a lower peak bit-rate, even if they both move the same amount of bits in a billing cycle. The low bit-rate customer is less likely to interfere with his neighbors, hence less likely to compel the ISP to upgrade their infrastructure in order to deliver an acceptable level of service.
But the number of GB is what matters to what travels over the network, not the speed. Sure, they're getting it faster.
But 250GB is 250GB, to use the old number. While it may move faster on a 305Mbps connection, it doesn't degrade the network any more.
Re: But if the Network was so congested..... Because Comcast can't get $500 from said customers for an installation, plus $300 per month
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
Re: But if the Network was so congested..... They don't have intermediate tiers, and they're doing everything as cheaply as humanly possible. Oh, and they can take an initial loss while things spin up, since access isn't their core business.
Don't get me wrong, Google Fiber is awesome. However it shouldn't be the benchmark to which every ISP in the world should be held accountable.
| |antdudeA Ninja AntPremium,VIP
Re: FOR Now!!!
said by ASDFSADF :Like tomorrow.
For Now could be very soon:) LOL!!!