Grande Offers 1 Gbps for $65 in Austin
by Karl Bode 02:34PM Monday Feb 10 2014 Tipped by iansltx
On the heels of Google announcing plans for Google Fiber in Austin, AT&T announced 1 Gbps plans of their own -- though those 1 Gbps connections only currently operate at 300 Mbps
, and users need to agree to AT&T deep packet inspection
to see the $70 price point. Grande Communications is now trying to one up both Google Fiber and AT&T, offering Austin users 1 Gbps connections for about $65 per month without a contract
The new faster speeds will be available to around a quarter of Grande's existing Austin customers, making Grande the first company to actually offer 1 Gbps in Austin. From the Austin American Statesman
The service will initially be available to about a quarter of the 75,000 homes and businesses in the Austin area that are wired for Grande’s service, including the Belmont, Rosedale, Bryker Woods, Pemberton Heights, Tarrytown, Oakmont Heights and Old Enfield neighborhoods. It’d be “a home run,” Murphy said, if just 10 percent of customers take advantage of the 1-gigabit offering.
Apparently you won't have to agree to deep-packet inspection and snoopvertising to get that $65 price point, which drops lower if bundled with additional services. As we noted last week
, Grande recently upped speeds and dropped prices for most of the company's customers.
| |firephotoWe the peoplePremium
said by silbaco:Would that be the AT&T that is not a provider here (i am in the nation btw)? Maybe Verizon that isn't here? Comcast, nope. Charter, nope. Time Warner, nope.
They clearly have no intention of ever becoming a national provider.
Are there actually any national providers, my casual research says no.
And to clarify, provider of the internet, not walled internet likeness.
Say no to those that inadvertently make false representations.
Santa Monica, CA
·Time Warner Cable
Re: Can't Be! Nope. Shareholders are the greatest source of that investment capital. They don't hold it up, they enable it. The quarterly filing simply means that the company is more closely scrutinized.
Privately held firms are simply able to take greater risks, including those which imperil the future, the very existence of the company. I don't know, in the case of Grande - this appears to be a small cherry-picked market segment, so they might be able to absorb a loss, but again, Moody's doesn't seem to approve.
Again, it doesn't bother me either way. If they go belly-up, the fire-sale will generally result in cheap assets for whoever takes over, which artificially lowers the cost to the consumer, at nominal cost to the treasury and the bondholders who believed in them.
If they profit, selling $65 FTTH against Google and AT&T, that's fantastic, more power to them.