 
EL_TB
join:2003-05-03
Fairfax, VA | Lower prices They could lower prices...... | |
|
 | 
RedXII1234
Premium,Mod
join:2001-02-26
localhost | Re: Lower prices Verizon can lower their price for ADSL all they want but that won't make it any better (faster) than what I have now with cable. | |
|
| | 
BillTager
join:2000-09-20
Charlotte, NC
| Re: Lower prices I think he was talking about cable companies lowering prices to compete with telcos.
But the only way I'd go back to DSL is if I could get a naked pair and not be raped for it. I've had no use for a home phone in over 4 years.
--
Formerly DSLWho | |
|
| | 
Derch
Premium
join:2004-10-16
Tulsa, OK | You and about half of us cable users are power users. But for the average Joe, $15 looks better than $39+ for a monthly fee. | |
|
| | | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Lower prices I can get that $15 unbundled (makes it more like $29 after adding dialtone).
Cable HSI starts at $42.95 (+taxes/fees) bundled and goes up to $56.95 unbundled.
I need reliability/consistancy more than 6 or 8Mbps. | |
|
| | | | 
schmol
join:2001-12-26
Windsor, PA
| Re: Lower prices said by en102  :I can get that $15 unbundled (makes it more like $29 after adding dialtone). Cable HSI starts at $42.95 (+taxes/fees) bundled and goes up to $56.95 unbundled. I need reliability/consistancy more than 6 or 8Mbps. Don't forget, if yopu don't have their cable service, they will add more to your broadband bill. Well, that's what Comcrap does. | |
|
| | | | | 
CableTool
Poorly Representing MYSELF.
Premium
join:2004-11-12 | Re: Lower prices Or if you DO have their video service they will DISCOUNT your HSI service.  | |
|
| | ashworth
join:2001-10-06
Pittsburgh, PA | VZ DSL for 14.95/yr with online signup or 17.99 otherwise. Cable will not come down to serve the lower tier customer.
Reg VZ DSL in my area 29.95 for 3/768, which is comparable to the cable in the area 4/256, go figure. | |
|
| |
| | flankspeed8
join:2001-07-20
Saint Paul, MN
clubs:
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Lower prices Please tell me how cable is any less a monopoly than the telcos? In fact, at least the telcos have competition with CLEC's selling DSL. How many cable companies have opened up their networks? It is the cable companies that are the bad guys here. At least Verizon is spurring competition by spending 10 BILLION DOLLARS over the next couple of years. | |
|
| | | 
T1 Rocky
join:2002-11-15
Dallas, TX
·Time Warner Telecom
 ·ygnitionnet
edit:
May 11th, @06:08PM
| Re: Lower prices Your not getting it. The cable companies are the ones who will be extinct in 3 years. Then you have no competition. Thus no alternatives. Thus higher bills.
The phone companies were forced to "open up" their networks. Ask anyone who has ever sold ADSL or SDSL how open it is. You can usually find them in other industries now. When was the last time you heard/saw an ad for an internet service provider besides a telco or a cable company? Can you name a local ISP in your town? Can you name an ISP in the US besides AOL and earthlink?
The 10 BILLION dollars that they are going to spend is money YOU GAVE THEM AS A TAX PAYER!!!!! Look at your phone bill and when you see "rural such and such fee" that is money they take from you over the last 10 years, regardless of if you have internet access or not, to build out their networks. Check this out »www.techdirt.com/articles/200601···_F.shtml
How do they do that? Lobbyist money. They go to their buddy in the senator, give him 3 million dollars and say, "you know, if everyone in America gave us $2.50 per month, we could really build out a cool network alot faster." Then legislation is passed so that the poor telcos have to collect an extra $2.50 per month from every American on their phone bill. That money does not go to the government, it stays with the telco. | |
|
| | Jamuka
join:2005-06-06
| said by T1 Rocky :HELL NO! The short term is that we save money while AT&T/Verizon etc pummel the cable companies for the next 2 years. Then when they have wiped out that industry, where's the competition? Then what happens to prices? Stick with the cable companies! Pay now or pay alot more later. The ILECS have wiped out ALL competition in ISP, SDSL and ADSL markets. All that is left are the cable companies, satelite and hundereds of very smail wireless internet providers. So what are you saying, we should all stick with cable so that the telcos disappear and in the process forming a monopoly of their own? That is basically what you are suggesting should happen.
This is what competition is. Multiple companies vying for the consumer's dollar. Verizon is funneling tons of money into FIOS which is really no different than cable, i.e. their own private pipe. I could say the same of Comcast, "Why is my internet bill now $200 per month instead of the $45 I was paying before" can I not?
Its capitalism. The problem comes in when everything starts getting regulaated to death by those who are on the take and don't know anything about what is going on, translation - politicians. | |
|
| | | viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
 ·Qwest.net
| Re: Lower prices I would also point out that the telcos are still pretty heavily regulated, while every other inter-modal competitor is unregulated, including cable. So don't go cryin' about the demise of cable. If that happens, the cable co's have no-one but themselves to blame. | |
|
| | | 
truedalife
join:2003-01-10
Brooklyn, MD
| Sometimes unfair competition can hurt other business. Just like the Telcos are doing. It's hard on Cavalier telephone to fairly compete when the Telcos keep undercutting prices, while controlling most of the nations pipelines and phone switching stations.
The Telcos own a lot of the broadband pipe for the internet and have the most hubs (switching stations) where the public telephone lines are connected from other providers wanting to run phone service. The Telcos charge fees for the use of these hubs and charge ISP's for the use of there broadband pipes. So they have a unfair advantage here. They don't have to pay any of these fees.
It's just like Walmart when they come to town. They price there stores so low, with cheap goods they contract someone in China to make for them via cheap labor. The small retail store doesn't have that buying power like Wally-world has. So the mom & pop store can't survive and a whole community watches the local businesses fold up like domino's.
I love reading about townships that won't allow Walmart to set up shop. These folks in these little towns are preserving and protecting the true real American economy. And that's the small business man, people.
Just another red-lined Americans two cents, that's all.
My Quote for the day: "From the poor white trailer parks trash, to the welfare infested Ghetto's......Let FIOS freedom ring!" -----> "NOT!"
| |
|
| | | | BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: Lower prices You do realize that is against the law what you "think" the telcos are doing right ? There is a reason why verizon verizon on line and verizon wireless are separate companies.
Verizon broadband is a sub company of verizon themselves. Verizon owns the pipes. Verizon on line leases them from verizon and every other provider can lease them from verizon to.
Verizon's complaint was they were being forced to sell the lines to competitors for cheaper then it was charging its own sub company.
Kind of weird eh ?
And on the Walmart part blame yourself and all your friends who want more money in their pocket for other things like the huge escalades. People are so short sighted to blame the company when in all reality it is us the people who are greedy and wanting more for less.
Walmart and others feed a need , a need for cheap goods. If the need was gone so would Walmart be. But greed stops that from happening. Don't be so holy. You cant blame people in a GLOBAL market for driving a local business under.
Don't like it you and all your friends start buying from local shops. Can you do it ? Can they do it ? I know I tried and it made a huge difference at the end of a month.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
|
| | 
gheezer
Compooters R Us
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY
| said by T1 Rocky :HELL NO! Are we all freekin idiots? The monopoly is restored. Verizon has funneled $90 million into lobbyists over the last 5 years. Let me say it again - 90 MILLION FREEKIN DOLLARS!!!!!! Do you think that those dollars went towards encouraging competition? The short term is that we save money while AT&T/Verizon etc pummel the cable companies for the next 2 years. Then when they have wiped out that industry, where's the competition? Then what happens to prices? In 3 years your going to be posting in this same forum asking, "how come my internet bill to AT&T is $200 per month?" Stick with the cable companies! Pay now or pay alot more later. The ILECS have wiped out ALL competition in ISP, SDSL and ADSL markets. All that is left are the cable companies, satelite and hundereds of very smail wireless internet providers. Don't expect an UNBIASED news story from this site.
I posted this earlier today:
»www.cedmagazine.com/article/CA6333193.html
Connecticut has crumbled to AT&T lobbying efforts. IPTV is now classified as a data service. The Cable company is crippled now in Connecticut. Just a matter of time before the same classification hits all your states.
The "Pundits" here, don't consider this a newsworthy article.
I think I will stop posting here. Forever. Karl and Justin are in bed with SBC/AT&T/Verizon and Qwest.
Bullshit walks dudes. Bias doesn't cut it. But hey....it's you're site.
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water! | |
|
| 
rachelsfx
join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL | Like FoxNews, this guy is so Fair & Imbalanced it makes me sick! ROFLMAO!
-Rach | |
|
| 
91439306
15,000 Watts of Bass Power
join:2002-10-16
New Milford, CT | For me, switching to DSL was a slam dunk. 3/256 for $51.99 with Cable, or 6/768 for $29.99 with DSL. No effort to make that decision.  | |
|
kljsgih
@optonline.net | look at the source.... no biased information ever comming from a website called telephony online | |
|
| 
Minister
join:2002-01-02
Fleeting | Re: look at the source.... One day, one of this sites "teh bias!1!" kids will support a bias claim with actual fact, and the very fabric of the universe will hemorrhage. | |
|
| |
kljsgih
@optonline.net
| Re: look at the source.... statistics arent facts, that website claims telecos are winning but i see no real numbers up there. ohh the sweet speed of cruising at verizons 768 Kbps/128 Kbps DSL! verizon need all the subscribers they can get to make investors happy about taking it up the stinker with fios deployments. i think it would be funny when their cheap DSL competes with high speed fios. cablevision isnt any better, only increasing speeds where fios is deployed, wtf. these companies dont care about equal consumer rights, they would rather fire thousands of employees then decrease their million dollar executive bonuses. they wax your shoes outside and as soon as you get inside its filled with sh*t and they already locked the door to get out. take me back dial up!!!!!!! | |
|
Rob A
Jets 19 - Steelers 16
Premium
join:2005-01-17
Pompton Plains, NJ | It's all about price Most users on the net don't need very high speeds which is why the 14.95/month 768Kbps dsl is so popular. This is no surprise, DSL will definitely pass up cable. | |
|
kenyg
join:2001-02-09
Hatboro, PA | telco/cable yes - I got 3 older folk to sign up for the $14.95 768k dsl. They had been paying $20 something for AOL 56k. Was a no-brainer.
the more competition the better.
--
aye aye captain! | |
|
| Techman21
join:2005-04-14
Richmond, VA
| Re: telco/cable You're not looking at the big picture though. No one seems to be looking past their noses. If this little squabble bothers you then you need to be reading about net neutrality. We're all about to be rail roaded by the telcos and cable companies and non are going to be the wiser until after the dust has settled and its too late.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality | |
|
ITALIAN926
join:2003-08-16
Stratford, CT
| .. Oh my god the INSANITY !!!! People, neither the cable companies or the telco's arent going anywhere. Neither are going to DIE. There isnt gonna be a WINNER to this war. The cable co's currently have the upper hand in the short term... especially when they start selling cell service with Sprint. The telco's fiber plan will even things out in the long run. Expect each to have a 49% share of the market when its all over We'll give Satellite 2% | |
|
|
| Zorglub
join:2000-11-18
Fremont, CA | Re: Define "winning" The consumer... | |
|
anonposter
@optonline.net
moderated:
May 10th, @07:16PM
| Mountains Too bad that mountains of debt are going to keep the telcos from their great plans. They are not going to lower prices and consumers are not going to get a better priced product. | |
|
| ITALIAN926
join:2003-08-16
Stratford, CT | Re: Mountains Yea, thats just SO OBVIOUS. Wake up and look at the lower prices already ! DSL speeds have increased and prices have decreased... A LOT.
I Love when people pop in with idiotic statements haha | |
|
Anemone1
join:2005-07-26
Billerica, MA
| Cable bills I look at that cable bill every month, and here's a hint, I'm not exactly thinking "oh thank god for competition". Frankly the cableco's are like the band on the Titanic, playing for every last minute. The difference between them and that band is that they are actually bending us over the table while they play their instruments... | |
|
| Magic3
join:2005-11-30 | Re: Cable bills how, exactly, are the cable companies a sinking ship? last i heard several of the major players were posting record breaking profit margins for the last few quarters. sounds like things are "floating" right along to me. | |
|
|
| beedubaya
join:2004-11-30
Arkansas
| Re: DSL vs Cable Telcos just look more attractive to the grandmas and grandpas still using AOL dial-up and are not savvy with computers at all. To them, as long as its faster than dial-up, they dont care, so they go on price. You have to admit, most of America is computer illiterate, and to those people DSL is just more attractive. Cable companies could start having better "value" tiers to compete with the telcos, but they dont do that because they would lose a lot of customers off their higher speed tiers who would just want cheaper internet. | |
|
| 
fgrir
join:2005-04-15
Indianapolis, IN
| said by Tzale :$14.95/month for 768/128 VS $45.95/month for 15,000/2,000? Which is better? If you are the type of person who only likes to check his mail, and wants an always on connection, the $14.95/month DSL deal from Verizon is CHEAPER in some cases than dialup. Real "broadband" like cable, which provides much more bandwidth, also costs more. So only people who really want it will get it. Cable is clearly the winner if you count "21st century broadband." If you count 1990's broadband as "broadband" then DSL will clearly win. -Tzale You don't have a clue ? your talking about. I have cable @ home and dsl is @ my mothers house, I have shared the 1.5 meg connection with three people @ the same time and still couldn't tell the difference between that or my 7 meg line @ home. I'v had lots of experience w/both types and unless your a very heavy power user you would be an idiot to pay that kind of money to get on the internet if both are available. The comment "real broadband" just means a shared high speed connection, Most dsl is "high speed internet" which is superior to broadband because it isn't shared until it hits a fiber backbone. Where is this 15000/2000 speeds? You must be thinking of fios, Upload speeds w/cable suck. There both good internet but saying cable is so much better is just plain ignorant. | |
|
| | |
| | | 
Steve Mehs
Go Sabres
join:2005-07-16
| Re: DSL vs Cable I agree, DSL is for lower end budget subscribers and cable for higher end subs. Comparing the two major broadband players here, from Fall 2004 to Fall 2005 Verizon DSL went from 1.5MB to 3MB for $29.95 while Road Runner is $39.95 (for cable TV customers) and went from 3MB to 7MB. I have Road Runner Premium at 8MB, and it think that's too damn slow, I can't imagine going back to 3MB. 768K for $14.95 is a complete joke to me, I’d pay Verizon $14.95 a month just to stop sending me their crap in the mail.
Telcos can lower the price of DSL all they want, but I'd rather have the increase in speed rather then a lower monthly bill. I can't wait until Time Warner goes 15MB here for RR Premium. | |
|
RR Conductor
'Boarrrd
Premium
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA
edit:
May 11th, @04:52AM
| Cable still wins in coverage At least in rural Northern California, cable broadband is much more available than DSL. Our CO isn't even DSL equipped, and there are no RT's anywhere around, but we are crusing along at 6100/850 on Adelphia (soon to be Comcast here) HSI. | |
|
spepper
join:2003-11-09
USA
| but not if they..... but not if they don't take advantage of their access to existing infrastructure to put broadband connections available to "other than" the top metro markets-- if you add up the line mileage that is in place in "flyover" country, it is MUCH MORE that those "top" markets-- sure, those markets create "buzz" and word of mouth advertising their services, but it tends to be self-restricting to within those same market areas-- you gotta "build it before they will come" -- and make that broadband accessible in the massive "flyover country"! | |
|
houghe92
join:2001-12-23
Norfolk, VA
| content i think the big difference is in the content we are trying to receive. grandma and grampa arent going to turn off wheel of fortune to watch xmen on thier computers. i read this site all of the time and it is great when people try to justify how much speed one really needs...it comes in sentances like (unless your dloading something illegal you dont need it to be that fast)
well I need it that fast! i want whatever i want and i want it now! if i want to watch video clips of a monkey falling out of a tree after he smelled the fingers from his butt while making my phone calls with vonage and at the same time downloading music for my ipod i need the fastest service i can get. if the cable companies can do all of that for me for 49.99 a month then i will pay for it.
Lower tiers are good and will most likely pick up the few remaining people on dialup. grandma and grampa for example but this will inflate thier numbers just a bit because a majority of those people would never want 15mbit anyway.
i guess my point is once people start to experience the content it will be the determining factor as to what service they choose.
i could have sworn that i read somewhere that the telcos want to start charging the content providers too? oh! where do i sign up to make that happen... | |
|
|
Steve Mehs
Go Sabres
join:2005-07-16
| Re: content quote:
i read this site all of the time and it is great when people try to justify how much speed one really needs...it comes in sentances like (unless your dloading something illegal you dont need it to be that fast)
I know. It's ridiculous, how the hell does anyone know or don't know what I want and do online? sometimes I wonder why broadband is even popular at all, I mean wasn’t a transfer rate of 5kbps good enough?
I downloaded the first season of Surface off of iTunes. 15 episodes, 2.92GB in size total, took 90 minutes exactly, I mean exactly to within 5 seconds. Way too long, sure a gig every half an hour is better then nothing, but at max speed, my ideal connection would be 1GB every 10-15 minutes. If my area ever gets the 15/2 Road Runner Premium increase, I’ll be pretty damn close. | |
|
CableTool
Poorly Representing MYSELF.
Premium
join:2004-11-12
| The Numbers Speak Verizon and others are moving pretty dam slow in their roll out. As tenacious as all the news reports make them sound they arent even making any noticable dent. I dont see the next 7-8 months being the WHIRLWIND of revenue that will turn those numbers around.
Comcast alone posted triple the numbers they did at the close of first quarter last year and this was the first real quarter where Verizon and other broadband/video competition allegedly "put their feet to the coals"
quote:
Comcast (NASDAQ: CMCSA, CMCSK) earned $466 million, or 22 cents per fully diluted share, in the first quarter, up from $143 million, or 6 cents per fully diluted share in the first quarter of 2005.
So if a cable company posting RECORD PROFITS is them being "JUST KILLED" by the telcos.. I think I would start looking elsewhere for an unbiased comparison.
Do I trust a sight called TELEPHONY ONLINE when looking for reports on TELCOs DOMINANCE? Not really. As much as I wouldnt trust Comcast or Cox or any other to report on their own dominance.
--
*´*)
¸.•´¸.•*') ¸.•*.
(¸.•´ (¸.•'
Technicians -Unplugged | |
|
udontkno
@comcast.net
| Cable Future DOCSIS 2.0 with 256 QAM downstream and 16 QAM upstream will allow up speeds up to 30M Down/6M UP and 30M Down/4M up with a QPSK upstream.
DOCSIS 3.0 will allow speeds up to 100M Down/30M Up
The QPSK upstream speeds were tested from our offices in SE PA. The problem is maintaining a noise free HFC and keeping customer's modems below 50db return. So as much as the cable industry would like to increase speeds right away, it is not possible due to system designs without a complete rebuild. In any case, most of SE PA will be 16 QAM 15M/2M from QPSK 8M/768K by the end of the year with no "real" price increase. The combination of triple play and soon quad play should make things interesting. | |
|
|
|
|
Telcos 'Just Killing' Cable
·
DSL vs Cable