Time Warner Makes Feeble Attempt to Counter Google Fiber Buzz

AT&T and Verizon lose customers because they can't offer a competitive Triple Play product, with the exception of course of those areas lucky enough to have FIOS/U-Verse. Most people need (or think they need) TV, and cable is the preferred choice over satellite for most consumers who have access to it.

Few very non-techie folks actually purchase their internet connections based on promised speed. For most it's the perceived ease of a unified bill, combined with the perceived PITA of switching providers, even when a better product is available.

Any "bundled" services are just a ploy to raise your bill, not to save you money.

When service providers bump your bill by $10 or $15 a month just because you only have a single service, its highly suspect as to why.

Also, with many markets being stuck on old copper DSL lines, and those speeds being abysmal and they are still paying $40 or more a month for it

hell, I pay $90 for internet per month now, I would happily pay $70 to get a hell of a lot more speed.

Also, TWCs lowest offer in the area, besides the "low income" one that no one will qualify for is 3 mbps down and 1mbps upload speed for $20 a month plus "fees and taxes", which comes out to a whopping $33 per month with modem rental. The "free" google tier is $25 per month, and its a symmetrical 5mbps plan. You tell me, which sounds better?

Economy of scale is one reason, it costs the same to maintain your connection to the network regardless of how many services you have, so single service customers have a lower ROI than bundled ones. Of course, "because we can" is the other reason.

Where do you live that "abysmal" DSL speeds are being sold for $40/mo? Most of the people who have what I would consider "abysmal" (<=1.5mbit/s) connections are in the $20 to $30 range, with both Frontier and Verizon. I have no direct experience with AT&T (thank god), so perhaps they are the provider you're referring to?

You're in the minority. Most people will not pay $90/mo for internet service. Hell, I couldn't afford it even if I was willing to pay for it.

It's a no brainer if you live in KC. Alas, this is just a play thing for Google, and nobody outside of KC is ever going to see it. Google is not going to get into the last mile business nationwide.

Even if they did, I'd start to worry about anti-trust implications, because that kind of vertical integration ought to scare the hell out of anybody. Of course, so should Comcast and NBC, and nobody said anything about that...

Where do you live that "abysmal" DSL speeds are being sold for $40/mo? Most of the people who have what I would consider "abysmal" (<=1.5mbit/s) connections are in the $20 to $30 range, with both Frontier and Verizon. I have no direct experience with AT&T (thank god), so perhaps they are the provider you're referring to?

AT&T does not sell new DSL any more in this part of Texas, they are slowly killing it off - only "U-verse" (though they do have lots of web presence talking about DSL) and the cheapest they offer hasn't change over the past 6 months ($38/month for 3 Mbit, nothing slower offered, and no DSL offered in this part of the country).

So $25/month beats both by a lot! And it ends after a year, rather than going up...

It's a no-brainier, Google wherever they show up....

I don't know of a single person that has dropped AT&T DSL willingly. Mostly they are losing hundreds of thousands of customers every quarter because they disconnect them!

The reason they are losing customers is that they don't want them: they want nothing but cell phone customers....

There's a reason why Time Warner offers a 1.5/384 product for $20/mo in my market. They don't advertise it, it goes around via word-of-mouth, or comes from retentions, but it's been available for as long as I can remember.

There's a reason why Time Warner offers a 1.5/384 product for $20/mo in my market. They don't advertise it, it goes around via word-of-mouth, or comes from retentions, but it's been available for as long as I can remember.

That's an insane price for that slow of a speed. I was paying a mere $5 more than that nearly a decade ago.

He didn't say $5/month. He said $5 more than "that" ...

Call him a shill if it makes you feel better about yourself, but the reality of the situation is that many consumers will not pay $70/mo for an internet connection. There's a reason why relatively slow but cheap DSL bundles remain popular. There's a reason why Time Warner offers a 1.5/384 product for $20/mo in my market. They don't advertise it, it goes around via word-of-mouth, or comes from retentions, but it's been available for as long as I can remember.

Some people don't NEED anything more than basic web browsing. Many of these people aren't willing to pay $40/mo, let alone $70/mo, and they'd go without internet service if that was their only option.

The typical DSLR reader is not in the mainstream of internet consumers. Many of the people around here (the ones willing to pay $300/mo for the insane FIOS/DOCSIS 3.0 tiers) aren't even in the mainstream of power users.

In contrast, Google's offering users a 5 Mbps connection over FTTH for "free," after you pay a $300 install fee. That fee can be paid in installments of $25 for a year, after which you don't pay a dime.

You aren't making much sense, the lowest tier that Google offers is $25 per year. That's $2.08 a month.

but then you go on to comapare (whether you wanted to or not) Googles highest tier with Time Warners lowest tier.

I put quote marks around "free" because I'm sure Google is data-mining the hell out of these connections (likely the $70/mo tier too) like they do with their other "free" products.

Legally, I dont think google can datamine your personal connection, as it could be considered illegal wiretapping, and they would probably not take that risk.

Most ISPs just maintain a log of what modem has what IP, and whos account that modem is linked too, and they only store those for a few weeks to a few months at a time because those little points of data for 10000 customers, all with dynamic IPs, yea, that gets a bit huge.

As far as low-income households go, if TWC has their way they would be paying $30-$35 per month for 'net access at 3 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up, after paying $20 per month for the first twelve. Compare this to 5/1 for $300 spread over 12 months and then nothing thereafter, and Google wins. Remember that many low-income families are paying more than $25 for phone service, even if they're on prepaid.

As far as low-income households go, if TWC has their way they would be paying $30-$35 per month for 'net access at 3 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up, after paying $20 per month for the first twelve. Compare this to 5/1 for $300 spread over 12 months and then nothing thereafter, and Google wins. Remember that many low-income families are paying more than $25 for phone service, even if they're on prepaid.

In the usual DSLR haze, Karl overlooks the bottom line.
Most households don't want to spend $70 a month for broadband, no matter how fast it might be.

They also don't want to have to pay $70 a month for broadband just to watch TV.

How many low-income households can actually do the math and get Google's "free" $300 service? Not many. $10/month works.

Unless Google responds with a competitively-priced product for everyone, and unbundled pay-tv, Cable will win the round and the battle.

Exactly, and besides are there any guaranties that if something breaks (and often do) in their $300 installation and then 'free' FTTH setup will google replace and fix it for free too? How about technical support is that free too? What prevents google from switching to a pay service in the future?

To me $10/mo sounds reasonable and a bargain.

I must disagree with a lot of your silliness.
I am pretty sure many low-income households are capable of doing simple math, you implying low-income equals complete ignorance is pretty arrogant and stupid on your part. $10's a month would work better, you are correct. However, I have seen many "low-income" neighborhoods that have plenty of BMW's, $4000 rims and several other higher sticker items that they always seem to obtain when they want it. So $300 paid over a period of several months is doable by many more than you give credit too if that is what they want.

In the usual DSLR haze, Karl overlooks the bottom line.
Most households don't want to spend $70 a month for broadband, no matter how fast it might be.

They also don't want to have to pay $70 a month for broadband just to watch TV.

How many low-income households can actually do the math and get Google's "free" $300 service? Not many. $10/month works.

Unless Google responds with a competitively-priced product for everyone, and unbundled pay-tv, Cable will win the round and the battle.

You don't believe offering to give away 5Mb service for 7 years for the install price is intended to draw away TWC customers?
or that $0 per month is so far below any realistic cost of existing "for profit" provider, that it is obvious predatory pricing intended to drive TWC from the market.
What part of predatory do you not understand?
That pricing and the extended term of service clearly exceed any reasonable "promo".

In the usual DSLR haze, Karl overlooks the bottom line.
Most households don't want to spend $70 a month for broadband, no matter how fast it might be.

They also don't want to have to pay $70 a month for broadband just to watch TV.

How many low-income households can actually do the math and get Google's "free" $300 service? Not many. $10/month works.

Unless Google responds with a competitively-priced product for everyone, and unbundled pay-tv, Cable will win the round and the battle.

DSL bundles remain so popular that AT&T and Verizon lose hundreds of thousands of customers every quarter.

How may low income households do you know of? $10 a month for someone in such a position will likely not even be paid in a timely manner, which will lead to the suspension/cancellation of the services.

Unfortunately, a low income household is more apt to either 1) go completely without or 2) spend beyond their means and have the $100+ monthly service for TV.

I've seen this with my own eyes. I've seen homes that are LITERALLY falling apart with a satellite dish on their roof. Priorities are often misplaced when it comes to "needs and wants".

AT&T seems to do OK targeting this market, so it won't be the end of the world, but TWC ought to consider stepping up their game some. At the very least they could more fully utilize DOCSIS 3.

-- Rob

Now let's see Google challenge some AT&T /CenturyTel(qwest) geographies...

Not sure how much U-verse is deployed in KCK or KCMO

Who else is left..? Verizon doesn't want any more geography, unless it's $10+ a gigabyte wireless data. What I meant was this premise (for google) to expand beyond it's original deployments and out of the two google lottery winning states. West Virginia and North Carolina come to mind. Also, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico.

It's also time for consumers to lose the apathy, to rise up and push for change to incubment power which solidifies ISP monopolies (ensuring bad corporate behaviors) ...

Google fiber is a reasonable alternative to that gridlock and will prove that a partnership model can move consumer access to broadband forward where it's been buried for generations. While it's not the only model that can succeed, it's the one with the money behind it to push back against incumbent lobbying and corruption to protect doing NOTHING and charging consumers more for less.