  gatorkramNeed for Speed
Premium Member
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC |
Why don't they...If Xmission is so hot for open wholesale fiber networks for everyone to share and sell access over, then why aren't they building it?
I agree it would be great for this country, but no one is putting up the money. | |
|
 | | |
Re: Why don't they...Exactly. Let them put their money in their mouth instead of just shooting hot air at anyone (Google) that is actually accomplishing things.
Meanwhile while Google is giving Americans the fiber service that they lack, something no one else is stepping up to the plate to offer residential customers, this unknown outfit is just shooting off hot air. | |
|
| | silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA
1 recommendation |
silbaco
Premium Member
2013-Apr-22 10:40 am
Re: Why don't they...No one? Ftth is something hundreds of ISPs in the US are actively deploying. You may not hear about it, but they are deploying it. | |
|
| | | | |
josephf
Member
2013-Apr-22 10:47 am
Re: Why don't they...To residential customers? At Google's price point?
If either of those are applicable, indeed I have not heard about it. Please direct me to where I can learn of residential pricing of FTTH by hundreds of ISP's competitive with Google Fiber. | |
|
| | | | silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA
1 recommendation |
silbaco
Premium Member
2013-Apr-22 11:05 am
Re: Why don't they...To residential? Most definitely. At Google's pricing? Certainly not. Providers can't supply free internet if they actually want to payoff their costly deployments, nor can they provide gigabit for $70 per month unless they want to offer internet at a loss. | |
|
| | | | |  BonezXBasement Dweller
Premium Member
join:2004-04-13
Canada
1 recommendation |
BonezX
Premium Member
2013-Apr-22 12:00 pm
Re: Why don't they...said by silbaco:offer internet at a loss.
you mean not make record profits every year. | |
|
| | | | | | silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA
1 recommendation |
silbaco
Premium Member
2013-Apr-22 12:06 pm
Re: Why don't they...That's such a clueless comment it's laughable. Unless an ISP has a major market, it's pretty tough to even be profitable these days. Especially once they deploy fiber and have to start paying back those loans. | |
|
| | | | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA |
to BonezX
said by BonezX:said by silbaco:offer internet at a loss.
you mean not make record profits every year. Can you cite one example of an ISP making "record profits every year"? | |
|
| | | | | | |  elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO |
elios
Member
2013-Apr-22 3:15 pm
Re: Why don't they...AT&T, Verizon, TWC, Comcast....
want me to go on? | |
|
| | | | | | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA |
elray
Member
2013-Apr-22 7:35 pm
Re: Why don't they...said by elios:AT&T, Verizon, TWC, Comcast....
want me to go on?
Yes, please outline how ANY of those have "record profits every year". | |
|
| | | | | | | BonezXBasement Dweller
Premium Member
join:2004-04-13
Canada |
to elray
said by elray:said by BonezX:said by silbaco:offer internet at a loss.
you mean not make record profits every year. Can you cite one example of an ISP making "record profits every year"? » arstechnica.com/tech-pol ··· rgument/"Revenues for Internet access from Comcast are up, jumping from $1.57 billion in the first quarter of 2007 to $1.75 billion in the first quarter of 2008 to $1.91 billion in the first quarter of 2009." if you just added data cap overage amounts, your looking at easily record profits because everything is requiring more and more bandwidth, the cost per gb of bandwidth is stupid low, and the hardware is getting cheaper as well. the only ones that are "suffering" are small ISP's by getting screwed over by entrenched carriers protecting their profits. or did people forget that carriers are trying to figure out how to inject advertisements and make money off that too. | |
|
| | | | | | | |  KGB
@windstream.net |
KGB
Anon
2013-Apr-23 5:47 pm
Re: Why don't they...I think someone is confusing "revenue" with "profit" - EBITDA - might be a good start to look at the bottom line after all the CAPEX , Financing, Infrastructure costs, Wages, Employee Benefits, etc before thinking Telecom is an evil profit monster. A modest ILEC might have 6.2 Billion in revenues and post 100 Million in profit.
A HUGE portion of the "profit" must then be re-invested back into the company. Not sure - I've only been in telecom for 15 years..still waiting to see a "profitable one" and I've worked for 4 different ones. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |  fg8578
join:2009-04-26
San Antonio, TX |
fg8578
Member
2013-Apr-26 3:32 pm
Re: Why don't they...said by KGB :I think someone is confusing "revenue" with "profit" - EBITDA - might be a good start to look at the bottom line after all the CAPEX , Financing, Infrastructure costs, Wages, Employee Benefits, etc before thinking Telecom is an evil profit monster. A modest ILEC might have 6.2 Billion in revenues and post 100 Million in profit.
A HUGE portion of the "profit" must then be re-invested back into the company. Not sure - I've only been in telecom for 15 years..still waiting to see a "profitable one" and I've worked for 4 different ones.
I've been in the telecom business over thirty years; I agree with what you say, but the typical DSLR reader doesn't want to hear it. | |
|
| | | | | | |
to silbaco
Regardless of their reasoning why they don't provide this service at the economical pricing Google does (and no doubt they are fully entitled to their business reasoning for not offering it as such), at the end of the day only Google is offering this service at an economic level where it is attainable for residential customers. | |
|
| | | | | | silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA
1 recommendation |
silbaco
Premium Member
2013-Apr-22 12:23 pm
Re: Why don't they...I don't call having the lowest paid package priced at $70 per month "economic level."
When companies actually have to deploy fiber to markets where they DO NOT get access handed to them on a silver platter, they actually have to spend some money. Clear regulation hurdles, deploy in an entire town/city (not just cherry-picked high ROI neighborhoods), deploy underground or actually pay for pole access, etc. This requires loans which need to be paid back with interest, because unlike Google, they don't have $48 billion in cash lying around. All while paying often times substantially more for backhaul than Google. They need to recoup this money, one way or another, because unlike Google, they can't just walk away from a hobby at anytime they feel like. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
Re: Why don't they...said by silbaco:I don't call having the lowest paid package priced at $70 per month "economic level."
$70 isn't Google's lowest package. They offer a free package (of any monthly recurring costs) package for a one-time installation fee of $300. That is a pretty darn good deal. And their $70 for 1 Gbit/s is also a pretty darn good deal that I know of no other provider offering that speed for even close to that price. Again, I don't begrudge any other providers for not offering what Google offers. But Google deserves much thanks and kudos for making available what if offers, at the price points it is set at. And without Google folks would have no other alternative at this entry-level point. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
wtfbbq to silbaco
Anon
2013-Apr-22 3:36 pm
to silbaco
said by silbaco:
I don't call having the lowest paid package priced at $70 per month "economic level."
| |
|
| | | | | | | | silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA |
silbaco
Premium Member
2013-Apr-22 7:27 pm
Re: Why don't they...Pretty much everyone I know has internet alone and uses DirecTV. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
to silbaco
and don't forget that $48b isn't Google's to be blowing. It's actually the shareholder's $$$ that google is pissing away. The network will be built or left at what it is, and soon the network will be sold off or just closed up. Google would have collected millions amounts of data to sell and do with what they want and will move on. The people will complain and bitch, and say that they want XX provider now to build and come to their town. The day will come when their shareholders will stop letting their CEO do with what ever they want and will start wanting the company to bring in more $$ on their hobbies. Especially since we have seen that being an OEM isn't one of their strong suits since they need to go to HTC and others to actually build a decent phone and not to their own hardware company. | |
|
| | | | | | | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK |
KrK
Premium Member
2013-Apr-23 1:05 am
Re: Why don't they...I don't see Google blowing anyone's money. In fact they have been making them money. | |
|
| | | | | | | Dru2u
join:2013-03-06
united state |
to silbaco
silbaco has hit every point that should rub everyone the wrong way about Google. Good job silbaco. I just wish these liberals who despise corporations, but somehow manage to think that Google is different would start to question how Google is providing its new service.
A new monopoly is arising at the hands of government and people blind and too washed in hype to see it. | |
|
| | | | | |  Cheese
Premium Member
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL |
to josephf
And Google is in very few parts of the country. While I applaud Google for doing this, until they roll it out to everyone and not just 1 percent of the country, then we can say "good job google".. | |
|
| | | | | | fg8578
join:2009-04-26
San Antonio, TX |
to josephf
said by josephf:Regardless of their reasoning why they don't provide this service at the economical pricing Google does (and no doubt they are fully entitled to their business reasoning for not offering it as such), at the end of the day only Google is offering this service at an economic level where it is attainable for residential customers.
google can do so because it cherry-picks where it wants to serve and obviously it will serve in the most profitable areas. If CenturyLink or Comcast did that, they'd be sued for illegal redlining. | |
|
| | | | | | | Cheese
Premium Member
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL |
Cheese
Premium Member
2013-Apr-26 3:37 pm
Re: Why don't they...Since Google isn't really doing this for profit, well.... | |
|
| | |  Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL |
to silbaco
said by silbaco:No one? Ftth is something hundreds of ISPs in the US are actively deploying. You may not hear about it, but they are deploying it.
LOL, in like .0001% of the country. | |
|
| | | | silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA |
silbaco
Premium Member
2013-Apr-22 2:51 pm
Re: Why don't they...They are deploying it to their territory, however large that may be. It's not their fault you don't live there.
Chicago will be waiting a while before a wide-scale FTTH deployment happens. The welfare capital of the Midwest isn't an ideal place to invest money. | |
|
| | | | | Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL |
Oh_No
Member
2013-Apr-22 7:40 pm
Re: Why don't they...said by silbaco:They are deploying it to their territory, however large that may be. It's not their fault you don't live there.
Chicago will be waiting a while before a wide-scale FTTH deployment happens. The welfare capital of the Midwest isn't an ideal place to invest money.
LOL southern republican states have the most people on welfare. Almost no one is building FTTH networks in the US. ISP advancement in the US is like 99% stagnant due to companies like ATT trying everything to block the competition through buying politicians and taking free government grant money with nothing to show for it. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
Re: Why don't they...block competition? last I seen AT&T didn't stop any private company from entering the market. AT&T just refuses to let Grandma and Grandpa pay for a product that they'll never use and pay for it long after the network was sold- a la Provo Network. The gov't has no business operating a business unless its for profit and does NOT use tax payer money nor obtains money from any tax payer funded service- EPB. they should have to obtain loans and funds from others just as a private company would do.
You and anyone else are free to become an FTTH company or anything else; just be prepared to pay for that network on your own. And don't ask the tax payers for a handout like Munis and Google do. | |
|
| | | | | | | Dru2u
join:2013-03-06
united state |
Dru2u
Member
2013-Apr-23 2:00 am
Re: Why don't they...Wow, I love this. I didn't realize dslreports.com had all these good free-marketers that can look beyond the glamor (crap) of the liberal elite business model: regulate, tax, and fail. | |
|
| | | | | | | Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL |
to TBBroadband
said by TBBroadband:block competition? last I seen AT&T didn't stop any private company from entering the market. AT&T just refuses to let Grandma and Grandpa pay for a product that they'll never use and pay for it long after the network was sold- a la Provo Network. The gov't has no business operating a business unless its for profit and does NOT use tax payer money nor obtains money from any tax payer funded service- EPB. they should have to obtain loans and funds from others just as a private company would do.
You and anyone else are free to become an FTTH company or anything else; just be prepared to pay for that network on your own. And don't ask the tax payers for a handout like Munis and Google do.
Actually the government is we the people. We the people have every right to use your government to run essentially non-profit networks. Basically we can either let a private company build a network and pocket the profits and spend a bunch of money on unrelated things OR we the people can create our own non-profit network where profits are used to keep the price lower and we dont have to pay for all the unrelated BS that the company wastes their money on. We all only have to pay the costs. The USPS operates as a non-profit (it only has to break even) and does not use tax payer dollars. The USPS has always been profitable. Right now it does not look profitable because congress is forcing them to pay for 75 years of retirement in less than 10 years to cook the books and make it look like the USPS is not profitable. FYI, ATT was built 100% on government handouts over the last 100 years. ATT received tons of grants and tax breaks and overpriced no-bid government contracts. ATT was a leader amongst lobbyists at one time. ATT is one of the worst companies in terms of corporate welfare. | |
|
| | | | | | silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA |
to Oh_No
said by Oh_No:said by silbaco:They are deploying it to their territory, however large that may be. It's not their fault you don't live there.
Chicago will be waiting a while before a wide-scale FTTH deployment happens. The welfare capital of the Midwest isn't an ideal place to invest money.
LOL southern republican states have the most people on welfare. Almost no one is building FTTH networks in the US. ISP advancement in the US is like 99% stagnant due to companies like ATT trying everything to block the competition through buying politicians and taking free government grant money with nothing to show for it. Southern states are not in the Midwest now are they? And last I checked, there were over 600 telcos actively building building ftth networks in the US in 2012. A number that has no doubt increased by now and didn't include major telcos, muni's, or utilities fiber networks. So it looks like you are wrong, yet again. | |
|
| | | | | | |
•••
|
| |  Cabal
Premium Member
join:2007-01-21 |
to josephf
By definition, XMission can't build a muni network. They're not a municipality.
This discussion is about muni networks and exclusivity being given away (for $1) to Google. | |
|
| |
Open access in muni networks...Open access in muni networks that are are government owned should be required to facilitate open access. Muni networks should be treated just like public roads. | |
|
|
•••••••••• |
| |
Wilsdom
Member
2013-Apr-22 11:42 am
CorruptionNo doubt city officials get an array of favors and kickbacks from large companies during franchise negotiations that they'd lose with a municipal network. | |
|
|
•••••••••• |
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA |
silbaco
Premium Member
2013-Apr-22 11:58 am
XMissionExcellent blog post to be honest. | |
|
| |
Squire James
Anon
2013-Apr-22 12:30 pm
My Two CentsThe government does have certain advantages in many business enterprises:
1. They have a motivation to make people happy.
2. They don't have to make a profit.
3. They can force taxpayers to be "venture capitalists".
However, there is only a limited amount of "venture capital" available from the people, and most of it is already taken up for charity and military programs. Not much is left for infrastructure, and even in that category I think bridges and highways is further ahead in the line than broadband service. | |
|
 somms
join:2003-07-28
Centerville, UT |
somms
Member
2013-Apr-22 1:27 pm
Time for Utopia ISPs to rethink their gigabit tier pricing!I'm very happy with XMission. Figure the $45/month for 100Mb/s is reasonable and the Utopia FTTH connection has had 100% uptime since I got it installed last year (can't say the same for my previous Comcast HSI that was sporadic at best). When XMission announced they would be offering gigabit speed over Utopia, I was tempted until the $300/month cost was revealed. Maybe now with GoogleFiber as a real competitor in my area, XMission along with the other half-dozen ISPs that offer service over Utopia may now have to rethink their very expensive and exclusive gigabit tier pricing one can hope!  | |
|
|
•••••••• |
| |
tumbleweed liningYou don't see AT&T and Verizon falling all over themselves to expand FTTP deployments anymore. AT&T had no intention of becoming a FTTP residential ISP... however, it was a condition of the BellSouth merger and they did as little as possible to get regulators to look the other way and let the deal go through, then reneged on the U-Verse commitments too. More recently, wireless anti-competitiveness degenerated into a de-facto duopoly too.
If you want to look at the picture, Utah does not make a national marketplace description. Municipalities are starving for innovation and you can bet that since the early 2000s innovation's been sorely lacking since the capital markets are not looking to take any more financial risks to innovate-- especially with the heavy handed incumbent lobbying that goes on. Companies like RCN learned the hard way, and there was potentially BIG money to be had in that deployment, but telcos strung along cities such as Boston and then dropped them once RCN's plans fell through. If competition wasn't a dysfunctional corrupt mess cities wouldn't be wanting to subsidy a network build that doesn't have the names AT&T, VERIZON, COMCAST or CENTURYTEL/QWEST attached to them. | |
|
| |
mike lubb
Anon
2013-Apr-23 6:38 pm
Call it the "John Gaul Fiber Network"Seems like nothing but a bunch of naysayers saying that it cant work, it wont work, it's not fair, incumbents are running to Washington to prevent fiber builds in their backyard. Reminding me of the book Atlas Shrugged and the railroad industry.
Hurry, let's let Washington politics decide what is best for us and stick with our crappy non-competitive copper DSL that the telco's have been pushing on us for the last 20+ years.
Heck if the Goog's can put fiber out there with $70 per gig and not lose $$ in the process, then I give them kudos for trying. Seems like we need a few more people that are willing to rake some risks and not worry about what wall street thinks from quarter to quarter.
If people are complaining about them having a monopoly, Pot (ATT/TW/Comcast.._ let me introduce you to the Kettle (Google). | |
|
|
|
