dslreports logo
 story category
CenturyLink Details 1 Gbps Plans in Denver

Back in August Centurylink announced that the company would be offering 1 Gbps service in portions of Denver, though the company refused to say how many subscribers would see the service, or just what neighborhoods would get the upgrades. In recent weeks they've started offering more detail, stating they're offering the service in sixteen neighborhoods in the Denver "city core."

CenturyLink is offering the 1 Gbps service for $151.95 a month with a two year commitment, or $124 a month when ordered with CenturyLink landline phone services. The specific neighborhoods, according to CenturyLink:

quote:
Gigbit speeds are currently being offered in the Baker, Bonnie Brae, Belcaro, Cole, Congress Park, Corey Merrill, Overland, Park Hill, Platt Park, Rosedale, Stapleton, Washington Park East, Washington Park West, University, University Park and Villa Park neighborhoods, CenturyLink said.
The ISP's primarily focused on higher end housing developments where fiber's already in the ground and deployment costs are low. The company still isn't stating how many subscribers can get, or have signed up for, the faster service.

view:
topics flat nest 

Paco
@compellent.com

1 recommendation

Paco

Anon

151.95 a month?

lol, that is ridiculous when you look at what Google and other fiber companies are charging.
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

ISurfTooMuch

Member

Re: 151.95 a month?

Yep, especially if the fiber is already in place.

I have a feeling they're setting this price as a trial to see if people bite. If few do, you'll see them start to offer discounts.

fg8578
join:2009-04-26
San Antonio, TX

1 recommendation

fg8578

Member

Re: 151.95 a month?

said by ISurfTooMuch:

I have a feeling they're setting this price as a trial to see if people bite. If few do, you'll see them start to offer discounts.

Or they could say, "See, I told you so! No one wants gigabit speeds!"

gigahurtz
Premium Member
join:2001-10-20
USA

gigahurtz to Paco

Premium Member

to Paco
Unfortunately, that's about what I would expect. As a Brighthouse customer, current cost for 150 Mbps internet (fastest available) is $108/mo with a leased modem.

KennyWest
@sbcglobal.net

KennyWest

Anon

Re: 151.95 a month?

There are a few MDUs in the BHN area that are able to get 1gig fiber for $50 a month. I'd have to look up the cities but most are in Florida and Bakersfield.

gigahurtz
Premium Member
join:2001-10-20
USA

gigahurtz

Premium Member

Re: 151.95 a month?

Great, that covers about 2% of the population in Central Florida!

KennyWest
@sbcglobal.net

KennyWest to Paco

Anon

to Paco
You can't compare Google who is losing money and the whole thing. If the share holders at Google were smart they'd demand more of a return and demand a check every quarter as the company is able to afford it.
shmerl
join:2013-10-21

1 recommendation

shmerl

Member

Re: 151.95 a month?

How do you know Google is losing money? I'd like to see some numbers.
existenz
join:2014-02-12

existenz

Member

Re: 151.95 a month?

Telcom analysts claim a new ISP laying out fiber from scratch (and pricing similar to GF) needs uptake of 30% homes passed to profit. Surveys/polls in KC are showing 40-50% uptake and given the 2 major low income KC areas are nearly complete and the upcoming burbs are mostly higher income, the overall uptake may increase.
shmerl
join:2013-10-21

shmerl

Member

Re: 151.95 a month?

Without concrete numbers it's still somewhat speculative. But Google said before that their plan was to make a sustainable service which offers fair prices and doesn't rip users off. I.e. it's an example for others. So I'd expect it to be profitable in practice.
existenz
join:2014-02-12

existenz

Member

Re: 151.95 a month?

Completely agree, but it's a decent indicator - and don't expect GF to release numbers anytime soon. The City Manager of KCMO said that uptake was 'higher than Google expected'. GF pulling trigger on 4 more markets is another indicator that it's going well.

Is likely some GF users are just checking it out and may switch to ISP that offers a mid-tier but KC's rollout is heading toward more higher income areas than lower income so they might be able to at least sustain 40% share or more.
kaila
join:2000-10-11
Lincolnshire, IL

2 recommendations

kaila to KennyWest

Member

to KennyWest
Time-Warner makes 97% gross on HSI ( »www.huffingtonpost.com/b ··· 916.html ). No reason to think Google's not making money @ $70/mo.
BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN

BlueC

Member

Re: 151.95 a month?

While TWC doesn't deserve any defense in this, that article is largely flawed at outlining actual CAPEX/OPEX in delivering internet service to subscribers.

First off, it's been clear in the industry that some providers subsidize OPEX more so on one service rather than another.

That article also fails to acknowledge that TWC has a separate line item for labor costs, which is specifically labeled as being utilized by all 3 services, albeit isolated as it's own expense line item.

Lastly, where is CAPEX being considered in these numbers? Where are the depreciation figures? There is always an ongoing investment for service providers, and that's factored on its own, not always clear to individuals attempting to interpret financial statements with limited experience with analysis.

I'll put it this way, if the ROI was truly outstanding on delivering internet service, we'd have more competition. Unfortunately the reality is, unless you're a large service provider, it is extremely difficult to survive. The margins are low. Of course, if you're a large service provider with the benefit of volume discounts (with vendors) and leveraging network backbone to demand peering revenue, along with leveraging a triple play, it's a different story.

fg8578
join:2009-04-26
San Antonio, TX

fg8578

Member

Re: 151.95 a month?

said by BlueC:

While TWC doesn't deserve any defense in this, that article is largely flawed at outlining actual CAPEX/OPEX in delivering internet service to subscribers.

You mean Bruce Kushnick is misleading his readers by taking numbers out of context to present a one-sided, worst scenario case? Oh, say it ain't so!

Kushnick has been debunked before. No one can rely on his so-called "analysis". But I give him props for filing his claims with regulators. I fully expect them to be dismissed out of hand.
bruce@newnetworks.com
join:2000-01-08

bruce@newnetworks.com

Member

Re: 151.95 a month?

First, our research wasn't debunked --my reply showed he didn't know what he was talking about -

More importantly, the TWC numbers of profit margins were taken directly from Time Warner's own break outs by line of business-- You can argue about it with Time Warner.

And the 'capX issues? As we demonstrated in our other reports, especially one about Verizon New York, when you dig into the numbers you see that the fiber networks were laid as Title II, common carriage networks and were charged to local phone customers, which included rate increases of 84%.

The cable service and the internet service, FIOS are NOT paying most of the capx, but the expenses are in the state utility. Moreover, Verizon Wireless is also getting a free ride and doesn't pay for the wires to the cell towers, as told by Verizon's financials presented in their state-based annual reports. Ie, instead of upgrading the wires they are moving the construction to pay for the wireless wires.

»newnetworks.com/publicnn.pdf/

What the Time Warner numbers show is that the high speed internet is not paying back for the use the networks -- as would any competitor ---but is mostly profits.

This finding impacts every aspect of the discussion --from ala carte pricing of cable, but also issues about bandwidth caps and prioritization -- if the companies' internet service really is that profitable, it's hard to make the case to add bandwidth caps. And it questions the costs being paid by Netflix, etc.

And many people also have mistakenly suggested examining the 'total' revenues' or profits or 'net vs gross income' or capx of the entire company... it doesn't explain the separate lines of business or which parts of the business are paying the construction, for example.

The bottom line -- these are Time Warner's numbers and we're asking this 'red flag' to be investigated by the FCC and NY state commission BEFORE the mergers go through.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

DataRiker to KennyWest

Premium Member

to KennyWest
said by KennyWest :

You can't compare Google who is losing money and the whole thing. If the share holders at Google were smart they'd demand more of a return and demand a check every quarter as the company is able to afford it.

Citation needed. Analysts seem to think otherwise.

Google's recent expansion would contradict that as well.
elefante72
join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

elefante72 to Paco

Member

to Paco
That pricing is not ridiculous--it just seems expensive. Comparatively for big operators FiOS charges $250 for 500/500 so you have to compare the pricing to operators with more than a few thousand customers (like Google).
shmerl
join:2013-10-21

1 recommendation

shmerl

Member

Re: 151.95 a month?

FiOS top tier price is even more ridiculous. Compare it with Europe. It's a rip off.

hyphenated
@107.77.68.x

-1 recommendation

hyphenated to Paco

Anon

to Paco
I don't believe it's ridiculous, I think it's very reasonable and I would gladly pay 150 for a fricking gigabit. I guess I'm lucky for having a 1000th of that speed! Anyway you can't have the best AND be cheap. Remember google is not just an ISP, and they're still pretty small so they can do that, for now.
TransitJohn
join:2009-05-08
Denver, CO

TransitJohn

Member

Re: 151.95 a month?

said by hyphenated :

Anyway you can't have the best AND be cheap.

Why not? The rest of the world manages fast speeds at prices a quarter of that.
existenz
join:2014-02-12

existenz

Member

Re: 151.95 a month?

Google says highest cost for GF is not Gbit or fiber rollout, the highest cost is providing TV service....
»9to5google.com/2014/10/0 ··· pansion/
shmerl
join:2013-10-21

shmerl

Member

Re: 151.95 a month?

So it means that just Internet without TV shouldn't cost that much even for other ISPs.

neill6705
join:2014-08-09

neill6705 to Paco

Member

to Paco
US Internet in Minneapolis is offering 10Gbps for $400/mo. xD

indy1
@metronetinc.net

indy1 to Paco

Anon

to Paco
and where is google an the other fiber companies in Denver ?

Yucca Servic
join:2012-11-27
Rio Rancho, NM

Yucca Servic

Member

Pay the piper

It's a fact fiber costs money. We have fiber and we see the real cost. CL will eventually go broke!

jgkolt
Premium Member
join:2004-02-21
Avon, OH

4 edits

jgkolt

Premium Member

careful of bait and switch

I just signed up for CenturyLink Fiber 100down/50 up and phone for a $55.95 special.

Speeds much slower than quoted, normally 50-75 down/10-20 up over fiber to their speedtest site.

Price i was quoted was $55.95 special , first bill they put me on a $91.90 plan.

Charged me for a $30 work order to setup phone, that i was not told up front about.

First bill $400, I signed up for their $55.95 a month plan (that was to be the total price without tax).

I was told I had to buy/rent a modem, received a router (no modem). Tech said I could use my own router, THERE IS NO MODEM, but since I purchased it they won't allow return.

First day of install no tech showed up, even contacted them 3 times that day. week for install, and been a month still waiting for line to be provisioned correctly.

Part of the discount is for autopay, makes me nervous when bill is totally wrong!

Everything has been flipped on me. Sure feels like bait and switch, and i was really hoping i would like them. When I talked to them they just said well there is a 30 day money back guarantee and that was about it.

Sanjeev
@rr.com

1 edit

Sanjeev

Anon

Re: careful of bait and switch

Did they manage to get a single thing right? Sure doesn't seem like it.

Can you break down that $400 bill? How did they manage to charge you THAT much on top of $55.95?

That is unbelievable.

jgkolt
Premium Member
join:2004-02-21
Avon, OH

2 edits

jgkolt

Premium Member

Re: careful of bait and switch

The $400 breakdown is as follows:
- prorated monthly service up to this point, with no chance to use auto-pay
- next month service, with no chance to use auto-pay
- $99.99 Modem that was "required"
- $59.99 Standard install fee
- $30 work order fee (not expected)
- $50 credit for signing up by certain date to get promo

I was expecting to be billed ~$205 including tax, but was billed ~$144 more. Learned the $10 per month discount for signing up for auto-pay (actually $20 for prorate and next month on same bill) cant be used on first bill. Learned that the "modem" is actually a router and any router will work. $30 work order that was unexpected. When I asked if I could return the "modem", I was told no because I purchased it.

I spoke to customer service and they were shocked at the bill price and said they were "pissed off","mad", and ashamed of the company but ended the call due to closing for the night and said we will receive a call back within 3 business days. As the 30 day money back guarantee was ending soon I called back the next day during business hours and was transferred to escalations. They gave me a $101.90 credit but still about $42 shy from what was advertised. He also told me that I can return the "modem" at a store and receive the $99.99 back.

They currently are not honoring the promotion to me for $55.95 but are trying to get me to pay $91.90 or $111.90 a month, depending on who you talk to. The monthly rate is still being reviewed but I don't trust they will honor the price they offered me in writing.

HotRodFoto
Premium Member
join:2003-04-19
Denver, CO

HotRodFoto

Premium Member

Google please come to Denver

Century link is insane with that pricing. I can only hope that Google comes to Denver or more municipalities begin doing muniband such as Longmont who is building and in some areas, already has a gigabit connection active »longmontcolorado.gov/dep ··· -service
Slyster
join:2015-01-08
Sugar Grove, VA

Slyster

Member

Re: Google please come to Denver

That would be funny..

" Google announces that Google Fiber is coming to Denver! " -- CL would drop their prices overnight.
coryw
join:2013-12-22
Flagstaff, AZ

coryw

Member

Whoa, deployment information?

It's refreshing to see deployment information, but it's still not enough. Who will actually get service, the one house right next to the remote OLT?

In terms of the pricing -- $152 isn't honestly that bad for symmetric gigabit, and CenturyLink's gigabit products are all officially exempt from their "reasonable usage" policies.

Think of it this way: If you move to some other part of the country, you can get gigabit service from $PROVIDER for $PRICE, but that really has no bearing on what the different providers in your area are doing, and even then, it may have no bearing at all to what another provider's cost structure is like. For example, CenturyLink is almost certainly deploying gigabit speeds (as opposed to deploying fiber using their fastest DSL tiers, and one or two extra like 100/50) as a response to interest in it as a result of Google Fiber. However, $70/mo pricing might not make sense for CL because they still have to fund it with the money or credit that they have, not the money and credit that Google or AT&T or Verizon has.

Here in my town, there are one or two neighborhoods that have been fibered up, and CenturyLink is selling 100/50 service for $91 a month, which given what I have now and what's available in the area, is very attractive pricing to me.

What I think CenturyLink needs to do is just start plopping GPON OLTs right next to their existing DSLAMs and getting permission to rip up the copper, or at worst, add new fiber next to it, and just start selling 100/50 fiber to as many people as they can get it installed for. Heck, start mailing out FR1000Zs and convert existing DSL subs to fiber, even at the same service level (or the 12 megabit service level -- the fiber tiers in my town are 12, 20, 40, and 100 megabits) so that they can get rid of that old tired copper network, and be the new fiber success story.

Once they've got GPON everywhere, they can start beefing up their backbones even more and roll out gigabit.

anonomeX
@comcast.net

anonomeX

Anon

The 1 Gigabit Plan

Clearly, CenturyLink and other ISPs still don't "get it". Using the "Google Fiber" plan Google and a bunch of other content providers (Netflix, Amazon, etc) should join together to form the Great American Internet Alliance (GAIA)--or some similarly named group--to bring unrestricted [and fairly-priced] Internet service to the masses (maybe even working closely with municipalities). The other ISPs still won't "get it" of course, but that'll be OK--we won't need them to anymore.
trixie_50
join:2008-02-15
Denver, CO

trixie_50

Member

CenturyLink 1 Gbps Plans in Denver

CenturyLink is offering the 1 Gbps service for $151.95 a month with a two year commitment, or $124 a month when ordered with CenturyLink landline phone services. The specific neighborhoods, according to CenturyLink:
quote: Gigabit speeds are currently being offered in the Baker, Bonnie Brae, Belcaro, Cole, Congress Park, Corey Merrill, Overland, Park Hill, Platt Park, Rosedale, Stapleton, Washington Park East, Washington Park West, University, University Park and Villa Park neighborhoods, CenturyLink said.
The ISP's primarily focused on higher end housing developments where fiber's already in the ground and deployment costs are low. The company still isn't stating how many subscribers can get, or have signed up for, the faster service.


11 out of these 16 Denver neighborhoods (70%) identified by CenturyLink to receive 1 Gbps service are served by one CO at 725 S. Pennsylvania (DNVRCOSO) which handles 14 NXX codes in 2 overlain NPAs. Last week (Feb 6) I spoke with two CL technicians as they spliced fiber in the DSLAM at 1551 1st Ave (also served by DNVRCOSO) and was kindly shown the specific work orders for fiber drops along the alleys between Downing St and University Blvd north to 8th Ave.

Per their working timetable, that 66 square-block area is to be "buttoned-up" with 1 Gbps service by May 1st. If you keep an eye out for boxy, climate-controlled CenturyLink trucks—the kind with enough room for two or three people to work comfortably, night or day, in all kinds of weather—that's as good an indication of creeping fiber install progress as most of us will ever get.

It's worth noting that none of these 11 neighborhoods are newly developed with the benefit of previously installed fiber from which to sprout tendrils of bandwidth on every block. In fact, they include some of Denver's older neighborhoods still sporting original poles from the World War I era to the 1950s. Most of these DSLAMs only received FTTN in the last 5 years so whether it's installing the "last mile" or the final 100' has evidently been obliged to wait for the subsequent phase...which appears to be underway.

That being said, I've no idea what to expect by way of a tariff for 1 Gbps service. My 20/.896 Mbps VDSL2 service runs about $75/mo and a recent inquiry as to availability of pair-bond service first drew denials of its existence...then affirmations that it would be 2× my current rate...and finally retractions of residential availability noting it is a "business service only." In hindsight, the perplexed answers were probably genuine results of the difficulties of predicting when and where fiber installation could, or would, arrive.