4 ms·

Lets see at my house: AT&T, $60 a month for 45Mbit down, 3Mbit up with a 1TB cap. TW/Spectrum $39 a month, 100Mbit down, 10Mbit up, no cap. (and they have faste

Lets see at my house: AT&T, $60 a month for 45Mbit down, 3Mbit up with a 1TB cap. TW/Spectrum $39 a month, 100Mbit down, 10Mbit up, no cap. (and they have faster speeds I actually pay something like $60 for 200/20). So 1/3 less, for twice as fast internet, or ~5x faster internet for the same price. So, I don't really see why anyone with a choice would choose AT&T in my neighborhood.

stcredzero 10y ago
So basically, the granting of local monopolies in the cable TV era, plus other historical circumstances in the USA have resulted in big companies overcharging for substandard service.
X86BSD 10y ago
So let me add myself into your equation. I live in Kansas City. I pay $70/mo for google fiber. 1Gbit down, 1Gbit up. So for twice what TWC is charging you I get 10x more bandwidth down, and 100 times more bandwidth up. So can we agree transit in the US is completely and arbitrarily priced? There is no basis for their fees. It costs no more for transit wherever you are in the US vs me. In fact I would argue wherever you are it's probably cheaper because KC is probably smaller than your market. And you have more physical infrastructure and capacity.
- mhays 10y ago
  Pricing as a result of market conditions does not make the pricing arbitrary. The price could be affected by lack of competition, but it could also be because of a number of other economic reasons. Limited competition itself could result from any number of economic reasons (expensive build out costs, restrictive regulatory regimes, etc). Understanding the various factors involved in building infrastructure, and how they differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, is huge because it plays a huge role in how companies invest, build out, and price. Comparing two different cities' prices, without any more information, is completely useless.
- rando_login 10y ago
  It's not random. It's based on what they can get for it given the likelihood of you and your neighbors going elsewhere. I figure this is pretty rational given the circumstances.
- LastZactionHero 10y ago
  I lived in KC for a bit, but moved shortly before Google Fiber. When TWC came to install internet, the install guys (4 of them for some reason?) laughed at the modem they gave me- "We still have these?!". When I cancelled and returned my modem, the customer service department was behind bulletproof glass. I don't have much to contribute to the price discussion- just can't pass up the chance to tell a KC TWC story.
dmitrygr 10y ago
My house: AT&T: 768kbps - $40 Comcast: i hate myself no matter the price no other options
johncolanduoni 10y ago
The prices look similar where I live. The only thing AT&T has in their favor here is that their ceiling is higher: You can get 1Gbps (at least in name) for around $90.
akoster 10y ago
My family is is on AT&T Uverse, and pays $52/month for 24Mbps down/5Mbps up and $134/month for 2 HDTVs, 1 non HDTV, a DVR and their lower-mid tier 300 channel package (mainly because mom likes to watch HGTV, DIY and the Food network channels). Those numbers are from our last bill and include AT&T fees (including their HDTV receiver fees in 2016), government taxes, etc. We got an HDTV quite early (circa 2004) and at the time went from Dish Network to DirecTV. And for internet, we separately paid for AT&T DSL, which might have been at 3Mbps for a mid-tier package at the time. Around 2009/2010 an AT&T salesman came to our door to talk about this new Uverse offering in our neighborhood. They talked about it being fiber, just like Fios from Verizon (though I suspected it wasn't really the same since our streets never were dug up- which is in line with it being fiber to the main node outside of our housing tract.) They enticed my parents to get out of their expensive contract with DirecTV and pay less for the same TV package with an included DVR accessible to the entire home, and a faster internet speed without any contract, or equipment rental fees. The offer was hard to pass up and was a better deal than signing up for a contract with TWC, paying a lower price for year 1 and then getting ripped off for your second year of the contract. I vaguely remember it was something like $100 or $120 when we signed up for the TV and internet service. The internet speeds were always lower than advertised and occasionally the TV would drop out but it became more reliable over time. At some point were offered a lower rate to sign up for a 2 year contract, and though we did, I think it has since expired and may be back on a month-to-month device. The problem with their service has always been some box dying after a year or so, and calling their support number (which redirects to a call center in the Philippines typically) to have them dispatch a technician but other than that, the technicians are usually very well trained and get the problem fixed right the first time, and allow us to call them back for 30 days after the service call for help without contacting their main support line. My parents have heard horror stories from TWC customers who have been overcharged, service that has been poor, and squabbles with home internet data caps (of which ATT has none- at least as shown on our bill). We could go with something like a DSLExtreme or Sonic.net, but then our TV bill would go up. I definitely wish for any bit more competition in our area, but it's doubtful to happen anytime soon.

stcredzero 10y ago

So basically, the granting of local monopolies in the cable TV era, plus other historical circumstances in the USA have resulted in big companies overcharging for substandard service.

X86BSD 10y ago

So let me add myself into your equation. I live in Kansas City. I pay $70/mo for google fiber. 1Gbit down, 1Gbit up. So for twice what TWC is charging you I get 10x more bandwidth down, and 100 times more bandwidth up. So can we agree transit in the US is completely and arbitrarily priced? There is no basis for their fees. It costs no more for transit wherever you are in the US vs me. In fact I would argue wherever you are it's probably cheaper because KC is probably smaller than your market. And you have more physical infrastructure and capacity.

mhays 10y ago
Pricing as a result of market conditions does not make the pricing arbitrary. The price could be affected by lack of competition, but it could also be because of a number of other economic reasons. Limited competition itself could result from any number of economic reasons (expensive build out costs, restrictive regulatory regimes, etc). Understanding the various factors involved in building infrastructure, and how they differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, is huge because it plays a huge role in how companies invest, build out, and price. Comparing two different cities' prices, without any more information, is completely useless.
rando_login 10y ago
It's not random. It's based on what they can get for it given the likelihood of you and your neighbors going elsewhere. I figure this is pretty rational given the circumstances.
LastZactionHero 10y ago
I lived in KC for a bit, but moved shortly before Google Fiber. When TWC came to install internet, the install guys (4 of them for some reason?) laughed at the modem they gave me- "We still have these?!". When I cancelled and returned my modem, the customer service department was behind bulletproof glass. I don't have much to contribute to the price discussion- just can't pass up the chance to tell a KC TWC story.

dmitrygr 10y ago

My house: AT&T: 768kbps - $40 Comcast: i hate myself no matter the price no other options

johncolanduoni 10y ago

The prices look similar where I live. The only thing AT&T has in their favor here is that their ceiling is higher: You can get 1Gbps (at least in name) for around $90.

akoster 10y ago

My family is is on AT&T Uverse, and pays $52/month for 24Mbps down/5Mbps up and $134/month for 2 HDTVs, 1 non HDTV, a DVR and their lower-mid tier 300 channel package (mainly because mom likes to watch HGTV, DIY and the Food network channels). Those numbers are from our last bill and include AT&T fees (including their HDTV receiver fees in 2016), government taxes, etc. We got an HDTV quite early (circa 2004) and at the time went from Dish Network to DirecTV. And for internet, we separately paid for AT&T DSL, which might have been at 3Mbps for a mid-tier package at the time. Around 2009/2010 an AT&T salesman came to our door to talk about this new Uverse offering in our neighborhood. They talked about it being fiber, just like Fios from Verizon (though I suspected it wasn't really the same since our streets never were dug up- which is in line with it being fiber to the main node outside of our housing tract.) They enticed my parents to get out of their expensive contract with DirecTV and pay less for the same TV package with an included DVR accessible to the entire home, and a faster internet speed without any contract, or equipment rental fees. The offer was hard to pass up and was a better deal than signing up for a contract with TWC, paying a lower price for year 1 and then getting ripped off for your second year of the contract. I vaguely remember it was something like $100 or $120 when we signed up for the TV and internet service. The internet speeds were always lower than advertised and occasionally the TV would drop out but it became more reliable over time. At some point were offered a lower rate to sign up for a 2 year contract, and though we did, I think it has since expired and may be back on a month-to-month device. The problem with their service has always been some box dying after a year or so, and calling their support number (which redirects to a call center in the Philippines typically) to have them dispatch a technician but other than that, the technicians are usually very well trained and get the problem fixed right the first time, and allow us to call them back for 30 days after the service call for help without contacting their main support line. My parents have heard horror stories from TWC customers who have been overcharged, service that has been poor, and squabbles with home internet data caps (of which ATT has none- at least as shown on our bill). We could go with something like a DSLExtreme or Sonic.net, but then our TV bill would go up. I definitely wish for any bit more competition in our area, but it's doubtful to happen anytime soon.