4 ms·

I live in NYC, so in general I am lucky to have cable Internet service. I lived in SF for a brief period of time, and Comcast was expensive and slow. I am quit

by yeukhon 12y ago

I live in NYC, so in general I am lucky to have cable Internet service. I lived in SF for a brief period of time, and Comcast was expensive and slow. I am quite glad this deal is off. I have been TWC Internet service user for many years and it used to be so-so compared to FiOS. When I finally had the chance to switch to FiOS I was very excited, but after comparing customer service, speed, and price, I just couldn't move away. I couldn't move to RCN because so many instability (probably due to over provisioned pools). TWC's new plan is cheaper and pretty reliable where I live. I did invest some serious cash on getting my own modem SB6141 and a very good wireless router, which definitely has boosted bandwidth and performance. TWC and Comcast's stock modem sucks (and now you either buy or rent). I was surprised to see how many people were willing to rent because of simplicity; go to Amazon, spend $100-$130 on the modem, ship it, and install the modem. As a customer, I just hope we can have more reliable options. Technically, $40 for up to 100 Mbps is still a little high (but 3-5 years ago it would be like $70, $80 a month). The day when we are offered 100Mpbs at "DSL" plan price range, I will be really happy. Actually, I'd be even happier if we can build out the cellular data technology... "4Gb for $40? Yes, first 1G at 4G speed, the rest, like 56kpbs." I want to see the day when cellular data can be just as quick as my home network. I am not very concerned with other monopolies (search, TV, , music etc), but telecom monopoly is a big concern to me.

shmerl 12y ago
NYC still doesn't have gigabit for $70.
- rayiner 12y ago
  Think about what a marketing coup it would be for Google to wire up San Francisco or New York City with Fiber. And think of how awful the red-tape in those cities must be for even Google to steer clear.
  - shmerl 12y ago
    I think they should do it at some point. It's just too major of a potential to ignore.
    - rayiner 12y ago
      You think there is any money in building fiber in NYC at $70?
      - shmerl 12y ago
        Probably enough money to make it attractive. Google also can have dark fiber in NYC I assume. The price is reasonable though regardless whether it's NYC or not. What Verizon charges for 0.5 gigabit is simply insane.
        rayiner 12y ago
        If it's such an attractive market why is the city having to push and prod Verizon through the FiOS deployment? They should be eager to finish buildout and start collecting the fat checks. It's not like they're sitting pretty collecting fat margins on DSL. They're the entrant into the high-speed broadband market there and the government has given them the green light. Plus, Verizon's lack of substantial profit margin on FiOS is well-known. The price they charge for 0.5 gigabit is what they have to charge to make up for their unionized workforce, build out requirements, etc.
        shmerl 12y ago
        > If it's such an attractive market why is the city having to push and prod Verizon through the FiOS deployment? Because Verizon stopped caring about landline Internet for a while already. Not because it's not profitable, but because current Verizon execs are all from the wireless department (unlike previous Verizon CEO who was from landline part of the business and started FiOS effort to begin with). I.e. Verizon just wants more profits from wireless and wants to get rid of landline altogether. It's idiocy or greed or whatever. Nothing good anyway. We are lucky NYC actually holds Verizon accountable for their contract (since they got massive tax cuts for promising to wire the whole city with fiber). > Verizon's lack of substantial profit margin on FiOS is well-known. After Ivan Seidenberg has left, FiOS was doomed. Wireless execs weren't interested in making it more profitable. Not because it couldn't be, but because they didn't want it. > The price they charge for 0.5 gigabit is what they have to charge to make up for their unionized workforce, build out requirements, etc. That's nonsense. They charge lower prices for the same line (which is the bulk of what they get). Barely anyone in residential FiOS pays such crazy prices (businesses is another question). I.e. they can provide much more bandwidth even for their lower price tiers and still be profitable. They just want to rip off the higher one.
Vendan 12y ago
Now if just TWC had the same plans everywhere. Where I live, $40 would get you a 15Mbps plan. $70 gets you their top of the line 50Mbps plan. You can't go higher without switching out of residential plans, and then you start paying a lot more.

by yeukhon 12y ago

shmerl 12y ago

NYC still doesn't have gigabit for $70.

rayiner 12y ago
Think about what a marketing coup it would be for Google to wire up San Francisco or New York City with Fiber. And think of how awful the red-tape in those cities must be for even Google to steer clear.
- shmerl 12y ago
  I think they should do it at some point. It's just too major of a potential to ignore.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    You think there is any money in building fiber in NYC at $70?
    - shmerl 12y ago
      Probably enough money to make it attractive. Google also can have dark fiber in NYC I assume. The price is reasonable though regardless whether it's NYC or not. What Verizon charges for 0.5 gigabit is simply insane.
      - rayiner 12y ago
        If it's such an attractive market why is the city having to push and prod Verizon through the FiOS deployment? They should be eager to finish buildout and start collecting the fat checks. It's not like they're sitting pretty collecting fat margins on DSL. They're the entrant into the high-speed broadband market there and the government has given them the green light. Plus, Verizon's lack of substantial profit margin on FiOS is well-known. The price they charge for 0.5 gigabit is what they have to charge to make up for their unionized workforce, build out requirements, etc.
        shmerl 12y ago
        > If it's such an attractive market why is the city having to push and prod Verizon through the FiOS deployment? Because Verizon stopped caring about landline Internet for a while already. Not because it's not profitable, but because current Verizon execs are all from the wireless department (unlike previous Verizon CEO who was from landline part of the business and started FiOS effort to begin with). I.e. Verizon just wants more profits from wireless and wants to get rid of landline altogether. It's idiocy or greed or whatever. Nothing good anyway. We are lucky NYC actually holds Verizon accountable for their contract (since they got massive tax cuts for promising to wire the whole city with fiber). > Verizon's lack of substantial profit margin on FiOS is well-known. After Ivan Seidenberg has left, FiOS was doomed. Wireless execs weren't interested in making it more profitable. Not because it couldn't be, but because they didn't want it. > The price they charge for 0.5 gigabit is what they have to charge to make up for their unionized workforce, build out requirements, etc. That's nonsense. They charge lower prices for the same line (which is the bulk of what they get). Barely anyone in residential FiOS pays such crazy prices (businesses is another question). I.e. they can provide much more bandwidth even for their lower price tiers and still be profitable. They just want to rip off the higher one.

Vendan 12y ago

Now if just TWC had the same plans everywhere. Where I live, $40 would get you a 15Mbps plan. $70 gets you their top of the line 50Mbps plan. You can't go higher without switching out of residential plans, and then you start paying a lot more.