Service Providers (Internet, TV, Etc)

  • Guest, a new site style is ready for use. The poll to change the "default" style, and provide your feedback can be found here

Kaio

Knight of the Realm
Aug 5, 2016
217
47m
1
#3
Well no one wants them to do it for free; this is their test ground to see if they can make this work economically. Even if they only manage to break even on the isp side of things it may enable new services google is trying to push that can't be done because of current internet bandwidth to homes/businesses.

I really fucking hope this pays off in the long run.
 
Jul 30, 2016
783
0
0
#4
They don't need to bring it to all households, or even half of all households. They need to bring it to New York, Chicago, LA, San Francisco... basically, the major population hubs where people also have a demand for broadband. The interesting cost to quote would have been covering some of the largest metropolitan areas in the country. (I don't think that's the 50m people? Otherwise that'd suggest the cost is almost the same for urban households and rural households, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.) Nobody gives a shit if it's not available in the middle of nowhere. Somehow, I don't think they have 2 TVs streaming 1080p content while remotely accessing the work VPN. They also don't need to do it at the rock bottom prices they're offering in Kansas City. Their current rollout seems to be a way to see what happens if everyone had that kind of speed available, but of course they don't need 100% of the market for this to be a sensible investment.

Moreover, comparing the cost of a total investment with Google's market capitalization doesn't make sense. Nobody is suggesting they liquidate all their assets/IPs and invest it all into expanding broadband. What it does suggests is that with a budget of $4.5bn (assuming CAPEX is only the Fiber network?), they could easily cover all the major metropolitan areas in 5-10 years.
 

LiquidDeath

Magnus Deadlift the Fucktiger
<Donors Crew>
Jul 30, 2016
1,844
16h 26m
2,357
#5
They don't need to bring it to all households, or even half of all households. They need to bring it to New York, Chicago, LA, San Francisco... basically, the major population hubs where people also have a demand for broadband. The interesting cost to quote would have been covering some of the largest metropolitan areas in the country. (I don't think that's the 50m people? Otherwise that'd suggest the cost is almost the same for urban households and rural households, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.) Nobody gives a shit if it's not available in the middle of nowhere. Somehow, I don't think they have 2 TVs streaming 1080p content while remotely accessing the work VPN. They also don't need to do it at the rock bottom prices they're offering in Kansas City. Their current rollout seems to be a way to see what happens if everyone had that kind of speed available, but of course they don't need 100% of the market for this to be a sensible investment.

Moreover, comparing the cost of a total investment with Google's market capitalization doesn't make sense. Nobody is suggesting they liquidate all their assets/IPs and invest it all into expanding broadband. What it does suggests is that with a budget of $4.5bn (assuming CAPEX is only the Fiber network?), they could easily cover all the major metropolitan areas in 5-10 years.
Because no on is the South or Mid-West use bandwidth like the city-folk? That is some stupid ass shit that I just read in your post. I expected more out of you.

Verizon did exactly what you are talking about. They only have their FIOS cable and internet service set up in large metro areas and anyone with a brain was begging them to expand to their city because of the speeds (up and down) that they offered. There is definitely a market for their services all over the country. Here in Oklahoma there are basically two bad choices, Cox and AT&T. The customer service is notoriously terrible for both so any player that came to town with good prices and decent service would see a flood of new customers. Doing better than the current crop of asshole providers would be pretty easy if Google go their shit together.
 

Joeboo

Trakanon Raider
Jul 30, 2016
8,153
0
122
#6
I have to assume that when they talk about that $140B figure to get to "everybody", they are actually talking about getting to everyone that currently has broadband available(either DSL or cable). While that does include a lot of small towns all over the country, that still excludes a lot of people that live outside of city limits all over the place. They don't literally mean every single person, they aren't ever going to be running fiber to a house that is 10 miles out in the woods with nothing around it, just like Cable and DSL don't run to those people either. So that is 140B to basically match the coverage that DSL & Cable provide today.

I do agree with Soriak on one point, if they roll out Google Fiber in NY, LA, San Fran, Chicago, etc, it is going to create a public demand elsewhere that other companies might step up to fill. I'm pretty sure that has been Google's plan all along, to roll out *just* enough fiber to spur competition and make other companies do it. Google doesn't want to cover the whole US, but they very much want someone else to do it, it's just taking some prodding to do it.
 

Lenas

Tread Lightly
<Donors Crew>
Jul 30, 2016
5,804
5h 39m
819
#7
Because no on is the South or Mid-West use bandwidth like the city-folk? That is some stupid ass shit that I just read in your post. I expected more out of you.
It's about population density and trend setting.
 

LiquidDeath

Magnus Deadlift the Fucktiger
<Donors Crew>
Jul 30, 2016
1,844
16h 26m
2,357
#8
It's about population density and trend setting.
I understand that, but that isn't what he said. He said people outside major metros wouldn't have a need to stream multiple 1080p streams and VPN at the same time. It is simple economics that Google would build out the major metro areas first, but to act like those are the only people who would user or benefit from gigabit internet is just asinine.
 

Erronius

Lord Nagafen Raider
Jul 30, 2016
5,753
0
1,011
#11
I cant get Google Fiber fast enough. FWIW, I'd had enough of Clear's bullshit business practices, and I didn't want to pay a couple hundred extra to have them bring cable app 1000ft to the house. I think I got about the same speed with Clear on occasion. I will prob start looking for a new apartment with Fiber this summer.

2430268385.png

2430276085.png

2430286506.png


On a side note, a friend of mine in Merriam had been using Time Warner for a while now, and kept having his internet go out sporadically. Think he said other people on part of the street had the same problem, but Time Warner never fixed it and always said they couldn't find an issue. Then a month or two ago they talked to Sure West and found out they could get some sort of fiber on their street (IIRC) so they changed over. And this kind of came out of the blue, too. After Googling a bit I guess they've had fiber in that area for at least 4 years now, and we talked about how we hadn't really even heard of Surewest much before.

http://stopthecap.com/2012/09/05/kan...liment-google/

SureWest, which believes strongly in fiber service, is busy laying fiber in conduits in Fairway, Mission, Roeland Park ? all in Kansas. It also offers service in Lenexa, Overland Park, Shawnee and parts of Kansas City, Mo.

With all of this fiber, some Kansans may soon be able to choose between two competing fiber to the home providers.

SureWest General Manager of Kansas City operations Matt Zuschlag says SureWest?s fiber broadband service, which tops out at 50/50Mbps, will work just as well as Google?s gigabit (1,000Mbps) service because most web sites don?t need super fast speeds to load equally as fast. Even some bandwidth-intensive applications will not be able to take full advantage of Google?s fiber speeds because the networks currently supporting them were not designed to deliver sustained gigabit speed to end users.

SureWest works good enough for communities like Prairie Village, which is asking the company to wire its community for fiber service, regardless of where Google expands next.

SureWest competes with traditional cable and phone companies ? Time Warner Cable and AT&T in the case of northern Kansas, and sells traditional triple play packages of phone, Internet, and television service.

But SureWest says its fiber network is always laid underground, which the company says offers improved reliability. Google Fiber is being installed largely on overhead lines alongside other utility services. SureWest says going underground allows it to skip the delays associated with obtaining pole use permits.
 

Joeboo

Trakanon Raider
Jul 30, 2016
8,153
0
122
#12
I'm over in Lees Summit(suburb of KC), we might never get google fiber. Sucks to be so close to it yet I can't get ahold of it. Crappiest part is that I lived in North KC up until 3 years ago, and that area is due to get fiber later this year.

Time Warner out here is decent, I pay $60 a month for the 30mbit service, but I'd sure as hell rather pay $10 more for 1000mbit service if I had that option

2430474382.png
 

Tarrant

<Donors Crew>
Jul 30, 2016
10,301
1h 41m
557
#13
This year in what used to be Qwest territory (now controlled by Century Link)areas that already have fiber in them capable of 40mb speeds, they will be rolling out 60, 80 and 100. IT's been in our systems for awhile now, we just don't have a price point attached to it yet, as soon as they figure that out I think it'll be good to go. Sometime second quarter I believe.

We will also be rolling out new promotions for stand alone internet. Much like every other provider we have the 6 month promos for internet at $29.99, however we are now going to extend that for a year. 40mb interweb for a year isn't to shabby I think.

This is what our 40mb service looks like.

rrr_img_8580.png
 

BrutulTM

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
<Donors Crew>
Jul 31, 2016
7,874
15h 53m
2,447
#14
Just to make you all feel better about your ISP, this is what $79.99 gets you when you live in the sticks.

2433336297.png


Did I mention the 17GB download cap?
 

Joeboo

Trakanon Raider
Jul 30, 2016
8,153
0
122
#17
Just to make you all feel better about your ISP, this is what $79.99 gets you when you live in the sticks.

2433336297.png


Did I mention the 17GB download cap?
That's goddamn brutal, I'd have to move.

I regularly use 300-500GB of bandwith a month on my home ISP
 
Jul 30, 2016
163
0
1
#18
My in-laws live a couple miles outside of Springfield Illinois and were paying upwards of $100/month for 2Mb/s with a 2 gig cap with some terrible DSL company. Literally their only option until AT&T(I think) finally extended close enough about 3 months ago. Now they're paying for their only other option, a T1 line (20Mb/s) for $70/month.


Meanwhile, in Utah...

2436745993.png


$25/month
No cap.
 

BrutulTM

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
<Donors Crew>
Jul 31, 2016
7,874
15h 53m
2,447
#19
That's goddamn brutal, I'd have to move.

I regularly use 300-500GB of bandwith a month on my home ISP
The cap is by far the worst part. I could actually upgrade to like 12 mB but with the same data cap I see no reason to. 3mB is fine for surfing and more speed would just make me want to do things that would destroy my cap in an hour.
 
Jul 30, 2016
12
0
0
#20
I had FiOS and loved it until Verizon sent a cancellation after I had altered my service, not canceled. After calling Verizon they said that my account was still be open so I didn't have to pay the bill. After several months I got a letter from a collection agency for delinquency to pay a bill. They were able to explain to me that when you alter our service Verizon closes your account and opens a new one, without informing you. I called Verizon's billing department and explained the situation and paid the old bill. They assured me that it wouldn't affect my credit score and low and behold 2 years later it is on my credit report and lowered my score about 40 points. After months of calling different parts of Verizon they refused to submit a removal request to the credit agencies because "there systems showed no error on the part of Verizon." Needless to say, I've gone back to Comcast and hate it... but its the principal of it.