Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Time Warner Boosts Broadband Customer Speed — But Only Near Google Fiber

Posted by timothy on from the just-a-coincidence dept.

An anonymous reader writes " Rob is a Time Warner Cable customer, and he's received two really interesting things from them lately. First, a 50% speed boost: they claim to have upgraded the speed of his home Internet connection. That's neat. Oh, and they've also cut his bill, from $45 to $30. Wow! What has prompted this amazing treatment? Years of loyalty and on-time payments? No, not exactly. Rob lives in Kansas City, pilot site for Google Fiber. Even though they have shut off people in other states for using too much bandwidth. Is Google making them show that it's not that hard to provide good service and bandwidth?"

8 of 203 comments (clear)

  1. Good by stewsters · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is what healthy competition is supposed to do to the market. Now, we need google fiber in more cities and the average speed and price of internet will get better for everyone (unless you live in a rural area).

    1. Re:Good by bmo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >This is an unsustainable race to the bottom.

      Bullshit. It's been established that caps and rate limiting are just a cash grab. And the customer has been raped enough through billing ever since we threw billions of taxpayers' money at the network providers in the 90s only to watch it go out as dividends to shareholders and board bonuses.

      Competition is *always* good.

      --
      BMO

    2. Re:Good by afidel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yep, look at the cost per Mbps for colo bandwidth versus last mile, they were on a roughly parallel trajectory until the media companies bought up the cable companies and decided to increase costs to protect their existing models, they can only do that because in most markets they have a monopoly/duopoly position, give them some real competition and suddenly things get back on track.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The funny part is that how much government is involved with a particular part of infrastructure is based directly on how old that kind of infrastructure is.

      Roads, water/sewage, and postal service? Those date to at least the Roman Empire, so of course they're run directly by the government as a general rule. The Post Office is specifically enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, and "Postmaster General" used to be a cabinet level position.

      Electricity? Heating gas? Ah, now we're only going back a little over a century, so we have heavily-regulated private companies providing the infrastructure.

      Telephones? Less time still, with a commensurately less-regulated industry.

      Cable TV? Even more recent, very little regulation. And, of course, residential Internet access is done on the incumbent phone and cable networks, so it ends up there on the spectrum.

      Cell phone service? It's completely Wild West, with the government just divvying up spectrum. Is anyone surprised at predatory contracts and usurious rates and terrible service?

      Here's the revelation: you go on that list in reverse order, newest and least regulated first, and I bet you're reading it from worst customer service to best. I've literally never had problems with my water utility, and rarely had problems with my electric service, but Comcast and Sprint? It is to laugh.

    4. Re:Good by mea_culpa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree so long as the government doesn't choose winners and losers like they have done and still currently do.
      AT&T prior to the breakup is a good example of how far this cronyism can go. Don't get me started on the industrial media complex. Right now it is cellular carriers and cable companies. Both are using public resources unfairly.
      Your public road analogy is good, but if you were to accurately compare it to the telecommunication industry there would be roads that only Ford, Chevy, and Crystler vehicles were allowed to drive on. Chevy would make and agreement with Ford to allow eachother's cars on their roads but not Toyota, KIA and many others. The barrier to entry would be so high that newer better cars would not be allowed in.

      When Cox bought out our local Cable America in Phoenix all they did was switch subscribers over, and charge 20% more. Did they use any of the infrastructure of the competitor that they bought out? No, they systematically dismantled it. All of those years of negotiations with various municipalities to get access to easements, poles, alley ways, etc. all gone. The millions of dollars spent to install that mostly redundant infrastructure also gone. There is no possible way now, unless you are Google, to come in and compete with them.

  2. It's called competetion by Dyinobal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's called competition, which is something that has been sorely lacking in the broadband market. It's actually missing in just about any market that is dominated by a few large corporations. See the publishing industry etc.

  3. Competition is overrated by SpeedBump0619 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I mean, look, it lowers corporate revenue and increases operating expenses! Competition lowers tax revenue and taxes are how corporations support our troops. This competition thing has *got* to stop!

  4. Cancelled today by methano · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was one of the first Road Runner customers in the RTP, NC area. I've been a good customer. TW recently upped my rates and their remote is terrible. Unfortunately for TW, some real competition recently showed up for what once was a monopoly. I switched and just got off the phone to tell them that I am canceling. Amazingly, some promotions, that I was previously unaware of, became available to me. No way. A little competition can be a good thing.