Slashdot Mirror
Time Warner Cable: No Consumer Demand For Gigabit Internet
Freshly Exhumed writes "Chris Welch at The Verge tells us: 'Speaking at the Morgan Stanley Technology Conference moments ago, Time Warner Cable's Chief Financial Officer Irene Esteves seemed dismissive of the impact Google Fiber is having on consumers. "We're in the business of delivering what consumers want, and to stay a little ahead of what we think they will want," she said when asked about the breakneck internet speeds delivered by Google's young Kansas City network. "We just don't see the need of delivering that to consumers."' The article goes on to quote her: '...residential customers have thus far shown little interest in TWC's top internet tiers. "A very small fraction of our customer base" ultimately choose those options.'"
The article goes on to quote her: '...residential customers have thus far shown little interest in TWC's top internet tiers. "A very small fraction of our customer base" ultimately choose those options.'"
Um, yeah - that's because it's waaaaaaaay overpriced.
If it was capped at 10GB per month, I wouldn't see a need either tbh. Thank Christ I live in a country where capping is unheard of. That's what actual free markets do for you.
yeah.. I could think of lots of people who would like a gigabit internet connection.
however if it comes with rules I'd think TWC to put on it then whats the point. you get like 5 minutes of service per month so what's the point?
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
How about the price?
in rotterdam you can get 200 mbit for 30 euro's, 600 mbit for 37 euro's and 1Gbit for a few hundred euro's more...
I love to have 1Gbit, but I guess 600mbit is okay for now, well hell I would be happy if I could get 200 mbit at all...
It's just how much people are willing to pay for it. I think it still costs far too much....
Of course TWC customers don't need that much bandwidth. Right now the amount of bandwidth they'll give you is generally not enough to stream HD video reliably. This would be a problem for many people, but since their customers all subscribe to cable it clearly doesn't affect them. Streaming 1080p video to multiple devices simultaneously over the internet would kill their core business. Bias is expected.
As a Kansas Citian, I will say that that she is dead wrong. I already told AT&T that if they can't compete, they won't have me as a customer when Google comes to my area next year. What there isn't a market for is paying $400/month for less than gigabit speeds.
Right - if your gigabit connection is capped at something like 30GB, then you could only back up a quarter of your TB HD every month, and provided your remote backup site has the bandwidth so that TWC's connection is the limiter, it should take you far less than an hour to do it. Why would you pay $100+ a month when you could get greater capacity AND higher average throughput from mailing TB HDDs through the USPS?
Hah, captcha was "clipped"!
Time Warner is doing a variation on it though. What the guy really said was:
"We offer high-bandwidth service in some markets, but people don't subscribe to it"
What he's not expanding on, is the reason why they don't subscribe. Is it because people don't want it, or is it because they've made is so damn expensive that people don't see value in it compared to the lower-bandwidth service?
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
They don't need it. HTML5 is better.
In my case, it is because although down speed is higher, up speed and latency are no better.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
I recently (last year) filed a complaint (ref#12-C000422224-1) with the FCC about Google Fiber's "no server hosting allowed of any kind" terms of service. With those kinds of EVIL ToS, you just won't see the kind of innovation and utilization of gigabit fiber service that is possible and that would cause a great increase in demand. Somehow, even though I got the local vocal U.S. Navy Information Warefare Officer who posts here (Dave Shroeder) to publicly call my 53 page anti-google manifesto 'good' and agree with it's core network neutrality argument, I have been pretty much completely ignored by both Google and the FCC. Hell, there was even an AC leak from a google all hands meeting that said Google's CEO was "really annoyed with the no server hosting clause" and "repeatedly needled" the CFO about it, who said there was "no intent to enforce, except against crazy datacenter style abuse". Personally I think that's all bullshit part of a conspiracy to deny residental citizen's the ability to compete with google and other established player's servers and services... Finally a couple weeks ago on valentine's day, 2 days after pinging the FCC again, and 1 day after being pinged by another asshole google recruiter (williamwest@google.com), the FCC finally escalated my complaint. Time will tell...
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3106555&cid=41288357
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3156485&cid=41530745
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3156485&cid=41516877
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121007.pdf
It's not that.
It's that if they offered gigabit Internet, then they'd have to upgrade all that other stuff to handle the bandwidth. That's why they put caps on, that's why they overcharge. It's because they can make tons of money now for the shareholders.
They're a US utility. They don't upgrade. They wait until it falls apart and then they replace as little as possible.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Alternate translation: "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Cable Company."
I am officially gone from
I think it's more a matter of price:
TWC top tier cost - 50 Mbps @ $80/mo (introductory price!)
Google Fiber - 1 Gbps @ $70/mo
Now, which one would any reasonable person want?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Mod parents up. Gee, no one wants a ride in space either, if it costs the GDP of a small country.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
I don't think it's the capping that is the only issue, but rather the pricing. It's hard to justify 100+ bucks for top tier service. We used to pay 20-30 bucks for 5, 7, or 10 Mb. In my area, bumping the 'stock' 10Mbps to 18 is $60. Going higher than that gets exorbitant.
If there was competition, this would no doubt change, but they have a virtual monopoly around here.
Bullshit its because we have ZERO competition in a good chunk of the USA. If we had actual free markets, not this backdoor bribery, cherry picking duopoly horseshit we have now I have NO doubt that we'd have faster speeds and at competitive prices, but because they know they have most customers by the short hairs the money that would be spent on infrastructure goes to bonuses. After all what are you gonna do, go dialup? Go DSL which at least here in the south is several times WORSE (average 3-4Mbps in my area with lows as bad as 700Kbps) than the 8Mbps-20Mbps the average cableco offers?
My city has grown by over a third in the last decade and its a college town to boot...know how many new lines have been laid? ZERO. They know AT&T ain't gonna lay shit for new DSL around here so they just gouge their existing customers and keep the money. it really distorts the whole area because you can have two apt buildings side by side and one will be three times as much and have a waiting list while the other is never more than half full, why? Because you can get high speed at the first one, all you get across the street is the shitty local WISP.
The worst part is if a city gets tired of the bullshit and decides to lay their own lines they can look forward to spending the next decade in court, can't be having competition now can we? I've never been one of those "the free market can fix anything" types but what we have now is so far from a free market it ain't even funny so frankly anything that opened up the country to competition would be good in my book.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
agree, i want gigabit, but i am not willing to sell my kidneys for it. make it reasonable like google is, and i would snap it up....
I don't think it's the capping that is the only issue, but rather the pricing.
I don't think there is any real question here, it most definitely is the pricing. If you tacked a zero on the end of everyone's current speed and charged the same price, I strongly doubt most users would be bumping themselves down to a slower data plan.
It seems to vary widely by region; in Upstate NY, our basic service is 5mb down, 1mb up and costs $55 monthly after all of the first year deals fall away.
I'd love gigabit service, but at their current pricing model up here, $11,000 a month is a bit steep.
Well, I have 1,000Mbps in my area; the fastest internet service in the US. See this news article published in 2010 about EPBfi.
All 100,000 customers have EPB power (this is the local electric power company in Chattanooga, TN, USA). Because of EPB's electric smartgrid, they also provide fiber to 100% of their coverage area. This means that every home/business/apartment has access to Gbit Internet and TV/phone.
The slowest speed they currently offer is 50Mbps (for $57.99 per month), the fastest is 1000Mbps($299.99). I am on 100Mbps because it is only $12 more per month than 50Mbps.
Oh, and there are no max bandwidth/transfer caps. You can do 1000Mbps all day long...EPBfi has the upstream bandwidth.
I was on Comcast for 8 years. I telecommute most days; Comcast would go down for hours at a time for no apparent reason. When I would phone Comcast to report the outages, the customer service rep would say that they are upgrading the services in my area. The service person would say it as if that was the script on their screen as why the internet went down for 2 hours at 11am and again at 4pm. It got so bad over the course of a year, that I had to purchase a Sprint broadband card/account to continue to get work done as I came to just expect outages. I could not tell a client that I was having internet connectivity issues when I am doing remote-based network consulting.) ;)
After switching to EPBfi 2 years ago, I haven't had a SINGLE service-affecting outage. They appear to have built their Internet infrastructure as solidly as they build their power distribution network.
Feel free to read more here: https://epbfi.com/internet/
Oh, BTW, I don't own stock in EPB or work for them....I am a customer that likes to pay for internet that works reliably.
Here is a news article published in 2012 about Chattanooga's upgrade of all customers from 30Mbps to 50Mbps.
It is interesting how none of the big media giants want to provide the additional speed/reliability; I guess if you can feed your customers sewage and tell them it's honey...and the customers believe it, more money goes in your pocket.
Sig Return: 204 No Content
"but they have a virtual monopoly around here."
I envy you... where I live, in Los Angeles, they have an *actual* monopoly on high speed service.
Can I get Verizon here? No. (Not in a Verizon area.)
Can I get AT&T U-Verse service here? No. (Not available in my area.)
Can I get any other cable company service? No. (Local monopoly.)
It's TWC or nothing.
For the record I'm not "demanding" their top tiers because their pricing is ridiculous, not because I don't want it.