If you had a choice of internet plans, low-cost/low-perf, vs. high-cost/higher-perf?

[VirtualLarry]

Just curious which you would choose, and why.

Assume that there are no "caps" for a moment, and that there was no restriction on availability between plans.

Let's consider a hypothetical pair of plans from a particular ISP, $10/mo for 10/1, or $50/mo for 50/5. You could even throw in a third choice, $80/mo for 100/10.

Residential, not business, not running a WiFi hotspot for other people.

 

[VirtualLarry]

This has personal relevance to me. I've signed up with Comcast's "Internet Essentials", which is a $10/mo for 10/1 plan. Also, already have FIOS, and bumped my speed to 50/50 (really, 60/60 with "fluff"), with broadcast TV (double-play), it's around $90/mo.

The FIOS is really sweet, and ... still affordable, barely, for me. It's great for downloading the occasional Linux or Windows ISO, or updating freshly-installed PCs.

I'm debating getting rid of the FIOS though, and saving $$$, and just going with the Comcast for $10/mo.

I also have a Sprint Mifi (2Mbit/sec, max effective), for $10/mo for "backup internet", should my primary internet be down. (Very rare with FIOS, less rare with Comcast.)

Edit: I'm just a single guy, but I've got lots of PCs connected. Still, don't have a family of Netflix HD streamers.

 

[lxskllr]

I'd go cheap. I don't watch heavy video, and I'm patient. Ideally I'd like 15/2 for $20/month, but 10's good enough.

 

[Yakk]

Cheap for me.

If I need higher performance then I'd expense it out.

 

[Gryz]

The main service you pay for is connectivity. As long as you are "connected" to the Internet, a subscription is worth its money.

More bandwidth is nice, but the price is not linear. If you pay $10/month, for 10 Mbps, then 50 Mbps should not cost $50. More like $20 or $30. I would probably prefer 50 Mbps for $30. Right now I have 6 Mbps for 35 euro. (The offer is: everyone gets up to 20 Mbps for 35 euro, but my DSL line is not capable of more than 6 Mbps). I think 6 Mbps is doable today. But within a few years, I'll probably need more to be able to stay with the pack. Even if you take only 10 Mbps today, you know you have the option to upgrade whenever your want. That's nice.

 

[XavierMace]

I'm paying $85 for 300/30 and am impatiently waiting for Gigabit.

 

[ch33zw1z]

100/10

Basically doing that now thru comcast

 

[Nashemon]

I will pay for whatever the fastest available is for me. I don't care about cost. In the city of Buffalo, the fastest is Spectrum's pitiful 50/10 for $65/month (on special, Internet only), which is what I have. When something faster comes along, or the Charter merger is completed, or when Verizon FIOS finally gets off its ass and works out a deal with my city, I'll switch to whatever is the fastest.

 

[Genx87]

I'm paying roughly 70-80 right now for 105Mbps service.

 

[bigboxes]

I'm recently cut cable tv, but kept Spectrum's internet. I'm getting 118M/6M for ~$60mo. No caps. 10M for $10mo. is tempting though. Spectrum offeres 30M/4M for $15 for Seniors and those with kids enrolled in school lunch programs. I don't qualify for neither.

 

[Ackmed]

I'd pay (I do pay) for high speed/high cost. Currently have AT&T giga Internet, very happy with it. $80 a month for now, $109 after the first year. We stream a lot, I game a lot, and download a lot. 1000/1000 may seem like too much, but I'm happy with it.

 

[VirtualLarry]

1If I could get *gigabit* (symmetric) internet for $100 (or less!), I think that I would jump on that.

 

[Ackmed]

1If I could get *gigabit* (symmetric) internet for $100 (or less!), I think that I would jump on that.

Not bad, I'm happy with it.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Tough decision, but for $10, I think I'd go with the cheap one knowing how much money I'm saving. Typically you can't get internet that cheap and end up paying $100+ /mo no matter what, so at that point what's an extra 30 bucks or so to upgrade. But given those prices I'd probably start with the low end one. The upload sucks though, but you need to go all the way up to the 100 package to get half decent upload. 10/1 is good enough for most usage scenarios but that upload is kinda limiting especially for stuff like offsite backups, or running a game server etc. you can still somewhat torrent on that as you can leave it go overnight. Heck I used to do that with DSL all the time.

The middle one is almost not worthwhile, as if you're going to pay extra may as well pay a bit more and get the higher tier one.

 

[Fardringle]

I'd love to just have the opportunity to choose. I pay about $80 per month for 60/6 service from Comcast (just data, no TV/phone). The connection is stable and works great, but I would gladly pay less for a somewhat slower but still usable connection. The only other option here is a 1m/256k DSL line for $50 per month so that isn't even a possible consideration.

 

[jimbob200521]

Well we've currently got 75/10 and pay $45 a month for it so I'd go with that. Comcast, btw.

 

[Red Squirrel]

I think one of the reasons we don't see low cost plans is that it would not be economical to offer it. It would cost more to run the line etc than what they'll get in a reasonable time frame. Could they afford it? Easily, but they don't want to do it. Personally if I ran an ISP I would offer such a service and it would be targeted mostly at people who would otherwise not bother with it, like older folk. Sell it at a price where you mostly break even. When their kids realize they do have internet but they could get more out of it if they got Netflix etc, then they would potentially upgrade to a higher tier plan.

I'd also allow servers, static IPs (at extra cost) and perhaps even custom whois info. I don't get why ISPs don't do this, it would be lucrative. Heck, block custom server ports by default, charge a bit extra to open them and allow servers. I would gladly pay a bit more to my ISP so I could run my web stuff right from home. My ISP used to do that for DSL, but for some reason they don't for fibre.

 

[bruceb]

I have AT&T U-verse and I am not sure what the price is, but we get around 22MBS Download speed.

 

[kevnich2]

You constantly post how many internet connections you have, that you have to have multiple in case one goes down but yet you constantly post about how you're on low income housing, low income internet, etc and that you live on less than $15,000/year.

Obviously, your employment is not dictated by having or not having internet, so what does the speed or even having more than one connection matter to you?