Time Warner Cable executive claims consumers don’t want gigabit Internet

[frodrick]

I have access to 1000/1000 Mbit ($275/mo) but I wouldn't even try to justify that to my wife. 50/50 Mbit for $58 works just fine for us. https://epbfi.com/enroll/packages/#/

 

[jpiniero]

EDIT> Another resource says they serve 15.5 million as of 2009. Dividing that, that's $1500 per house spent which are able to get service. Who knows which numbers are right and what the numbers are today - we can only trust that $700 number to be a correct one.

You do have to factor in NYC though; where it's dense and "easy" enough to do FTTH that even Big Cable is also FTTH there. It's probally costing Google Fiber like 10k a home in KC.

I don't even want to know what it'd cost if the US Gov tried to wire the entire US. And it'd be foolish when Wireless is going to replace it anyway.

 

[MonKENy]

I am actually looking for jobs in KC due to google fiber.

1. More IT jobs are opening up in that area.
2. I'm willing to move anyway, and KC has a low cost of living.
3. It isn't too far from my folks that I would be unable to visit them for the holidays.
4. I want gigabit internet so i can host a few e businesses from home.

I feel like this is whats going to happen.

You have shitty stagnant companies like TW and Comcast that refuse to budge. Over priced and under speed.

When Google comes in and lays down networks and undercuts these companies then they are going to be trying to sue the shit out of Google. But that's what Google does best. Goes in and shakes up the competition. They are known to do things just to create a more balanced market.

I hate TW, I have charter at home and work and have to say they are good. Speed is always good, price is good, and customer service has been great.

 

[dawp]

I'm seriously considering moving so I can get google fiber.

 

[Zodiark1593]

Wireless would be the obvious answer; LTE is rather fast already and LTE Advanced is coming. Whether any of the Big 4 would aggressively go after home internet users is another question.

If they're as aggressively capped as most other wireless plans I've seen, then they won't be the solution. :thumbsdown:

200GB or more is about where I want.

 

[techs]

I don't think wireless will replace landlines. There is just not enough bandwidth and the coverage is too spotty.

I think that eventually the telephone companies will go out of business, or the cable companies will be forced by law to allow them a small amount of bandwidth to run phone service. One pipe is the most efficient way to deliver packets. It just doesn't make any sense to have two different sets of lines, mostly using the same poles.

 

[Baked]

I got a flyer from verizon yesterday. They're doing 50MB FiOS, HD cable, and digital phone for $90/month, price guaranteed for 2 years. I'm very very tempted to jump on this even though I'm only home 2 hours a day (excluding sleep time).

 

[smitbret]

One can walk down the street and most of tbe internet connections are used for email, YouTube, and search/research for school.

The high Bandwidth usage is very rare.
Few people are running video servers or hosting TCP/IP file servers.

Techies may want the fastest; few standard subscribers have the need.

This.

Once again, we have to keep in mind that this forum isn't a good sample for the rest of the population. I work in technical support for DirecTV and I'll often ask people how fast their internet connection is and not a single person has ever known the answer to that. Their answers are always something like "Well, I can watch Hi-Def YouTube" or "It takes me like 15 minutes download a PPV." If you ask the average American on the street what a megabit is they'd be, "Like, isn't that what's in your computer."

As long as it goes fast enough to do what they want, then they don't think about it twice. If they can watch NetFlix without buffering, they are happy and could care less if gigabit is available or not.

I have 50/2 right now but I figure a true 12mb/s would be plenty fast for my use. Unfortunately the next fastest connection I could get would be a DSL 1.5/750 or cable 7/2. At most, I would save $15 going to either so it's not worth it. If I could save $20 and drop to a 20mb, I would do it in a heartbeat.

 

[techs]

This.

Once again, we have to keep in mind that this forum isn't a good sample for the rest of the population. I work in technical support for DirecTV and I'll often ask people how fast their internet connection is and not a single person has ever known the answer to that. Their answers are always something like "Well, I can watch Hi-Def YouTube" or "It takes me like 15 minutes download a PPV." If you ask the average American on the street what a megabit is they'd be, "Like, isn't that what's in your computer."

As long as it goes fast enough to do what they want, then they don't think about it twice. If they can watch NetFlix without buffering, they are happy and could care less if gigabit is available or not.

I have 50/2 right now but I figure a true 12mb/s would be plenty fast for my use. Unfortunately the next fastest connection I could get would be a DSL 1.5/750 or cable 7/2. At most, I would save $15 going to either so it's not worth it. If I could save $20 and drop to a 20mb, I would do it in a heartbeat.

That's the kind of thinking thats holding back the future. Internet speeds that are fast enough for now are stifling innovation. What kind of things could we do with gigabit speeds? I don't know. But some very smart people will figure it out.

When I went from dial up to 3Mpbs Comcast I thought that now I can do everything I want to do on the internet. But when my internet speed when to 6 and then 10 I could now see a clear video of how to disassemble a laptop instead of just a diagram. Funny, I thought a diagram was all I would ever need. Turns out it wasn't.

If gigabit was extraordinarily expensive I could see a reason to delay. But what seems clear is that ISP's are raking in profits on the internet. The money to build out gigabit is there.

 

[Sureshot324]

It's nice to have Internet fast enough to stream hd video, but for me I don't see much benefit beyond that.

 

[BoomerD]

The relevant question isn't 'Do consumers want faster service?' but 'Are consumers willing to pay more for faster service?'

Personally I wouldn't. With higher res streaming content (and the necessary displays) then I might consider it but I doubt I would pay much more.

This isn't nearly as black and white as a lot of people are making it out to be.

True dat. The "average non-techie" user could care less if they have "blazing fast" internet. It's really only the techie folks who want it.
MIGHT it come down to all TV (non-OTA) programming being delivered over the internet? Perhaps...but not in the near future.
I had AT&T's Uverse for a while. Internet was sporadic, TV was mediocre at best.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

That is a very common stand amongst many people.

However, imho it shows a lack of vision. Many, many things that I just didn't think I would ever need or want from the internet 12 years ago when I was on dial up are today routine. Its the unforseen uses for the internet which is why we should have gigabit.

I will repeat what I have posted before. One of the primary factors in Americas great industrial history was the building of the best and most extensive electric and telephone grids. No one anticipated the need for large amounts of electricity to build the atom bomb when the US built huge hydroelectric dams out west during the Great Depression or that US farmers would need electricity or telephones to become the greatest food producers in the world.

Maybe some day students will do their first two years of college at home. Maybe as gas becomes more expensive the US could lead the world in telecommuting and become the cheapest place to do many sorts of business.

Its for the things we DON'T know that we need gigabit ethernet.

As to the cost, when cable companies originally wired up customers it probably cost MORE than to rewire for gigabit. Cable companies had to build everything from the ground up. It took YEARS for them to pay off their infrastructure. How did that work out? GREAT. Its that cable companies want to return short term profits to their shareholders that they don't want to build out gigabit ethernet.

I think you might be putting the cart before the horse. Traditionally, the need for internet speeds have lagged behind the demand and I don't think cable companies currently see demand as any limiting prospect. The majority aren't demanding 1gbps speeds right now. That will likely change in the future and when a significant minority of consumers begin to demand those speeds, and show they are willing to pay for it, the companies will respond in kind. Gigabit internet services, as a rule/standard, will be rolled out when companies think they can recoup a significant enough profit over the initial infrastructure costs.

I also believe that wireless will be the future. The current drawback to cable/fiber is the same problem with landline phones - you can't take your internet speeds with you anywhere you go. Wired phone service is gradually dying and so will wired internet.

 

[Red Squirrel]

I have access to 1000/1000 Mbit ($275/mo) but I wouldn't even try to justify that to my wife. 50/50 Mbit for $58 works just fine for us. https://epbfi.com/enroll/packages/#/

At that price I'd jump on that.

Host 10-20 servers for ~$100/mo with dedicated 100mbps connection and you'll make money out of it. You'll also save in heating.

 

[Aikouka]

I first saw this article, and my knee-jerk reaction was... "they're idiots!" However, I thought about it for a minute, and I realized that they're right. Most people outside of the super techies couldn't care less whether their Internet speed is that fast. They simply want Internet that works well when they want to use it, and they don't spend forever waiting for their content to load up. I think this applies to a lot of things in life. I work as an engineer, and I had to tell a gun around my own age that his Samsung Galaxy S III has Android on it. I also had to tell a middle-aged woman that her HTC Thunderbolt also has Android on it. They had no idea what their phone was running because they didn't care.

Now, I think that the proliferation of ridiculously fast Internet may also be a good thing, because that may also introduce lower tiers for even lower prices. That also brings me to one of the other points. Google isn't just offering ridiculously fast Internet, but they're also offering it for a good price. Most of the major ISPs couldn't care less about increasing the services that they provide for their customers unless they have a reason to do so. Pray to Jesus, why do you think you get 100Mbps for your Comcast connection? It isn't because Comcast is nice and wants to upgrade your service; they're trying to compete with FIOS! I don't get FIOS in my area, so I'm "stuck" with the non-upgraded 30Mbps service.

 

[gorobei]

I think you might be putting the cart before the horse. Traditionally, the need for internet speeds have lagged behind the demand and I don't think cable companies currently see demand as any limiting prospect. The majority aren't demanding 1gbps speeds right now. That will likely change in the future and when a significant minority of consumers begin to demand those speeds, and show they are willing to pay for it, the companies will respond in kind. Gigabit internet services, as a rule/standard, will be rolled out when companies think they can recoup a significant enough profit over the initial infrastructure costs.

this is only historically true in north america. in asia where there was far less established landline infrastructure, the adoption of high speed internet and cellular phone towers outstripped customer demand or need at the time. since most of the countries were smaller in overall geographic area(like S Korea and Japan) carriers simply bit the bullet and setup a high speed network at the start. the long term cost benefit was passed to the consumer.

because there were so many established local carriers and the old ma bell copper line network laid out in the US, all of them lobbied the govt to keep one standard and one tech from being adopted.
even now the carriers will file lawsuits if any local municipal govt even thinks of offering at-cost high speed broadband as a part of basic city infrastructure that the citizens offer to pay for themselves.

 

[Rakehellion]

>> Time Warner Cable (TWC) CTO Irene Esteves
>> CTO Irene Esteves
>> Irene Esteves
>> Irene

I have located the source of the problem.

Oh no he di'int!

 

[soulcougher73]

Probably for most people this is true - my connection is 25/3 [latest speed test run] and it's fast enough for me to watch youtube, hulu, play games, download files, etc.

However, if I were given the option to have faster service without a price increase - I wouldn't turn it down. But if faster service = huge price increase = no thanks.. it's already too damn expensive as it is now.

Heh I do all that on DSL at 4.8mbps. Internet speed is way overrated. I'm sure it helps with downloads, but I MMO game, stream HD netflix no problem.

 

[yottabit]

Didn't Comcast just make a big deal about boosting their speeds? And offer something like 300 mbps?

 

[techs]

Didn't Comcast just make a big deal about boosting their speeds? And offer something like 300 mbps?

In limited areas. And from what I have read those areas seem to coincide with the areas that FIOS covers.

Coincidence?

 

[Rakehellion]

That's the kind of thinking thats holding back the future. Internet speeds that are fast enough for now are stifling innovation. What kind of things could we do with gigabit speeds? I don't know. But some very smart people will figure it out.

When I went from dial up to 3Mpbs Comcast I thought that now I can do everything I want to do on the internet. But when my internet speed when to 6 and then 10 I could now see a clear video of how to disassemble a laptop instead of just a diagram. Funny, I thought a diagram was all I would ever need. Turns out it wasn't.

If gigabit was extraordinarily expensive I could see a reason to delay. But what seems clear is that ISP's are raking in profits on the internet. The money to build out gigabit is there.

Chicken and egg problem.

Yes, a few years ago there was no need for a 1Mbit connection, but no one's paying $200+ a month for a gigabit connection when their 3 megabit works just fine. Probably 1% of people even have 50 megabits, so who needs a thousand? Not to mention, everyone is on Wifi which doesn't come close to gigabit speeds.

The money is out there, but no one's willing to pay because it isn't worth it.

 

[Zargon]

At that price I'd jump on that.

Host 10-20 servers for ~$100/mo with dedicated 100mbps connection and you'll make money out of it. You'll also save in heating.

yeah thats nice.

I pay 60 for 20/4 that turns out to usually be more like 25/10

but still...30(up to 50)/10 is another 20 bucks


I just rechecked their business pricing, becasue I qualify, and there are no caps....UGH

they jacked the rates through the roof

 

[rh71]

so what's going on with that capping usage per month idea? Was it just Comcast?

 

[smitbret]

I first saw this article, and my knee-jerk reaction was... "they're idiots!" However, I thought about it for a minute, and I realized that they're right. Most people outside of the super techies couldn't care less whether their Internet speed is that fast. They simply want Internet that works well when they want to use it, and they don't spend forever waiting for their content to load up. I think this applies to a lot of things in life. I work as an engineer, and I had to tell a gun around my own age that his Samsung Galaxy S III has Android on it. I also had to tell a middle-aged woman that her HTC Thunderbolt also has Android on it. They had no idea what their phone was running because they didn't care.

Now, I think that the proliferation of ridiculously fast Internet may also be a good thing, because that may also introduce lower tiers for even lower prices. That also brings me to one of the other points. Google isn't just offering ridiculously fast Internet, but they're also offering it for a good price. Most of the major ISPs couldn't care less about increasing the services that they provide for their customers unless they have a reason to do so. Pray to Jesus, why do you think you get 100Mbps for your Comcast connection? It isn't because Comcast is nice and wants to upgrade your service; they're trying to compete with FIOS! I don't get FIOS in my area, so I'm "stuck" with the non-upgraded 30Mbps service.

This is my interpretation, exactly.

Since I first got on the interent about 1994, I have always wished that it was just a little bit faster. As new, faster services evolved I always upgraded as my budget allowed. In the 16 months that I have had my 50mb/s line I have never thought, "Man, I wish I could get a faster connection." Instead, I spend my time browsing internet and ValuPack ads looking for a better price on a connection that is 20mb/s or up. For me, the market has shifted from looking for performance to looking for the best price. That's most likely what the industry is realizing as well.

Now, if someone moved in and offered 100mb/s for $10 more I would jump all over it. However, if someone came in and offered 20mb/s for $20 less, I would be even more happy. It's perceived value and not just raw performance anymore.

 

[Jaskalas]

premises:

1: no need.

there will be need probably sooner than most people think.
-4k res video (4x current bandwidth required)
...

The price of a 4k TV had better drop like a rock. I'm willing to be a decade before it can be affordable to most people.

 

[Phoenix86]

The price of a 4k TV had better drop like a rock. I'm willing to be a decade before it can be affordable to most people.

We're not even getting true 1080p from most providers, why bother.