Reply With Quote
I would suggest population density and regulations are part of the cost differences. It isn't all corporate profits. Still, if these corporations didn't get taxed, they could sell their product for less as well.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...81463769362886Users everywhere rave about gigabit service—Web pages pop onto your screen, videos stream all over the house, maps jump as you move—and this is before any Web company has implemented a specific service that takes advantage of gigabit speeds.
It's economically feasible too. The average access speed in the U.S. is now under 10 megabits per second and costs around $40-$60. Verizon FiOS charges $300 a month for 500 megabit service. Yet Google and others charge just $70 a month for a full gigabit connection, download and upload. VTel in Springfield, Vt., charges $35. Gigabit in Hong Kong was $26 way back in 2011.
So what's America's problem? Why aren't more than a handful of U.S. homes wired for gigabit? Sadly, last week's announcement of Comcast's CMCSA -1.37% $45 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable TWC -0.79% will set back fiber deployment and gigabit homes for a decade. Comcast's compe ion-limited future will reside in overcharging more than 30 million customers for bundled cable channels and a growing Internet access business that tops out at maybe 20 megabits per second. It's almost as if they are saying, "You want fiber? Eat some Raisin Bran."
...
So how does Google dig up streets and climb poles and run fiber directly to homes? Simple, they ask for and get concessions from cities—the most important being right-of-way easements and expedited permits and inspections. Kansas City was more than happy to oblige.
Well, not so fast. Last month a bill was introduced in the Kansas legislature, pushed by the Kansas Cable Telecommunications Association and presumably Time Warner Cable, to outlaw cities from selling cable and Internet services or even partnering with private service providers. Meanwhile, AT&T is slowing Google Fiber deployment in Austin by denying access to its utility poles. The in bents' strategy seems to be kill the demon seed in its crib.
Gigabit is in demand. Many cities, like Louisville, Ky., have invited Google Fiber but been turned down. Google didn't like the terms. Even Mountain View, Calif., home of the Googleplex, reportedly declined to make the necessary concessions. Remember, most municipalities collect a kickback in the form of cable franchise fees (up to 5% of revenues) in exchange for the right of way. Hard to give that up. Citizens be damned.
I would suggest population density and regulations are part of the cost differences. It isn't all corporate profits. Still, if these corporations didn't get taxed, they could sell their product for less as well.
-_- that's annoying as to read, tbh. I want my gigabit connection on the cheap, much less not having it available at all.
I figured there was going to be pushback once Google started offering quality service to consumers at reasonable prices... most of these monopolies/duopolies are scared less of actual compe ion...
What is the population density in the areas Google offer it? How does it compare to the average?
That $34.95 monthly for the gigabit service for Springfield is on top of what you already pay for fiber. What else isn't the article saying?
What is your argument exactly? It's not like the 3 cities or so where Google as rolled out service didn't have ISPs before. They did, they did not offer gigabit, and they charged 3-4 times as much for 1/10th the speed.
It's not that the other companies can't do the same. They just rather fight Google trying to pass laws and put roadblocks in the way than actually improving their service, infrastructure and competing. It has everything to do with protecting the old cash cow, customers be damned.
Not anymore. You can just buy the gigabit package for $34.95. Phone service no longer required.
http://www.vermontel.com/internet
Yes, same link I got the $34.95 from. The article says $35.
Please note:
They do not say they furnish the fiber.Get blazing-fast speed from our broadband service with speeds up to 1Gbps over fiber and up to 24Mbps over DSL.
Care to prove me wrong?
whats the point of having a fast connection if the tv stations are streaming SD quality , not even full hd...
then u have the govt cracking down on piracy and online
lol the prices are rippoff...
Sure.
http://www.vermontel.com/broadband-s...pdate-and-faqs
Why is VTel replacing its old copper system with fiber?
VTel operates one of the most rural telephone networks in America. For almost a decade, our DSL over copper -- with speeds up to 24 megabits per second -- has been among the fastest in North America. We like being the fastest. We love it. With the help of a USDA / RUS grant, we're boosting your Internet speeds to 1,000 megabits per second, with no monthly service charge increases.
...
Will my the bill for my services increase?
There will be no increase in your monthly services bill as a result of the upgrade. You may choose to add new video and new wireless services. We hope you will. But it's not necessary.
Will the construction cost me anything?
No. In most cases, there is no cost.
Maybe they are paying for the fiber too. As on 10 months ago, 500 homes have the fiber.
http://www.vermontel.com/news/257-gi...t-telephone-co
LOL...
Beat my post by seconds.
Good job!
It's no available in all areas, but it does look like a company that's actually investing in infrastructure. I would love to see more companies like that, instead of companies trying to pay off legislatures to stop compe ion.
I agree, it would be great. That's quite an project they are doing.
It's ALL about Corporate-Americans screwing Human-Americans FOR PROFIT, BECAUSE THEY CAN. It's as American as the lie that "God Loves America Best"
the population density excuse is bull , since large US cities with dense, large residential populations are getting screwed just like sparse ex-urbia.
Compared to my phone modem circa 1993, it's pretty darn fast now.
Darrin's impeccable right wing logic.
like the Austin cop saying arrested, brutalized jogging girls should be happy, grateful the cops didn't rape them
like right-wingers saying poor Americans aren't poor compared to beggars in Mumbai.
"one of the most rural telephone networks in America"
VDSL 2.0 ain't gonna get 24/3 reliably in many cases, and esp not EVER due to physics of long copper lines.
ATT failed to deliver me 24/3, even with a bonded pair, and I'm inside Loop 410.
Yeah, that's exactly what I said.
I simply stated that my cable modem + wifi are blazing fast compared to my early 90's dial-up connection.
brilliant observation.Yeah, that's exactly what I said.
I simply stated that my cable modem + wifi are blazing fast compared to my early 90's dial-up connection.
USA internet access is slow and expensive compared to other countries not screwed by a local network monopoly, and by a national oligopoly.
tiest possible product for the the highest possible price
So we start by taking the side that good old American capitalism will solve all ills and the problem is not that some companies do their best to eliminate compe ion at the expense of the customer. Then it's ok because some companies see that better for the customer is better for them if they think long term.
You reflexively defended the elimination of compe ion. I learned something.
Meh, I guess it could be cheaper. How much speed do you think is required for streaming HD video? You don't need gigabit.
That bill is now dead.
http://www.cjonline.com/news/state/2...dband-networks
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
