Is the $300 one time fee anything like the JJHuddle one time fee???? LOLjustincredible;1234825 wrote:It's $300 to set it up. One time fee.
Pick6;1235038 wrote:and...what incentive would a private industry have to give everybody free internet?
This is where I was going with Google's "free" internet package. There has to be something they are gaining from it, and it's not the $300.Bigred1995;1235095 wrote:Information, information, information! What sites you visit, how long you surf, when and where you access sites; all of that information can be sold at a pretty good price! And when you have tens of thousands to millions of people, you can make a lot of money selling that information. For this reason alone is why the government shouldn't be involved in something like this.
You can't really compare bundled pricing to non-bundled pricing. That is like telling someone who is shopping for car insurance that yours is cheaper than their quotes, but you get all the discounts for having homeowners and life insurance with them.gut;1235040 wrote:Why not? There's an $80 bundle with digital preferred and 30mbps internet with blast. Priced alone that's like $115. So your discount (1yr promo) is @ 30%, which would make what you pay for the internet @$21. And my deal is even better than that.
And actually they have a stand alone promo for 20mbps internet for $20 (6 months). Might just be offers for current customers though.
Yeah, but it's no where near as good as what Google will offer... (at least the internet part...)bases_loaded;1235143 wrote:120 for tv and internet is the same or less than I'm paying now
And they're stand alone internet package for 12 mbps (aka slower than 20) is $30 for the first 6 months. lolfail.gut;1235026 wrote:Take a look at their bundled plans, genius - $80/mo for HD, dvr, and 30mbps internet.. The comparable standalone digital preferred package for cable is $84/mo...so you do the math.
Zinged 'em!Enforcer;1235058 wrote:Is the $300 one time fee anything like the JJHuddle one time fee???? LOL
I'm not 100% sure how it works, but with fiber do you have to go straight in to the router with the actual fiber cable? I was under the impression they ran the fiber to your street and then branched off from there.thePITman;1235186 wrote:By "Fiber" do they mean fiberoptics? If so, many of us wouldn't be able to use this... Fiberoptic cables only have something like a 15% bend radius without breaking, whereas an ethernet cord has a 100% bend radius. Normally fiberoptics are for businesses who bring internet in straight to their servers and host things there. For home networks, though, I'd be highly skeptical.
But if this is not fiberoptic, and just Google's internet service, then WOW!
I think this is "fiber to the door". I would tend to believe it would be copper or wireless after their main equipment. Hopefully this makes companies like TWC take notice when thinking about pricing and capping services.thePITman;1235186 wrote:By "Fiber" do they mean fiberoptics? If so, many of us wouldn't be able to use this... Fiberoptic cables only have something like a 15% bend radius without breaking, whereas an ethernet cord has a 100% bend radius. Normally fiberoptics are for businesses who bring internet in straight to their servers and host things there. For home networks, though, I'd be highly skeptical.
But if this is not fiberoptic, and just Google's internet service, then WOW!
If only the millions of FiOS users knew this.thePITman;1235186 wrote:By "Fiber" do they mean fiberoptics? If so, many of us wouldn't be able to use this... Fiberoptic cables only have something like a 15% bend radius without breaking, whereas an ethernet cord has a 100% bend radius. Normally fiberoptics are for businesses who bring internet in straight to their servers and host things there. For home networks, though, I'd be highly skeptical.
But if this is not fiberoptic, and just Google's internet service, then WOW!
Right. This isn't your daddy's fiber.TedSheckler;1235216 wrote:If only the millions of FiOS users knew this.
O-Trap;1235043 wrote:Right to advertise, off the top of my head.
solid points, but I do not see how the potential revenue gained can compare to selling the internet service. If people are out there looking for information, I have to believe it will be a very small % when you are looking at the whole US.Bigred1995;1235095 wrote:Information, information, information! What sites you visit, how long you surf, when and where you access sites; all of that information can be sold at a pretty good price! And when you have tens of thousands to millions of people, you can make a lot of money selling that information. For this reason alone is why the government shouldn't be involved in something like this.
hoops23;1235158 wrote:Yeah, but it's no where near as good as what Google will offer... (at least the internet part...)
They could require you to view a quick ad every so many hours before you're able to start browsing. It would be very easy for them to monetize it. Also, the data they could collect is extremely valuable.Pick6;1235223 wrote:solid points, but I do not see how the potential revenue gained can compare to selling the internet service. If people are out there looking for information, I have to believe it will be a very small % when you are looking at the whole US.
Otrap- Im not exactly sure what you are meaning when you say right to advertise. Advertising is already all over the internet, but that doesnt have anything to do with the company that is selling the service. However, without knowing exactly what you mean, Im not sure I see that revenue gained from advertising = to the revenue of selling the service straight up.
Well I think I'd rather pay $30 a month than to have somebody have all of my information and view more ads.justincredible;1235235 wrote:They could require you to view a quick ad every so many hours before you're able to start browsing. It would be very easy for them to monetize it. Also, the data they could collect is extremely valuable.
I would too. But there are plenty of people that couldn't care less. I'm sure older folks would jump at the opportunity to get free internet.Pick6;1235239 wrote:Well I think I'd rather pay $30 a month than to have somebody have all of my information and view more ads.
Isn't Google already doing that with all their free services (advertising and selling search/usage data)? In this case they are providing the conduit for the information so you can use more of their services. I would guess they figure more people will pay for the TV and internet service bundle or at some point in time transition to the bundle.Pick6;1235250 wrote:I believe that if there was more earning potential by advertisement and selling personal information while giving free internet, it would already be done.
WebFire;1235135 wrote:You can't really compare bundled pricing to non-bundled pricing. That is like telling someone who is shopping for car insurance that yours is cheaper than their quotes, but you get all the discounts for having homeowners and life insurance with them.
Not so sure this is about more earning potential as it is about converting customers. Say a customer in Kansas City has service provided by someone else and they pay $25/month for it. Google rolls in to town with free service. Customer switches and now google has their data ($). If google was offering the service at a cost of $25/month then what's the incentive to switch?Pick6;1235250 wrote:I believe that if there was more earning potential by advertisement and selling personal information while giving free internet, it would already be done.
