Enforcer
Posts: 2,140
Jul 27, 2012 12:46am
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.
Bigred1995
Posts: 1,042
Jul 27, 2012 7:25am
Pick6;1235038 wrote:and...what incentive would a private industry have to give everybody free internet?
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.
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
Jul 27, 2012 8:27am
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.
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
Jul 27, 2012 8:31am
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.
bases_loaded
Posts: 6,912
Jul 27, 2012 8:49am
120 for tv and internet is the same or less than I'm paying now
hoops23
Posts: 15,696
Jul 27, 2012 9:08am
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
tcarrier32
Posts: 1,497
Jul 27, 2012 9:10am
i plan on bombarding their support staff with emails demanding service in the Greater-Columbus area. do want, dat speed.
Commander of Awesome
Posts: 23,151
Jul 27, 2012 9:26am
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.
thePITman
Posts: 3,867
Jul 27, 2012 9:39am
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!
But if this is not fiberoptic, and just Google's internet service, then WOW!
justincredible
Posts: 32,056
Jul 27, 2012 9:57am
Zinged 'em!Enforcer;1235058 wrote:Is the $300 one time fee anything like the JJHuddle one time fee???? LOL
justincredible
Posts: 32,056
Jul 27, 2012 9:59am
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!
J
Jawbreaker
Posts: 520
Jul 27, 2012 10:02am
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!
TedSheckler
Posts: 3,974
Jul 27, 2012 10:08am
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!
thePITman
Posts: 3,867
Jul 27, 2012 10:10am
^^ Google Fiber would be 3.3x faster than FiOS, which I had never heard of. Maybe the world of fiber optic internet has changed since I learned about it in college.
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
Jul 27, 2012 10:16am
Right. This isn't your daddy's fiber.TedSheckler;1235216 wrote:If only the millions of FiOS users knew this.
Pick6
Posts: 14,946
Jul 27, 2012 10:17am
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.
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.
bases_loaded
Posts: 6,912
Jul 27, 2012 10:17am
hoops23;1235158 wrote:Yeah, but it's no where near as good as what Google will offer... (at least the internet part...)
Thanks for proving my point....
justincredible
Posts: 32,056
Jul 27, 2012 10:28am
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.
Pick6
Posts: 14,946
Jul 27, 2012 10:32am
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.
justincredible
Posts: 32,056
Jul 27, 2012 10:37am
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.
thePITman
Posts: 3,867
Jul 27, 2012 10:44am
I'm pretty darn sure everyone everywhere knows what web sites we access anyway. Heck, we all have smart phones that register, track, and send data every time we touch the screen (w/ location). Well, non-Verizon customers, at least. What's different here?
I agree that I don't like it, but that's what today's world is. When congress tries passing a bill that will place chips in the back of our heads or in our wrists to link us to our bank accounts and medical records, you know it's going too far. (see original draft of Obamacare)
I agree that I don't like it, but that's what today's world is. When congress tries passing a bill that will place chips in the back of our heads or in our wrists to link us to our bank accounts and medical records, you know it's going too far. (see original draft of Obamacare)
Pick6
Posts: 14,946
Jul 27, 2012 10:47am
I believe that if there was more earning potential by advertisement and selling personal information while giving free internet, it would already be done.
J
Jawbreaker
Posts: 520
Jul 27, 2012 11:24am
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.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Jul 27, 2012 12:42pm
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.
A) Almost everyone has internet and some sort of cable tv service, many still have a land line. So the bundle is the correct price to look at. Only a sucker would buy packages individually. The standalone price is actually arbitrarily high and does not reflect what most people are paying. I pay $80 for cable and internet, slice it however you want but saying I pay $85 for cable is just as wrong as saying I pay $30 or $50 for internet.
B) the 6-mo promo for 20mbps is $20 bucks, so I'm right either way. Honestly, I don't know what would possess someone to think I made up what I was paying.
justincredible
Posts: 32,056
Jul 27, 2012 1:17pm
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.