Frankly, Time Warner needs to increase their internet speeds to keep up with LTE. I have one of the higher speed options and my LTE speeds are about twice what I experience on my Time Warner connection.
I have a 50mbps Time Warner connection and all I got was a letter telling me that I would have to pay $8 a month to rent a $10 modem.
One thing I've noticed since moving to New York City from Chicago is that nobody has to even try in New York because the captive audience is so large that even the worst-run business will make tons of money. ("We don't take credit cards." "A $5 fee will be added for paying your bill online." "No laptops allowed at this coffee shop.") I'm surprised JFK isn't a Ryanair hub yet. </rant>
When there's a chance of serious competition they will act.
Years ago in our spot in rural California Sierra Nevada foothills we were patiently waiting for DSL... Every time we called AT&T they said DSL was a year or two away. According to rumor it took a fire for it to finally happen.
Around 2001 we had a major wildland fire that burned off a lot of trees and such which cleared off line of sight for satellite reception for TV and internet to a lot of folks. According to some, that possibility prompted Comcast to stretch out their cable access to beat the satellite service to the punch, and at the same time they started working on digital cable service here-which meant high speed internet, and lo and behold DSL was available in mere months!
Not to say it was a total roll out - there are still some areas beyond the 5000 meters from the CO and too far from the cable routes that have to suffer with satellite - and its really lousy, just above dial up - unless cable or DSL moves in I'm sure Hughes/WildBlue wont bother on improving that.
I'm in a major metropolitan area, and AT&T's DSL (also under its previous name, SBC) was for shit. (Not a few would argue that it still is, actually.)
It wasn't until Comcast started rolling in wholesale and eating their lunch (also "stealing" voice service with their multiple and combined offerings), that AT&T deigned to make any significant improvements. This is despite having a very significant tax break from the state in return for a commitment to roll out "universal access".
All these companies that do better -- when there is finally a threat; incentives don't work. A pox on them. I hope the publicity of their responses just aids in shining a light on their longstanding corruption and shit service.
For $29,90 USD you should get at least 100Mbps. 10 to 15Mbps upgrade made me laugh. Here in Helsinki, Finland 100Mbit/s unlimited connection without caps costs 19,90€/mo, including 24% tax.
Gigabit connection got premium price of 99€/mo (including taxes).
There are no additional fees, like device rents, connection fees or what ever.
May I add that, ISP dug the fiber, connected it and gave all equipment for free. As well as they replanted plants and replaced tarmac and everything else that was damaged in the process outdoors.
That should tell us, that they're still making hefty profits from the connection.
I realize that the cable monopoly is underinvesting in infrastructure and overcharging for service, but it's still unfair to compare the service of a country as small as Finland to a country as large and sprawling as the US. There's simply that much more ground to cover, and coverage is definitely a higher priority than speed or cost.
I do pay most of my bills online. (Including my TWC Internet bill, actually.)
However there are some bills that _require_ me to use a checkbook, primarily my rent and housing related expenses [water, sewage, garbage, maintenance].
I could pay in cash, but a check provides additional security and convenience anyways. -- They won't accept debit or credit cards though.
I don't know where you are, but believe it or not the competition between Eastlink and Bell Aliant FibreOp are making the market pretty good here in the Maritimes. I think, anyway.
I pay $99/month for 50M/50M internet, phone and TV (with the movie network, a couple of extra 'networks' and the full home DVR). Admittedly, that's for 12 months, but I can renew at that price for another 24 months after that.
If worse comes to worst I'll switch back to Eastlink. For now, though, it was worth switching just for getting Bell to run network cables throughout the house for me for nothing :)
Bell introduced a $10/month unlimited bandwidth add-on to their Fibe packages a few days ago. That's effectively a discount for anyone who was already a mid/heavy bandwidth user:
I think TWC needs to double down on providing good, affordable service in areas where they still have a monopoly instead of doing these panic offers every time a new player moves into town. When they do that, it's much more obvious to the customer they've been being way over charged for years. FiOS is sparsely available in my area and I move around this area a lot, sometimes FiOS is available, some times not. If you're lucky enough to have the competition in your area, TWC will give you massive discounts if you tell a rep you're switching. I never take the offer, I'd rather take my business elsewhere just to loosen the stranglehold they have on the area.
Every six months I call my cable company and get my bill cut by nearly half the regular price.
I don't think people know that most service providers have retention departments designed specifically to give you far better rates to keep you around.
Sure it's annoying and the price still goes up every year but there are also people who refuse to use coupons so thank you for funding my discounts.
Admittedly if you live in a monopoly or duopoly isp area it's significantly harder to get good performance for a low rate.
Now we need to figure out why server rental rates are so much higher in the USA vs elsewhere.
Way to go Google! Chase 'em with a hot stick! I'm so sick of charges that don't make sense. We bought Roku and a cool HD antenna, we are now Cable Free!!! TV not Internet.
Why give the credit to capitalism? Suppose the government were to provide quality broadband service -- would that not also force the ISPs to act (e.g. how UPS competes with USPS)?
This is a win for competition, not capitalism. Not all competition is capitalism, and capitalism does not always imply meaningful competition (it does, however, generally fail to serve people best in the absence of competition).
Capitalism my ass, this is another flavor of fine-tuned government and industry collusion.
No government on earth would tolerate any kind of capitalism other than the competitive bidding for multi-year exclusivity agreements (ie: guaranteed ways of sticking it to consumers).
Now, could someone explain to me why this is on hacker news, and so high in the list? It only remotely references something new that Google is doing, is that the requirement these days?
(Typically its much slower (esp wrt latency, but throughput too, around 25ms/90Mbit/s down) though because for normal surfing I usually just use WLAN.)
[+] [-] krazybig|13 years ago|reply
Here's the announcement from December: http://www.twcableuntangled.com/2012/12/we-are-boosting-down...
Frankly, Time Warner needs to increase their internet speeds to keep up with LTE. I have one of the higher speed options and my LTE speeds are about twice what I experience on my Time Warner connection.
[+] [-] jrockway|13 years ago|reply
One thing I've noticed since moving to New York City from Chicago is that nobody has to even try in New York because the captive audience is so large that even the worst-run business will make tons of money. ("We don't take credit cards." "A $5 fee will be added for paying your bill online." "No laptops allowed at this coffee shop.") I'm surprised JFK isn't a Ryanair hub yet. </rant>
[+] [-] tincholio|13 years ago|reply
No, it is not. The guy states what he /thinks/ might be reasons for this change, not that they /are/ the reasons.
[+] [-] ceol|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] js2|13 years ago|reply
They already got the NC legislature in their pocket http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/22/nc-governor-will-let-cabl...
[+] [-] LarryMade|13 years ago|reply
Years ago in our spot in rural California Sierra Nevada foothills we were patiently waiting for DSL... Every time we called AT&T they said DSL was a year or two away. According to rumor it took a fire for it to finally happen.
Around 2001 we had a major wildland fire that burned off a lot of trees and such which cleared off line of sight for satellite reception for TV and internet to a lot of folks. According to some, that possibility prompted Comcast to stretch out their cable access to beat the satellite service to the punch, and at the same time they started working on digital cable service here-which meant high speed internet, and lo and behold DSL was available in mere months!
Not to say it was a total roll out - there are still some areas beyond the 5000 meters from the CO and too far from the cable routes that have to suffer with satellite - and its really lousy, just above dial up - unless cable or DSL moves in I'm sure Hughes/WildBlue wont bother on improving that.
[+] [-] pasbesoin|13 years ago|reply
It wasn't until Comcast started rolling in wholesale and eating their lunch (also "stealing" voice service with their multiple and combined offerings), that AT&T deigned to make any significant improvements. This is despite having a very significant tax break from the state in return for a commitment to roll out "universal access".
All these companies that do better -- when there is finally a threat; incentives don't work. A pox on them. I hope the publicity of their responses just aids in shining a light on their longstanding corruption and shit service.
[+] [-] atdrummond|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Sami_Lehtinen|13 years ago|reply
Gigabit connection got premium price of 99€/mo (including taxes).
There are no additional fees, like device rents, connection fees or what ever.
[+] [-] Sami_Lehtinen|13 years ago|reply
That should tell us, that they're still making hefty profits from the connection.
[+] [-] nicksergeant|13 years ago|reply
Time Warner has a monopoly in the area, and Verizon / Google have no interest in competing (for whatever reason).
It sucks.
[+] [-] jyrkesh|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lancewiggs|13 years ago|reply
I really hope he is not serious - is this true? I've not seen a checkbook in years and years.
[+] [-] ariwilson|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drbawb|13 years ago|reply
I do pay most of my bills online. (Including my TWC Internet bill, actually.)
However there are some bills that _require_ me to use a checkbook, primarily my rent and housing related expenses [water, sewage, garbage, maintenance].
I could pay in cash, but a check provides additional security and convenience anyways. -- They won't accept debit or credit cards though.
[+] [-] kennywinker|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] narcissus|13 years ago|reply
I pay $99/month for 50M/50M internet, phone and TV (with the movie network, a couple of extra 'networks' and the full home DVR). Admittedly, that's for 12 months, but I can renew at that price for another 24 months after that.
If worse comes to worst I'll switch back to Eastlink. For now, though, it was worth switching just for getting Bell to run network cables throughout the house for me for nothing :)
[+] [-] goatforce5|13 years ago|reply
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Bell-Canada-Offers-Unlimi...
[+] [-] jrockway|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shawnc|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jasonkostempski|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ck2|13 years ago|reply
I don't think people know that most service providers have retention departments designed specifically to give you far better rates to keep you around.
Sure it's annoying and the price still goes up every year but there are also people who refuse to use coupons so thank you for funding my discounts.
Admittedly if you live in a monopoly or duopoly isp area it's significantly harder to get good performance for a low rate.
Now we need to figure out why server rental rates are so much higher in the USA vs elsewhere.
[+] [-] jebblue|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sunwooz|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cjaredrun|13 years ago|reply
/me tips his hat to capitalism
[+] [-] betterunix|13 years ago|reply
This is a win for competition, not capitalism. Not all competition is capitalism, and capitalism does not always imply meaningful competition (it does, however, generally fail to serve people best in the absence of competition).
[+] [-] ihsw|13 years ago|reply
No government on earth would tolerate any kind of capitalism other than the competitive bidding for multi-year exclusivity agreements (ie: guaranteed ways of sticking it to consumers).
[+] [-] mosselman|13 years ago|reply
http://www.speedtest.net/result/2475450363.png
Now, could someone explain to me why this is on hacker news, and so high in the list? It only remotely references something new that Google is doing, is that the requirement these days?
[+] [-] Ao7bei3s|13 years ago|reply
http://imageshack.us/scaled/landing/11/speedtestga.jpg (edit: does anyone here have a faster connection to the place where he lives?)
(Typically its much slower (esp wrt latency, but throughput too, around 25ms/90Mbit/s down) though because for normal surfing I usually just use WLAN.)
[+] [-] sergiotapia|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Gilipe|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tedunangst|13 years ago|reply