Analyst: Cheaper, More Competitive Broadband Not Happening Soon

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Let's all cross our fingers and hope that this analyst is wrong. I highly doubt he's wrong but we can all still hope. :(

“Stated simply,” Moffett concluded, “it means that market forces are unlikely to yield a competitive broadband market.” And not only are we all stuck in an uncompetitive market, but our broadband providers are also our TV providers, in many cases… and we’re buying less TV. Money they can’t make from us on one side, they will have to make up on the other.
 
This is a viewpoint that completely marginalizes the impact of Google Fiber. For those cities that have it or will soon get it, cheaper and competitive broadband is a reality.
 
janas19 said:
This is a viewpoint that completely marginalizes the impact of Google Fiber. For those cities that have it or will soon get it, cheaper and competitive broadband is a reality.
Click to expand...

But what percentage of the population of the US does Google Fiber currently cover? Is it even up to 1%?
 
Google fiber is here in Austin in select areas. AT&T gigapower is also here (they are digging up my yard as I type). Then timewarner also offers 320/25mbps service. All options are in the $60-70 range. So I guess I'm on one of the lucky ones.

I do not think my current provider, TWC would have upgraded to 300mbps+ if it wasn't for the other threats from fiber. AT&T would be trying to get me on 6mbps dsl if it wasn't for google. So for the most part the US is screwed, but I'm sitting pretty :).
 
Dawill said:
Google fiber is here in Austin in select areas. AT&T gigapower is also here (they are digging up my yard as I type). Then timewarner also offers 320/25mbps service. All options are in the $60-70 range. So I guess I'm on one of the lucky ones.

I do not think my current provider, TWC would have upgraded to 300mbps+ if it wasn't for the other threats from fiber. AT&T would be trying to get me on 6mbps dsl if it wasn't for google. So for the most part the US is screwed, but I'm sitting pretty :).
Click to expand...

yea im on TWC 50mbit for i think $85 a month. Next option is 3mbit satellite (no thank you)
 
These discussions rarely include upload speed, traffic shaping, bandwidth caps, and 2 year price hikes. We can expect to get fucked for another decade.
 
janas19 said:
This is a viewpoint that completely marginalizes the impact of Google Fiber. For those cities that have it or will soon get it, cheaper and competitive broadband is a reality.
Click to expand...

It's kind of strange though that it takes Google fiber to get companies to upgrade, I mean right now I have 150Mbps through Comcast (180Mbps as per Ookla), but does AT&T come firing back with anything? Nah... 6Mbps "uverse" is what you can get "elite" speeds", sure there might be places where they have FTTN Uverse, but they still cap you at 18-24Mbps for the highest tier. They don't want to do Gigapower (aka FTTH) in those markets because they feel it's overkill, meanwhile those who have the option to get superfast for an affordable rate.... get more choices of superfast for an affordable rate, meanwhile the rest get screwed, so the haves keep getting more options.
 
Another thing always left out is the cost to get involved in this field. It is cheaper for those who have been around for years to upgrade their equipment as they have something there to start with. But if you want to be a new company trying to jump in. you will need Millions or billions of dollars to even get started. Then you have to wait to actually make that money back, which will take decades.

None of that is going to happen so you aren't going to get a lot of new competition into this area as nobody can afford it.
 
I'm laughing my ass off -- I *just* got my free upgrade on TimeWarner (was paying for 20/2 connection, just got bumped to 120 down, 12 upload. (Speed Test confirmed)

Cost? Nothing.

Part of their MAXX upgrade going on here in Dallas/Fort Worth. I pay $45/month and am very very happy. Had them for years and never had a single issue (own my own modem)
 
Exavior said:
Another thing always left out is the cost to get involved in this field. It is cheaper for those who have been around for years to upgrade their equipment as they have something there to start with. But if you want to be a new company trying to jump in. you will need Millions or billions of dollars to even get started. Then you have to wait to actually make that money back, which will take decades.

None of that is going to happen so you aren't going to get a lot of new competition into this area as nobody can afford it.
Click to expand...

which is why the gov't should own the physical lines just like the roads
 
Elios said:
which is why the gov't should own the physical lines just like the roads
Click to expand...

I've been thinking along the same lines for quite a while now, but with a different twist. Municipalities should own the broadband infrastructure, and rent them out to broadband service providers. Local governments should build/upgrade, and maintain it. That way, any company could 'rent' the line to teach consume's house. And more companies could vie for the customers' patronage.
As it stands right now, people are limited to a few choices, if at all, all because companies don't care to update their broadband in certain cities/towns.
 
sfsuphysics said:
... I mean right now I have 150Mbps through Comcast (180Mbps as per Ookla), but does AT&T come firing back with anything? Nah... 6Mbps "uverse" is what you can get "elite" speeds", ...
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHA... 6 Mbps.
Been looking into an alternative to Comcast in my area. But my situation is the same. 6 lousy Mbps. Hell, I had 10 Mbps DSL in a rural area until 2 years ago. And that was on an intentionally throttled from 15 Mbps to avoid some connection issues.

6 Mbps. HAHAHAHAHA

I'll gladly pay more for CC.
 
Dawill said:
Google fiber is here in Austin in select areas. AT&T gigapower is also here (they are digging up my yard as I type). Then timewarner also offers 320/25mbps service. All options are in the $60-70 range. So I guess I'm on one of the lucky ones.

I do not think my current provider, TWC would have upgraded to 300mbps+ if it wasn't for the other threats from fiber. AT&T would be trying to get me on 6mbps dsl if it wasn't for google. So for the most part the US is screwed, but I'm sitting pretty :).
Click to expand...

TWC upgraded our internet to 300/20 from 50/5 for the same $65 / month price after Google Fiber announced they were coming to NC in select cities. I rent a home out in the serious boonies. Like peanuts, cotton, soybeans, and corn growing in the "city" limits.

Now if Google Fiber could light a fire under Embarq so I could move back to the home that I own and paid for; that would excite me. It is right beside a school and all we have out there is ADSL that connects maybe twice a week if it isn't too cold or too hot. No cable in that area. Fiber is laid up to the school which is 2 houses from me and I can't get it.

That area is certified by the US government and Embarq as having faster than the national average speeds when a government report was done some years ago. Pisses me off that I have to rent to have internet. Damn bureaucracy.
 
aShrubbery! said:
I've been thinking along the same lines for quite a while now, but with a different twist. Municipalities should own the broadband infrastructure, and rent them out to broadband service providers. Local governments should build/upgrade, and maintain it. That way, any company could 'rent' the line to teach consume's house. And more companies could vie for the customers' patronage.
As it stands right now, people are limited to a few choices, if at all, all because companies don't care to update their broadband in certain cities/towns.
Click to expand...

that works too ideally id like the lines owned by a co-op like a lot utilities in the midwest
 
Dawill said:
I do not think my current provider, TWC would have upgraded to 300mbps+ if it wasn't for the other threats from fiber.
Click to expand...

Yeah Google fiber has started to come to my state and magically overnight TWC has "upgraded their infrastructure" and can give everyone about a 5-6x speed boost for the same price. I went from 30/5 to 200/20 (actual has been more like 225/25). That never would have happened without an outside threat like Google.
 
competition is good, but who's preventing more companies from invading my service area?

Only ATT and TWC service my area. Bring more players. They're all afraid to step on each other's toes with their cartel tactics
 
We've got nothing good in Rochester, NY. Big 2 players are TWC with 50/5 being the highest tier and Frontier offering ADSL at shit speeds I can't even recall.
 
TheGamerZ said:
We've got nothing good in Rochester, NY. Big 2 players are TWC with 50/5 being the highest tier and Frontier offering ADSL at shit speeds I can't even recall.
Click to expand...

A fiber company is starting to set up shop in the city though. Greenlight, it's called.

Though, I'm too far outside the city to ever hope for it.
 
I get 3.4Gbps via 4G which I get for $30/mo but I can only watch video after 1am as it freezes to often or drops to poor quality during the day. I have some hope for those satellite service that promise high speed cheap but I'll believe it when they get their hundreds of satellites launced AND don't cap the service. Right now one person I know with satellite (wildblue) can download stuff 2-3x faster than me but can't watch any video that lasts more than a few seconds.

I have it on good authority that fiber will be installed in my location by the year 2198 but by then I plan on using sub-space for FTL internet at speeds that will let me download a holographic game in <1sec.
 
dr.kevin said:
competition is good, but who's preventing more companies from invading my service area?
Click to expand...
Once 1 company is built up in a area its very hard to impossible for a competitor to move in and compete successfully since nearly all the business is already owned by 1 company.

Or as the article notes:
In short, Moffett said, “the returns to be had from overbuilding — that is, being the second or third broadband provider in a given market — are generally poor.” And if a business isn’t going to make money doing something, they won’t do that thing.

“Stated simply,” Moffett concluded, “it means that market forces are unlikely to yield a competitive broadband market.”
Click to expand...
This is a common and normal situation in markets where a natural monopoly exists. Its why they're regulated differently and why the calls for more competition are frankly naive. We don't necessarily need more competition. We need better regulation and management of existing and future information infrastructure.
 
janas19 said:
This is a viewpoint that completely marginalizes the impact of Google Fiber. For those cities that have it or will soon get it, cheaper and competitive broadband is a reality.
Click to expand...

Google fiber has taken forever to roll out they are very slow. Google fiber has only rolled out to a very select few cities. It also went to cities that already had decent internet. So basically google fiber is marginalized because it has had a very marginal effect.
 
Also just for the record GB speeds are coming. It has nothing to do with google its more to do with the proliferation of streaming video. When every soccer mom in America wants to watch Netflix and amazon prime that is what makes people who never cared before start caring about internet now. I mean really its not like all of us have not been tooting this horn for over 10 years so why now suddenly does main stream America care? And its not like google fiber project just started recently. Why is the government finally getting involved? Its not even a political issue because when the democrats had control no one cared, then the republicans took control and no one cared but now suddenly people care.
 
mesyn191 said:
Once 1 company is built up in a area its very hard to impossible for a competitor to move in and compete successfully since nearly all the business is already owned by 1 company.

Or as the article notes:

This is a common and normal situation in markets where a natural monopoly exists. Its why they're regulated differently and why the calls for more competition are frankly naive. We don't necessarily need more competition. We need better regulation and management of existing and future information infrastructure.
Click to expand...

There is so much stinking profit being made at the current rate, 2nd or 3rd competitor entry isn't a problem.

Exclusivity deals with local municipalities with the Blessing of the FCC gives these companies regional monopolies.
 
mesyn191 said:
Once 1 company is built up in a area its very hard to impossible for a competitor to move in and compete successfully since nearly all the business is already owned by 1 company.

Or as the article notes:

This is a common and normal situation in markets where a natural monopoly exists. Its why they're regulated differently and why the calls for more competition are frankly naive. We don't necessarily need more competition. We need better regulation and management of existing and future information infrastructure.
Click to expand...

Depends what you mean by regulation ... if you mean the way that water companies and power companies are usually regulated then I would say no ... if you mean the way that Texas provided electricity choice then I would say yes ... they have separate companies who own the infrastructure and provide the service ... so the infrastructure company maintains, repairs, and expands the lines (and they are regulated like a traditional utility) ... the power companies only provide power and you can choose any provider at any time (depending on whether you accept contractual commitments) so they must compete on the open market for customers ... that would be the right system to use for improved competition
 
mesyn191 said:
This is a common and normal situation in markets where a natural monopoly exists. Its why they're regulated differently and why the calls for more competition are frankly naive. We don't necessarily need more competition. We need better regulation and management of existing and future information infrastructure.
Click to expand...
But there aren't natural monopolies; monopolies are created by government fiat. We need to eliminate the local or county-granted monopolies to create the competition which will lower costs.
 
A funny thing happened to me recently.
I decided I wanted faster internet, so I ordered it on verizon's website.

That was easy.
 
Dawill said:
....

I do not think my current provider, TWC would have upgraded to 300mbps+ if it wasn't for the other threats from fiber. AT&T would be trying to get me on 6mbps dsl if it wasn't for google. So for the most part the US is screwed, but I'm sitting pretty :).
Click to expand...

I am seeing this in the Charlotte area as well with the recent announcement of Google Fiber. I can send off for a new modem for my 300mbps speed from TWC. Their service to date has been respectable, so I probably will, just as long as it does not lock me into anything.
 
Elios said:
which is why the gov't should own the physical lines just like the roads
Click to expand...

You've just come up with an option that would be worse than what we currently have.

All I have to do is look up the road at Los Angeles, with the 2nd worse maintained streets in the nation (government owned) and the daily water main brakes (city own utility).
 
Knight_of_BAAWA said:
But there aren't natural monopolies; monopolies are created by government fiat. We need to eliminate the local or county-granted monopolies to create the competition which will lower costs.
Click to expand...

We need to go one step farther than that.
Not only should these local or county-granted monopolies be eliminated, but we need a way to force competition. Maybe regulation on price, unless there are at least 2 high speed providers (3mb dsl doesn't count) that reached 90% on the households.
 
Did you guys actually think that cutting the cord was going to do anything in the long run? The main issue (as stated) is that our ISPs are also the TV providers. What's worse is that now they own significant amounts of the actual content.

They will get theirs.

Oh and google fiber means DICK. They are also a TV provider and will get in the same bed eventually.

The key is to move to the electricity model. Run the fiber by one company and let any ISP do business on it (how you sell it I don't know, per bit? Bandwidth?).

The market is operating in a severe conflict of interest, and until that is solved nothing will happen. Unless you are dumb enough to think that the FTCs half ass attempt at net neutrality is anything more than a cash grab that will raise prices.
 
dr.kevin said:
competition is good, but who's preventing more companies from invading my service area?

Only ATT and TWC service my area. Bring more players. They're all afraid to step on each other's toes with their cartel tactics
Click to expand...

Money and companies lobbying local gov. for to block outside competition....
 
jpm100 said:
There is so much stinking profit being made at the current rate, 2nd or 3rd competitor entry isn't a problem.
Click to expand...
Except it is otherwise there would be more competition, yet there isn't since it doesn't make financial sense. Any competitor would have to spend hundreds of millions to billions to build the infrastructure and then would have to spend hundreds of millions more to get established over time.

kbrickley said:
Depends what you mean by regulation ... if you mean the way that water companies and power companies are usually regulated then I would say no
Click to expand...
Utilities regulation has functioned to keep prices in check while still maintaining high quality service for decades, there are no reasonable or practical arguments against it.
kbrickley said:
if you mean the way that Texas provided electricity choice then I would say yes
Click to expand...
That sort of competition does nothing to drive prices down or provide better service though. Competition for the sake of competition is just ideological based worship. It has no basis in reality.

Knight_of_BAAWA said:
But there aren't natural monopolies; monopolies are created by government fiat. We need to eliminate the local or county-granted monopolies to create the competition which will lower costs.
Click to expand...
Natural monopolies exist with or without govt. They exist in markets where the cost of entry is excessively burdensome and the given financial entity (it can be private or a corp, doesn't matter) has become established.

An example of a monopoly that exists only by govt. fiat would be a patent.

Competition won't do much to fix the issue since collusion between companies is already something that happens frequently. Duplication of infrastructure and competing company management also won't lower costs either and will only complicate things.
 
nutzo said:
You've just come up with an option that would be worse than what we currently have.

All I have to do is look up the road at Los Angeles, with the 2nd worse maintained streets in the nation (government owned) and the daily water main brakes (city own utility).
Click to expand...
The problem with CA's roads is that CalTrans is starved of cash to maintain and improve them.

Back in the 50's and 70's CA's roads were the envy of the nation. Reagan screwed the state's ability to fund repairs and expansions, and really the whole state's budget, by passing Prop 13. He also ensured that there would be housing bubble's in CA over and over for decades by helping to pass that law.
 
aardvark sandwich said:
A funny thing happened to me recently.
I decided I wanted faster internet, so I ordered it on verizon's website.

That was easy.
Click to expand...
Be less facetious.

Just because you can doesn't mean others can. And most can't do that right now. Also no one in the US can get broadband, much less top speed broadband, at anything resembling a good price. Strangely enough in countries with far more regulated ISP market environments service is better, prices are lower, and download caps are often higher on top of all that.

Amazing how some people insist on ignoring those facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top