Time Warner cable says they have no demand for faster internet.

[zanfire]

Apparently people like living with slower internet than those who are lucky enough to have that super fast Google Fiber being tested. They have no plans to introduce the option of Google Fbber which has speeds of up to 1Gbs . Im sure part of it may be due to the insanely high prices they charge, especially compared to most other country's.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/27/4...no-consumer-demand-for-fiber-gigabit-internet


"WE'RE IN THE BUSINESS OF DELIVERING WHAT CONSUMERS WANT."

 

[Qtis]

The US is a developing country in regards to internet/telephone connection prices and speeds. It's weird that the major companies don't want pump fiber.

For reference, I can get a 12+ mbps connection and 4G mobile internet with bonuses (free speech time/texts) for roughly 80€. That's about $100.

 

[zanfire]

here is google's pricing for the people who have it...which is actually less than I pay for TV and net right now (I have no premium channels either)

https://support.google.com/fiber/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2657118

 

[Veho]

For reference, I can get a 12+ mbps connection and 4G mobile internet with bonuses (free speech time/texts) for roughly 80€. That's about $100.

Yes but it says you're in Antarctica and I imagine it's not hard to cover the entire population of your locale with a single router , but the United States are huge and getting internet to everyone costs hella money. Getting fiber to the home is easy in small densely populated areas and in small countries, but in something as huge as the US it's an enormous investment and just isn't worth the moneyz while the majority is still happy with their 1Mbps or whatever. And let's face it, the majority of users only needs Wikipedia and Facebook, so yeah.

 

[Qtis]

Yes but it says you're in Antarctica and I imagine it's not hard to cover the entire population of your locale with a single router , but the United States are huge and getting internet to everyone costs hella money. Getting fiber to the home is easy in small densely populated areas and in small countries, but in something as huge as the US it's an enormous investment and just isn't worth the moneyz while the majority is still happy with their 1Mbps or whatever. And let's face it, the majority of users only needs Wikipedia and Facebook, so yeah.

Compared to Finland, the US has it easy. Finland has about 16 people/km^2 (41 people/sq mi) compared to the US with 34.2/km^2 (88.6 people/sq mi). It's easy to say that the costs here should be larger per subscription. Especially the large cities should be a priority for the US telecom companies, but apparently not. It's not really that expensive to dig fiber into the ground, especially if the costs can be gained back from subscriptions

ps. Antarctica has the real connections! Only peeps use sub 100mbps!

 

[Rydian]

I think they're confusing "wanting" with "buying".

 

[Gahars]

They're just looking out for their inter-net profit.

 

[Joe88]

here is google's pricing for the people who have it...which is actually less than i pay for TV and net right now (i have no premium channels either)

https://support.google.com/fiber/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2657118

that is only kc though, those speeds and pricing are are only for a small area
if they did decide to expand to a larger area
once they expand either the speeds will suddenly drop or the prices will skyrocket

but to the matter google simply does not have the money to actually expand their fiber network
http://bgr.com/2012/12/07/google-fi...timate/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

[jefffisher]

Compared to Finland, the US has it easy. Finland has about 16 people/km^2 (41 people/sq mi) compared to the US with 34.2/km^2 (88.6 people/sq mi). It's easy to say that the costs here should be larger per subscription. Especially the large cities should be a priority for the US telecom companies, but apparently not. It's not really that expensive to dig fiber into the ground, especially if the costs can be gained back from subscriptions

ps. Antarctica has the real connections! Only peeps use sub 100mbps!

population density is more important, you can completely ignore the top half of finland, give the bottom %15 fast internet and fill in a few of the heavily populated areas with fast internet and get good statistics.
in the united states it's much more difficult you'd have to completely cover the entire right half and the left coast and fill in spots very spread out throughout the rest of the country, the wire required per person in the US is simply much higher than any of the other competing countries.

time warner can't afford to cover that kind of area with gbps speeds, they supply internet to many states google fiber covers just one densely populated city.
sure time warner could upgrade the capacity to gigabit speeds in a few large cities they cover but %90 of their customers would still end up disappointed.
time warner, google or any other one company will never be able to give this country ultra high speeds. sure maybe one day we'll all have high speeds but it wont be soon and it will take the work of many isp's.

 

[The Catboy]

I think they're confusing "wanting" with "buying".

Or just ignore their customers like they always do.

 

[FAST6191]

Finland has about 16 people/km^2 (41 people/sq mi) compared to the US [with higher]

Using straight average is a bit of a statistics fail/misapplication on all fronts, especially when a country with a sizeable chunk of its landmass in rather cold areas.

http://www.kunnat.net/en/statistics...orities/Documents/Population density 2008.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Population_map_of_Finland.svg (wikipedia I know but it a nice SVG)
As I was curious and looked at it as part of the search
http://www.mapsofworld.com/finland/maps/map-finland.jpg

Edit- I see I was ninja'd by jefffisher, serves me right for finding maps fascinating/distracting I guess.
That said- there is more to the US than Miami, LA, Austin, New York, Seattle and DC?

 

[Qtis]

population density is more important, you can completely ignore the top half of finland, give the bottom %15 fast internet and fill in a few of the heavily populated areas with fast internet and get good statistics.
in the united states it's much more difficult you'd have to completely cover the entire right half and the left coast and fill in spots very spread out throughout the rest of the country, the wire required per person in the US is simply much higher than any of the other competing countries.

China begs to differ.

As for the "bottom 15%" argument, why doesn't the US hit fiber into the higher density areas first? You'd still have a bigger amount of people per square mile even if you just hit the largest states (>half of the country). IMO there is no excuse for large areas to be without fiber..

Using straight average is a bit of a statistics fail/misapplication on all fronts, especially when a country with a sizeable chunk of its landmass in rather cold areas.

While you are correct in the sense that straight average isn't the most accurate measure (should have perhaps used the median), but there are also other means of providing internet connections to the areas without proper cabling.

EDIT:
US population density map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USA-2000-population-density.gif

This basically shows the same problem or idea behind my point in the posts. It's expensive to provide fiber to everyone, but it's not expensive to provide it to most people :3

EDIT2: The government could help compensate the costs (oh them communists!) for making the connections available. While Google Fiber is quite restricted in availability, it does point out that there is a lot of interest for a reasonably costing internet connection with high speeds.

 

[Chary]

That said- there is more to the US than Miami, LA, Austin, New York, Seattle and DC?

Houston Texas, darnit! Everyone always forgets about Houston...*sulks*

Huh. I don't quite understand all of this commotion. So Time Warner doesn't want to offer fibre Internet? Does anyone besides Google offer fibre Internet yet?

 

[ShadowSoldier]

Fine, don't give them fiber, but god damn, at least bump them up to at least 20mpbs download.

 

[FAST6191]

Houston Texas, darnit! Everyone always forgets about Houston...*sulks*

If it is any consolation I probably did actually mean Houston for that little list - a rather shameful geography failure on my part considering if I do the whole American "I am part...." I actually hail from Texas. However if you had said San Francisco needed to be added to that list you would have been ignored.

 

[Rydian]

But but Texas hosts webservers!

 

[jefffisher]

China begs to differ.

As for the "bottom 15%" argument, why doesn't the US hit fiber into the higher density areas first? You'd still have a bigger amount of people per square mile even if you just hit the largest states (>half of the country). IMO there is no excuse for large areas to be without fiber..

China does not beg to differ, they are doing much worse than we are in the broadband area.
I'm sure the higher density areas will be fibered first, but it won't be time warner doing so which is what this thread is about; even when it does happen the 50 most populated cities in the country would only cover %17 of the population the 100 most populated cities would only be %20 and it gets much worse from there, to get anywhere near the statistics of Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan, or Sweden you'd have to wire over half the continental US.

 

[tbgtbg]

I don't even want to pay cable modem costs, so I stick with DSL. It's still hella faster than dialup, but not much more expensive and quite a bit cheaper than cable. No way would I pay even more for fiber. 1Gbs I don't care, I'm not paying out the wazoo, especially when they'll wind up capping eventually and you'll have your superfast DL's for a few days then run out and get charged more still or throttled.

 

[Sop]

Hopefully when the NBN hits my city it won't be that expensive for fiber (at least in Australia).

 

[morvoran]

Or just ignore their customers like they always do.

This here ^

When I called Time Warner to upgrade me to their new 100 Mb\s service, the customer service rep told me I didn't need it and that I should go with their 50Mb\s service. He convinced me by giving me a "special price" for going with the lower speed.

I live in Kansas City and cannot wait until it's my Fiberhood's turn to get Google Fiber. I pay $160 per month for TV and 50 Mb\s download speed and 6Mb\s upload right now. I am more than happy to pay $120 per month for TV and 1Gb\s for both down & up internet speeds.