Comment by yeukhon | Hacker News Reader

Comment by yeukhon | Hacker News Reader

I live in NYC, so in general I am lucky to have cable Internet service. I lived in SF for a brief period of time, and Comcast was expensive and slow.

I am quite glad this deal is off. I have been TWC Internet service user for many years and it used to be so-so compared to FiOS. When I finally had the chance to switch to FiOS I was very excited, but after comparing customer service, speed, and price, I just couldn't move away. I couldn't move to RCN because so many instability (probably due to over provisioned pools). TWC's new plan is cheaper and pretty reliable where I live.

I did invest some serious cash on getting my own modem SB6141 and a very good wireless router, which definitely has boosted bandwidth and performance. TWC and Comcast's stock modem sucks (and now you either buy or rent). I was surprised to see how many people were willing to rent because of simplicity; go to Amazon, spend $100-$130 on the modem, ship it, and install the modem.

As a customer, I just hope we can have more reliable options. Technically, $40 for up to 100 Mbps is still a little high (but 3-5 years ago it would be like $70, $80 a month). The day when we are offered 100Mpbs at "DSL" plan price range, I will be really happy. Actually, I'd be even happier if we can build out the cellular data technology... "4Gb for $40? Yes, first 1G at 4G speed, the rest, like 56kpbs." I want to see the day when cellular data can be just as quick as my home network.

I am not very concerned with other monopolies (search, TV, , music etc), but telecom monopoly is a big concern to me.

Now if just TWC had the same plans everywhere. Where I live, $40 would get you a 15Mbps plan. $70 gets you their top of the line 50Mbps plan. You can't go higher without switching out of residential plans, and then you start paying a lot more.

NYC still doesn't have gigabit for $70.

Think about what a marketing coup it would be for Google to wire up San Francisco or New York City with Fiber. And think of how awful the red-tape in those cities must be for even Google to steer clear.

I think they should do it at some point. It's just too major of a potential to ignore.

You think there is any money in building fiber in NYC at $70?

Probably enough money to make it attractive. Google also can have dark fiber in NYC I assume.

The price is reasonable though regardless whether it's NYC or not. What Verizon charges for 0.5 gigabit is simply insane.

If it's such an attractive market why is the city having to push and prod Verizon through the FiOS deployment? They should be eager to finish buildout and start collecting the fat checks. It's not like they're sitting pretty collecting fat margins on DSL. They're the entrant into the high-speed broadband market there and the government has given them the green light. Plus, Verizon's lack of substantial profit margin on FiOS is well-known. The price they charge for 0.5 gigabit is what they have to charge to make up for their unionized workforce, build out requirements, etc.

> If it's such an attractive market why is the city having to push and prod Verizon through the FiOS deployment?

Because Verizon stopped caring about landline Internet for a while already. Not because it's not profitable, but because current Verizon execs are all from the wireless department (unlike previous Verizon CEO who was from landline part of the business and started FiOS effort to begin with). I.e. Verizon just wants more profits from wireless and wants to get rid of landline altogether. It's idiocy or greed or whatever. Nothing good anyway. We are lucky NYC actually holds Verizon accountable for their contract (since they got massive tax cuts for promising to wire the whole city with fiber).

> Verizon's lack of substantial profit margin on FiOS is well-known.

After Ivan Seidenberg has left, FiOS was doomed. Wireless execs weren't interested in making it more profitable. Not because it couldn't be, but because they didn't want it.

> The price they charge for 0.5 gigabit is what they have to charge to make up for their unionized workforce, build out requirements, etc.

That's nonsense. They charge lower prices for the same line (which is the bulk of what they get). Barely anyone in residential FiOS pays such crazy prices (businesses is another question). I.e. they can provide much more bandwidth even for their lower price tiers and still be profitable. They just want to rip off the higher one.

Your position doesn't make any sense. FiOS could make money, but Verizon execs just don't want to? They're greedy, but leaving money on the table? It's not like sandbagging FiOS in NYC might push more people to wireless--the city is already well-covered by cable.

As to your point about ripping off for 500 Mbps--I don't think you understand how much cross-subsidization is built into the framework. As part of their arrangement with the city, Verizon has to pass a bunch of neighborhoods in NYC that will have very low FiOS uptake.[1] They have to recoup the cost of that from somewhere, and charging high prices for premium tiers is how they do it. It's not a "rip off" when the overall wireline profit margins are as narrow as they are. It's just like how Apple charges $100 more for $10 worth of extra flash memory on an iPhone (except their profit margin is comical compared to wireline).

[1] Something Google categorically rejects in Fiber cities.

> FiOS could make money, but Verizon execs just don't want to? They're greedy, but leaving money on the table?

pyvpx already explained it very clearly above:

> not when those dollars can be spent on LTE/wireless and see a far greater return. just because something is profitable doesn't mean there is something even MORE profitable to spend dollars on (in VZs case, wireless wireless wireless)

That's what I meant as well. They can have profits, but they want more profits. That's about it. I.e. it's a conflict of interests between their landline and wireless divisions. They simply see landline as unworthy, because wireless provides them higher profit margins. Not sure how it can be fixed though. May be they can be split into two separate companies.

You're assuming Verizon is a sensibly-run corporation, which I don't think is very well supported by facts.

not when those dollars can be spent on LTE/wireless and see a far greater return. just because something is profitable doesn't mean there is something even MORE profitable to spend dollars on (in VZs case, wireless wireless wireless)

So why isn't that profit enough to entice a non-Verizon fiber company? You can't sensibly argue it's because NYC is in the pocket of TWC/Comcast, when they're out trying very hard to get Verizon to come in and compete. You think if Google came a knocking de Blasio would turn them away?

For the same reasons that companies aren't prospecting for oil/gas in the US right now.

I don't follow.

How much oil and gas exploration do you think has gone on in the US in the last five or so years.

I have a feeling that, if it were possible, Google would've already done it by now. The fact that they haven't indicates that they're either incompetent, risk-averse, or are entirely incapable of offering Google Fiber in those cities.

In the case of San Francisco, this isn't surprising; San Francisco's Congressional Representative (Nancy Pelosi) is a Comcast shareholder IIRC, and I suspect that's only one example of likely governmental interference with such prospects (and possibly one of the root causes; I'm not all that familiar with San Franciscan politics, but I'd reckon that - if she's truly representative of San Franciscans - then they've probably voted similar candidates into other municipal positions).

Isn't stuff like dealing with ISPs decided by the city council?

Depends on the city. Even if it is, then it doesn't get around the problem of government interference (the city council would be part of the government, after all), and if the positions are elected (like with most cities IIRC), they're subject to the same voter base that would vote in other elected officials.

That latter aspect is closer to my point. If San Francisco's (for example) population is collectively willing to vote a Comcast shareholder into office as their representative in the federal government, what makes you think they wouldn't do the same for their own local government?

Somehow I doubt that decision is made by people evaluating Comcast shares ;) May be it just happened that city council got some better people, who knows. I'm just saying that it's probably more their area of influence.

I'm sure they didn't vote Pelosi in because of her Comcast shares, either. I'm just saying that there's a tendency toward political homogeny.

Not to mention that if any of them are her (or some similar politician's) "supporters", they'll likely lean toward the supportee's stance on a particular issue (like Comcast's marketshare in San Francisco being negatively affected by a hypothetical Google Fiber rollout).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com