Internet service providers

[Patrick425]

I currently have Time Warner Cable and do not plan on switching (mainly because I enjoy having multiple TVs in the house without having to pay a monthly fee for all of them).

 

However, I also have Internet and phone service through TWC. I feel they are gouging me on both. My internet bill, including an optional $10 for Turbo service (15mps), comes to $55/month. The phone service comes to $44/month (I do not have an interest in getting rid of my LAN line completely).

 

My main concern right now is looking into cheaper internet provider options. Anyone have any suggestions?

[thebruce44]

I pay more for less here in Chicago. Sadly, we are all pretty much at the mercy of the big cable companies in this country.

 

My only suggestion would be to switch to a digital phone service, I think some of those go for like $5-$10 per month and you would still have your same number.

[Patrick425]

Yeah, right after I posted this I talked to a few other people and they basically said what you stated (not a whole lot of "cheap" internet options available), but I could save money on the phone bill. One person I talked to mentioned Ooma, where you basically just pay an initial fee for the equipment and then a very small monthly service fee ($5 or something?). I definitely will be looking into that.

[TURBO]

Anyone have other digital phone service companies they have used?

 

Is this form of phone service reliable?

 

I too have TWC, and am sick of paying their prices for phone service.

[Patrick425]

I'll probably purchase the Ooma device in the next day or two. I've done a little research on it and it all seems good. Clark Howard has recommended it on his show. You can buy the device on Amazon for $150. If you believe what they state on their website, I have calculated that my monthly bill will be $3.73 per month based on my zip code. That's quite a bit less than what I'm paying now. The savings will basically pay for the cost of the device in a matter of 3 or 4 months.

 

My biggest concern was number portability. Sound like it takes a few weeks for that to happen, but in the mean time you just use your old provider. They then send an email to let you know that the number has been "ported" and have you call to cancel your old service.

[thebruce44]

I'd just like to say that if you (and this is directed at everyone) can, cancel your cable. I just did and have gone to all streaming and downloading. Cable companies aren't going to start offering better service until their subscribers start leaving. Of course, they are now putting internet caps in place to combat this.

[Patrick425]

Right after my previous post I called TWC to inquire about what my bill would come to if I were to drop my phone service (and retain cable and internet). Of course, the person looked at my bill and told me he could offer me all sorts of promotional discounts. When all was said and done he basically reduced my bill by almost the entire amount I was paying for my phone service.

 

While I will enjoy the savings and the fact that I don't have to deal with changing my phone provider right now, it's a bit annoying that I had to call and threaten to drop a service in order to get this discount. It makes me feel like they should reimburse me for all the months that I was paying the "pumped up" fees. I do know that in 2 or 3 months I'm going to call again and ask the same question (we will see what happens then).

[Patrick425]

I'd just like to say that if you (and this is directed at everyone) can, cancel your cable. I just did and have gone to all streaming and downloading. Cable companies aren't going to start offering better service until their subscribers start leaving. Of course, they are now putting internet caps in place to combat this.

 

Yeah, someone I work with has basically done this, but there are still a lot of channels you can not get including sports channels. Doing this is fine if you are not a big TV watcher to begin with or if you are mostly into just watching movies. However, I'm a flipper. I like having a channel guide, and yes, I enjoy having 100+ channels.

[patrickgpe]

i switched everything over to AT&T U-verse. Sadly i am only saving 10 dollars a month and will be paying more once the promotional period is over.

[stoutdude04]

I have charter. I used to call every year and talk about dropping part of the service. This year they finally caught on and told me no more. Ive been doing it for 4 years. Every year they would take my 130/120$ bill and make it 85 or 90. (cable, internet, 10$ upgrade, modem rental) Incredible that they can drop it 40$. Just shows how they make a killing.

[xisxisxis]

I just switched to clear. They offer internet through their 4G cellular network. unlimited download for $49.99 per month. Advertised speeds were 2-6mps. i checked my coverage before switching and I was in the best zone. Since getting it (~30 days) I have routinely hit over 6 every time I've checked my speed at dslreports. the modem that connects to the 4G network has a wifi router for wireless g/n. the only downside is that the wifi signal is weaker than my old linksys s3200. streaming from netflix and amazon usually is HD and i rarely/never have buffering issues. the latency of the connection is very good and my downloads have been faster than with cable modem. you buy the modem $79 so there are no monthly rental fees (last service just started $5 per month lease fee). I am extremely happy with clear 4G and wob't be going back to landlines.....

[thebruce44]

I hope this doesn't venture into something that should be on the political board, but the situation is really bad.

 

The cable distribution giants like Time Warner Cable and Comcast are already making a 97 percent margin on their “almost comically profitable” Internet services, according to Craig Moffet, an analyst at the Wall Street firm Bernstein Research. As Levin points out, “If you are making that kind of margin, it’s hard to improve it.” And most Americans have no choice but to deal with their local cable company.

 

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/510176/when-will-the-rest-of-us-get-google-fiber/?utm_campaign=newsletters&utm_source=newsletter-daily-all&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20130205

 

FCC talks about Helping but Still Incompetent and Weak

 

The FCC says it wants to help. Last month, at a U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski called for broadband providers and state and city officials to build out at least one “gigabit community” in all 50 states by 2015. And the FCC plans to hold workshops in which broadband providers and state and municipal leaders can find and remove barriers, lower costs, and boost incentives for getting it done. Requests to the FCC for interviews went unanswered last week.

 

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/02/cable-companies-make-97-margin-on.html

[MJLiverock]

I know Craig and he is a well respected analyst, although I used to chide him about his prediction that DirecTV was going to lose all of its subs 5 or 6 years ago due to people switching to cable for broadband. Those 97% margins have to be in reference to incremental margins on existing networks and can't possibly include the capex or D&A associated with the lines. Time Warner's overall margins have been in the mid single digits most years and just reached 10% for 2012. Their EBITDA margin is about 35% or so which of course strips out the taxes, interest on debt and Depreciation of the rather large capex required to improve network speeds.

 

There has been some news lately about trying to improve speeds nationwide and the general reluctance of the broadband providers to invest to improve their networks. My guess is they are just finally turning a profit on therm and are hesitant to launch another round of upgrades that many customers won't notice or pay up for the incremental increase of going from 30MB speeds to 100MB or even a 1GB speed. When video streaming via TV shows and communications finally overwhelms the networks and bogs things down people will demand more speed. I get 15mb speed via TDS DSL and it is pretty consistent, they just ran new fiber in my neighborhood to deliver 30mb but I doubt I'll upgrade unless they give me a great deal because the 15 works just fine for my needs right now. I can stream video through my DirecTV box and Netflix without issue.

 

I know Obama had talked about increasing the penetration of high speed networks during his first campaign but nothing really materialized out of it. Something the rural electrification act of the New Deal would probably be a nice boost for some people. My parents still can't get high speed because they live smack between 2 cable companies whose territory and lines end about 300 yards on either side of their lot and I don't see either one adding those 300 yards just to bring in 15 more houses. And the hill blocks wireless data signals from being strong enough.

[TURBO]

I just called Time Warner Cable to see if I can get a better deal...

 

I am currently paying $125 per month for cable (99 channels, no dvr, no digital cable box), unlimited free long distance calling in Wisconsin only (landline), and 15 MB speed internet (roadrunner).

 

I have been happy with all services, other than an occasional outage of phone, I have been pretty happy with TWC.

 

Anyway, they dropped my price to $119, upped my cable to 250 channels, gave me free unlimited nationwide calling to anywhere in the US, and free DVR service (which included a DVR for the $10 it cost for them to ship it to me.)

 

All in all I was pretty happy with the deal, however, would have rather been able to knock $25 off my monthly bill. Was told several times that the deal they gave me today was THE best they could do. I'm sure they would rather add services (which costs them almost nothing) than to drop my bill, which costs them cash money.

[1992casey]

Time Warner recently told me that my dad could reduce his monthly bill if he added phone and Internet. I told them that he needs to stick with a traditional landline. He doesn't need to be losing his phone service because the electricity goes out or the Internet gets wonky.

 

Before that, AT&T tried to get him to move his television service to U-Verse. We told them, "no Extra Innings, no U-Verse. "

 

In short, re-examining prices, getting another digital cable box into the house, and possibly moving the Internet to Time Warner might be in order. But the TV needs to stay with Time Warner and the phone needs to stick with a traditional landline.

[Patrick425]

On a somewhat related note....I have Sprint for my cell phone and the reception in my house has never been good. I told someone at work about this and they stated that they knew someone with the same problem. That person called Sprint and they sent him a "signal booster" to hook up to his internet modem. So, I called Sprint to get one of these. I got the unit yesterday, hooked it up, and all of a sudden, we have 4 bars in our house! I wish I had known about this 2 or 3 years ago.

[thebruce44]

I know Craig and he is a well respected analyst, although I used to chide him about his prediction that DirecTV was going to lose all of its subs 5 or 6 years ago due to people switching to cable for broadband. Those 97% margins have to be in reference to incremental margins on existing networks and can't possibly include the capex or D&A associated with the lines. Time Warner's overall margins have been in the mid single digits most years and just reached 10% for 2012. Their EBITDA margin is about 35% or so which of course strips out the taxes, interest on debt and Depreciation of the rather large capex required to improve network speeds.

 

There has been some news lately about trying to improve speeds nationwide and the general reluctance of the broadband providers to invest to improve their networks. My guess is they are just finally turning a profit on therm and are hesitant to launch another round of upgrades

I'm not an expert in this field by any means, but what you are saying seems to go against everything I've ever read or seen written about lately. Am I being lied to? Do you have some sources to back this up? How is Google able to offer so much for so little and still turn a profit?

 

And if these companies really are just scraping by, that's an issue too, especially when you compare us to the rest of the world in terms of speeds and pricing. Just today, I'm seeing this interview posted at every major tech site talking about what a problem this is and how the ISPs are charging too much for what they provide.

 

http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/11/3976546/susan-crawford-on-the-internets-deepening-inequality

 

When video streaming via TV shows and communications finally overwhelms the networks and bogs things down people will demand more speed. I get 15mb speed via TDS DSL and it is pretty consistent, they just ran new fiber in my neighborhood to deliver 30mb but I doubt I'll upgrade unless they give me a great deal because the 15 works just fine for my needs right now. I can stream video through my DirecTV box and Netflix without issue.

I can't agree with this at all. Sure, I can for the most part stream Netflix without issue since I pay $60 a month for service, but I should be able to do that for a whole lot less. And, there are tons of uses for faster service even if you don't think you need it now because you aren't aware of it. Cloud storage and services are going to revolutionize business and media consumption as Netflix/Spotify have proven. Its potentially one of the most disruptive advances to consumer tech we've seen in a while.

 

Why stop with streaming movies and tv shows though? I want to be able to work in CAD programs on my companies network from home. I want to be able to skype and have meetings to collaborate with clients at a higher resolution and frame rate. It makes a huge difference when looking at detailed plans. I want all of my HDs to be backed up constantly.

 

I want to have a new video game system every year, meaning I want to pay a monthly fee so that my system sits in a data center and is upgraded over time along with new games added without me going to Gamestop.

 

Here is an expert from an article talking about why the first step (ISPs actually upgrading their services) is so important:

 

So we’re stuck at a point where a gigabit — or even 100 Mbps – sounds awesome, but it’s not exactly worth the prices most companies want (or need to charge). This is why Google’s and Sonic.Net’s plans to expand moderately priced 100 Mbps and gigabit networks will be so important.

 

“If every consumer has 100 Mbps, we’d have some better applications,” Jasper said. ” At 100 Mbps, high-def video conferencing becomes a reality and you don’t need local storage anymore. You don’t even need local computing.”

 

And if I'm my parents and all the stuff I just talked about is confusing and scary, then I want them to be able to do the things they do now for a reasonable price. They shouldn't be paying $60 a month to have my mom call me every time Pandora "wont work" because their speeds get bogged down for no reason.

[MJLiverock]

I'm not an expert in this field by any means, but what you are saying seems to go against everything I've ever read or seen written about lately. Am I being lied to? Do you have some sources to back this up? How is Google able to offer so much for so little and still turn a profit?

 

And if these companies really are just scraping by, that's an issue too, especially when you compare us to the rest of the world in terms of speeds and pricing. Just today, I'm seeing this interview posted at every major tech site talking about what a problem this is and how the ISPs are charging too much for what they provide.

 

My sources for the profitability are right in the company's SEC filings. I have software that brings up all the ratios easily for me but the numbers out there in annual reports and filings. GOOG makes all of its money (well 90%+ of it) from web search/advertising. They make virtually nothing from Android operating system, it is just a portal that lets them sell other services like search/advertising. At one point Microsoft actually made more direct money from the Android operating system due some some royalty agreement with Samsung. Google likely doesn't make any money on their ISP stuff, it is probably written off as R&D in their mind with hopes of someday finding a way to make money on it.

 

From dslreports.com

"Google Fiber offers users in Kansas City symmetrical 1 Gbps fiber connections for $70 a month, or symmetrical 1 Gbps fiber connections and a full array of television content for $120 a month. Users in targeted neighborhoods also have the option of paying a $300 up front fee to have their home connected, then getting free 5 Mbps service for as long as they'd like.

 

However delicious such pricing and speeds may be, national deployment continues to remain unlikely. Google Fiber remains sort of a strange public relations experiment and new technology testbed more than a serious entry into the broadband market. The effort allows Google to collect real-world network data on residential broadband networks (which ISPs fiercely protect), while testing next-generation video advertising technologies.

 

As an added bonus, Google gets an endless stream of positive national press attention for deploying the kind of low-priced, ultra-fast services that have yet to materialize in the uncompetitive United States broadband market.

 

However, estimates peg a full national Google deployment at somewhere around $140 billion, with less than half of the country costing around $70 billion. Those are numbers even Google won't want to eat. It remains most likely that Google Fiber sees deployment in only a handful of cities, making those cities selected all the more fortunate."

 

EDIT: after writing all this I ran across this very detailed article on the costs and profitability of the GOOG networks. Granted it is just one guy's opinion but at least thought out in great detail with some hard numbers that are realistic.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/778871-challenges-and-opportunities-for-google-s-fiber-project-a-reality-and-sanity-check

 

 

I can't agree with this at all. Sure, I can for the most part stream Netflix without issue since I pay $60 a month for service, but I should be able to do that for a whole lot less. And, there are tons of uses for faster service even if you don't think you need it now because you aren't aware of it. Cloud storage and services are going to revolutionize business and media consumption as Netflix/Spotify have proven. Its potentially one of the most disruptive advances to consumer tech we've seen in a while.

 

Why stop with streaming movies and tv shows though? I want to be able to work in CAD programs on my companies network from home. I want to be able to skype and have meetings to collaborate with clients at a higher resolution and frame rate. It makes a huge difference when looking at detailed plans. I want all of my HDs to be backed up constantly....

 

I didn't say nobody will ever want faster, it is just that until consumer feel what they have is too slow will they be clamoring for faster speeds. There a still a lot of people who don't stream video at all, don't subscribe to Netflix, don't care much about using the internet for more than reading ESPN, sending some emails and looking up some recipes along with a little Facebook. A lot are only using the mobile networks for this.

 

I just upgrade my home service from 15 mbps to 50 mbps down and 20 up as TDS ran fiber to me. As I said I would probably only upgrade if they offered me a deal and they cut my bill by $10/month for increasing the speed from 15 to 50. After 12 months my pricing goes from $35/month to $45/month before taxes, etc. I can say that I don't even notice a speed difference. I ran the speed tests, I am getting what is expected but streaming on demand on my computer or thru the DirecTV box is maybe a few seconds quicker, I could always watch almost instantaneously. TDS offered 100 mbps if I took their TV offering but I felt it was inferior to my DirecTV setup so I didn't switch.

 

As you said more is being hosted on the cloud but we are still long ways from mass adoption of it and mass adoption of storing everything there. Even so when I use the cloud from Apple or movies from UltaViolet, speed isn't usually the issue, it is paying for the storage. You are also likely much more tech savvy than the average Joe who is just getting comfortable with Amazon vs. the mall.

 

I agree that the network speeds will improve, I researched edge routers for IPTV over 6 years ago when everyone in the tech community was claiming IPTV and cloud storage of TV shows/movies was just around the corner and the need for all this equipment was going to explode and cable was doomed (Craig Moffet thought DirectV was going to lose all their customers in a couple years, instead subscriber growth mushroomed). 6 years later and fios, uverse, etc are still niche players and we have nowhere near the level of cloud storage predicted. Cord cutting is virtually nonexistent in comparison to the predictions. It all takes time and usually a lot longer than industry insiders predict. I have the ability and know how to stream much more but zero desire to given the current state of interfaces. I want to be able to quickly peruse the offerings and change channels quickly (on top of needing access to live sports). Trying to cobble together some system of Apple, Hulu, Netflix, CBS.com, Amazon.com, through various computers, blue ray devices, RoKKU players, or TV menu's through out the 4 TVs in my house isn't worth it at this point. I have the ability to watch DirecTV thru my iPad anytime and have yet to feel the need to watch it versus the 60 TV in the basement.

 

It also goes to the point of lament that places like Hong Kong or Seoul have high speed everywhere faster than the U.S. Those are small densely populated areas, as Google has shown they can run 1GB service in a city here, but connecting all the cities is a huge expense and not likely profitable for a long time. My parents still have dial up service, they live 30 miles outside Madison, just off a U.S. Highway, no one has run anything faster past their subdivison. It will probably take something like the rural electrification act in the New Deal era to get high speed everywhere in the U.S.

 

The builders of the networks probably won't turn a profit on them and it will be the ones who buy them out of bankruptcy that will finally make a go of it at reasonable prices. Just like the original build out of all the ISPs in the 90, most are gone today, bankrupt while the buyers of the assets at auction are the operators today.