Want cheaper AT&T gigabit service? Move to a Google Fiber city Competition works: AT&T has been found to be charging less for its gigabit broadband service in cities where it has to compete with Google Fiber. A report by Consumerist analysts noted that AT&T varies the prices on its 1Gbps Gigapower service depending on where it's rolled out – and the correlation between the lower rates was …
Well yes, that's the obvious response and you're right to post it, but I think the bigger shame is the way people in these places continue to vote for politicians who are so obviously in the pockets of AT&T.
Have a look at the way Tennessee are suing the FCC to prevent Chattanooga extending it's own fibre network.
I wonder how much AT&T put into the Governor's re-election PAC?
"How many of us would work as hard, facing no pressure, as we would facing it?"
What an American work ethic. Goddamn.
Many of us work with hard because we take professional pride in our work. As has been proven time and again, "working hard" and "being well remunerated" have fuck all to do with one another. So whether or not you work hard shouldn't depend on how likely or not you are to be replaced: it should be a point of professional pride. Always do the best you possibly can.
Now, that doesn't mean you don't go looking for a better job every now and again, but it does mean you don't slack off just because you think you can get away with doing so. Or, you know, so grownups behave in most places I've been.
Across the street from new LinkedIn, Apple, and Google campuses, AT&T is offering 3 Mbps to compete with Comcast's 0 to 150 Mbps. For those not satisfied with having just AT&T and Comcast to choose from, there are two other internet companies that can resell those same connections at much higher prices.
Yup, too many places have uncompetitive pricing.
Locally, CenturyLink (DSL) and Mediacom (cable) are SO overpriced that satellite -- yes, satellite -- internet service is not only price-competitive but actually slight less expensive than either duopoly landline option (while providing higher upstream speeds than either one provides for any price; and higher downstream than either's lower-cost options.)
Note wireless broadband is not viable in most of the US. Some lucky areas have a (usually local) provider that just uses wireless to provide broadband, priced accordingly to compete with whatever broadband options are available. But the "big 4" charge insane prices, they are looking to sell service for phones and not that interested in actual broadband. You can't get much better than $50 for 2GB.... they'll charge you like $10/GB (minimum 2GB), charge $30+/month if it's a phone for voice & texting even if the line's for tethering and you don't want the voice and text. If you use a non-phone (mobile broadband card or wifi-sharing box) they want to double-dip by still charging $30+ a month to share the data you've ALREADY paid for. Oh and overage is cash overage, not throttled. (T-Mobile charges a bit better price and has throttle caps, but still not particularly competitive with a landline. Plus they don't have service in my market.)
>CenturyLink (DSL) and Mediacom (cable) are SO overpriced
Century Link DSL in my area is actually pretty affordable. I only pay $35 a month (for internet only no bundling). Granted its for slow as shit service (20 down tops less than 1 up, but unlimited data) but its good enough for me to be able to get rid of cable and phone and still go internet only on both. Here's to being a cheap bastard.
This post has been deleted by its author
It's interesting, AT&T looks like it has been busting ass laying fiber on the east side of Orlando. I've seen pairs of AT&T fiber trucks at dozens of street corners for the past 6 months, and this is more activity from them than I've ever seen.
Heck, they've doubled my speed for free, from a lovely 9mbytes/sec to an blazing 18mbytes/sec. They're pissed I still won't pay for TV though.
They are building out *massive* Fiber - and then not letting you have it - charging the same oligopoly rates for bad service as always. That way when Google Fiber comes to any one town they can light it up and compete with the flick of a switch, and hook people into long term contracts for gigabit while Google is still negotiating rights of way. In the meantime everyone else gets the myth that bandwidth is a precious and limited resource worth paying top dollar for. The objective is to make it as expensive as possible for Google to do rollouts in every place they expand into - effectively cutting off Google Fiber's air supply.
If Google wants to combat this effectively they are going to have to scale quickly. And I'm OK with that.
Here in Austin, soon after Google announced they were coming to town, Time Warner pulled their finger out and we suddenly had triple the speed for no additional cost (well, aside from the fact that they'd already raised prices several times in recent years, and are now charging an additional $8/month just for the cable modem).
By the way, to get AT&T's $70 price for GigaPower, you have to agree to let them perform a deep packet inspection of everything you do on the Internet. To avoid that you either have to pay them an additional $29/month (that is the value of your privacy, apparently), or use a VPN service full time. So, in Austin at least, the real price for AT&T's fiber service is $99/month, and you are required to sign up for a full year, and even that price is only "for 36 months," and there's a data cap of 1TB/month.
Google Fiber is still a far better deal than GigaPower.
Once you've paid off the infrastructure, there are years and years of nothing but profit ahead.
Data costs literally nothing to move, once you have paid for the highway. And if you're at all competent, that happens in the first few years.
That $60/month pays salaries and shareholders, not costs.
Hey Google, please promise to roll fiber broadband to Brazil. Pronto.
I'm paying 50 dollars per 10mbps. Not megabytes, megabits. 1.2MB/s. (And the TV service is shoved down your throat, since they charge more if you choose to buy only the web access.)
Telefonica, Vivo, GVT and Net Cable are actually avoiding each other, with each one installing their services where the others are not present, so you can't choose.
The bastards.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
