Time Warner Cable Doesn't Think There's Demand For Google Fiber
from the in-denial dept
It's sometimes cute to see the big broadband providers in denial about what consumers want (and how little they do to provide it). With Google Fiber getting so much attention in Kansas City, Time Warner Cable has been looking rather dated lately. In trying to compete, it's offering cheaper service to families with kids and increasing WiFi hotspots, but that hardly seems compelling compared to the massive speeds at low prices that Google is offering.However, Time Warner Cable's latest strategy is complete denial: arguing that there isn't really demand for Google Fiber. The evidence? If there was demand, then Time Warner Cable would be offering a service like that already. Logic!
"If there is demand for [1 Gbps] service we will provide it," Time Warner Cable chief operating officer Rob Marcus told attendees of a conference this week while discussing Google Fiber. Speaking at the Broadcast and Cable/Multichannel News OnScreen Summit yesterday, Marcus stated that while the company may eventually have to raise speeds to compete with Google Fiber, so far the company hasn't had to.The thing is, you don't look to provide the faster speeds after the applications are there to take advantage of it. That's getting the equation backwards. And, of course, there are significant questions as to whether or not TWC could even offer such speeds. But showing up well after there are applications and services that use it, means being way late to the party.
Granted at the moment Google Fiber's footprint is minuscule. Marcus claims that Google Fiber's deployment currently only impacts about 100,000 broadband customers, and around 100,000 cable TV customers. The COO also spent plenty of time downplaying the need for 1 Gbps services, and questioning consumer demand for such speeds.
"It will be interesting to find out whether there are applications that will take advantage of a 1 Gbps service," Marcus said. "If there is, we will provide it. Our infrastructure has the ability to provide much faster speeds today. We're prepared to compete head to head with Google."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: broadband, demand, fiber, google fiber
Companies: time warner cable
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The only thing keeping me on cable internet right now is the lack of competition for high speed. I was hoping AT&T or Verizon would compete on FIOS, but both have failed to wire my area, and instead are offering DSL (@1mbps) or LTE/WIMAX with a greatly limited bandwidth cap (I use those when camping, and max them out over one weekend.)
If Google wired up my area with a 10mbps connection, I'd jump ship. The only difference between 5mbps cable and a 1mbps DSL line is speed (they both cost the same,) and 10mbps would come with no limits on how to use the connection (which I currently have) and twice the speed for what (if the prices remain the same as what they have in KC,) I currently pay. I don't care about speed as much as I care about unfettered access to the network, though I do care about speed. Cable companies keep complaining about Netflix and HULU eating into their profits and my biggest concern is that they will do something to block or limit access to those services.
From Time Warner's perspective, providing more speed is relatively cheap, especially if the FCC keeps letting them advertise "up to" speeds. Reasonable prices are what really scares the big cable companies.
Nail hit squarely on the head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think you're doing it wrong...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I agree. Roughing it for me is Holiday Inn without reservations...when I go "camping" it is in an RV so I am cheating already. Gone are the days when I am sleeping in a -20* bag in a tent on the ground, so it is all wrong but I don't think I'll ever be able to fix it at my age.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The photos looked nothing like camping and more like staying in a B&B.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I do of course expect the prices to be reasonable, but I said reasonable, not cheap or the same as I am paying now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"If [we think] there is demand for [1 Gbps] service we will provide it," Time Warner Cable chief operating officer Rob Marcus
meaning there will never be a "demand" for 1 Gbps service unless the taxpayers subsidize it, and then pay through the nose for it, and be screwed repeatedly with no recourse, with no competition from pipsqueak upstarts...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correction
FTFY.
The problem is a lack of *competition* and monopoly-controlled markets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Correction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Correction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So no, there is probably very little demand for a $2000 a month internet plan. A 1 Gbps plan in a market with actual competition however...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And comes to Canada too :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TWC in denial about a lot of stuff
Do I need 1Gbps? Probably not, but I'd probably be a lot happier in the summer and afternoons when all the kids get on my local cable Internet node and slow things to a crawl.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TWC in denial about a lot of stuff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you kidding?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also:
"or LTE/WIMAX with a greatly limited bandwidth cap (I use those when camping, and max them out over one weekend.)"
....Uh, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but I think you're camping wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The point of camping is to get AWAY from the tethers and interruptions of daily city life, at least from my perspective.
A campfire, a good book, and someone to snuggle up to at night are all that are necessary for good camping, everything else is just gravy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prediction
This might also draw telecommuters to KC as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prediction
This might also draw telecommuters to KC as well.
Do you think that will actually happen? Silicon Valley/the Bay area is an expensive place to set up a business and yet companies continue to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prediction
I have to admit, I would jump on it for my home. I would dump Comcast so fast they would wonder what happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Prediction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TWC can't keep their story straight
and
The second quote says there is demand, but there's no competition so they don't care.
These can't both be true. Which is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TWC can't keep their story straight
Just because Google provides the capability doesn't mean that there *is* demand for it. Just that now in advertising Google would be faster and people would want that.
They completely buried the lead though:
"Our infrastructure has the ability to provide much faster speeds today."
So point blank they could do more today and are choosing not too. Hence it's in the ground and wouldn't cost them a damned penny to turn it on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they saw what can be done they would be sold.
- Almost instant mail retrieval.
- Websites load faster.
- Cloud actually starts to make sense, and one has to wonder why media companies don't want it because it is their only chance to create walled gardens.
- Telepresence becomes attractive with all that it entails how about consulting your doctor over the internet? if he only needs to hear the sound of your heart and ask you some questions why do you have to go to a clinic/hospital do it in your home and send all the data to him. Also one can work from home now.
And so much more.
If they don't want to do it they should let others at least try, communities would be more than glad to start building up physical networks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Almost instant mail retrieval: I have that right now.
Websites load faster: I don't have any problem with websites loading slowly except when the site server is having a problem.
Cloud actually starts to make sense: Only if you're at home, and only if by "makes sense" you are discounting all of the myriad risks and problems with the cloud.
Telepresence becomes attractive with all that it entails how about consulting your doctor over the internet: The average broadband connection right now provides more than enough bandwidth to do this effectively.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
the inclusion of "at an artificially inflated price combined with at times shockingly horrific customer service and no real compitition" would tend make all those points (which, as i said, i do agree with) a rather moot point really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google can have the market and spend the money
If Google wants to, I don't think many companies are going to fight them for that business. And this can be viewed as very sensible. The ROI may not be good enough for most companies to get into that business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google can have the market and spend the money
Companies already have been fighting Google, various municipalities, and any other outsider group who has tried to do this before. They absolutely want to prevent this service from existing outside of their control.
They don't want to provide the service themselves. If someone else does, they'll either lose customers to the new service or have to provide a comparable service. It's easier just to prevent that problem from ever happening in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google can have the market and spend the money
If the capacity is already there and it's just a matter of turning it on, then yes having Google come in might encourage the current cable provider to do more.
But if it is a matter of the current cable provider having to spend more, then opening up the market to Google won't necessary attract other companies to spend the investment to rewire cities. Who other than Google is currently clamoring to rewire entire cities?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google can have the market and spend the money
"Our infrastructure has the ability to provide much faster speeds today."
Comcast already did the wiring. They just aren't turning it on. BIG difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google can have the market and spend the money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google can have the market and spend the money
I've long been in favor of improving infrastructure as a way to put people to work and lift us out of recession. Congress doesn't like government spending, however, unless the money goes to the "right" industries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It took years for Google Fiber to go from planning to being implemented in Kansas City. They are not going to pop up in more cities over night. If Time Warner begins to feel threatened, they will upgrade infrastructure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Fiber infrastructure has gotten cheap enough that a start-up with enough funds and connections could easily pull the rug from under the incumbents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Former Time Warner Customer here
We would have stuck with them from sheer inertia, but everything their customer service dept could do to aggravate us further, they did. Promise refunds that never came through? Check. Offer reduced rates, then refuse to honor them? Check. Call us after 11:00 p.m., which is bad enough, but *after* we had chosen the "do no call us for follow-up" option on the Customer Service phone menu? Check.
We're eager to get our Google Fiber connection, but it's Time Warner who turned us into Google customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually...
That's not to say ISPs shouldn't upgrade infrastructure or offer faster speeds. But truly, the demand for Google fiber is not yet there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actually...
By your own rationale, the demand depends on the price point. If the price structure and usage caps scale with the service speed, I can't see there ever being much demand for it. It'd be far, far too expensive. If, however, the price were reasonable -- reasonable meaning no more than is currently paid for mid-level service, as that service is already dramatically overpriced -- there would be great demand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Actually...
In reality, $70 for 1gbps is very reasonable. But at the same time, it's $70. Most people don't pay that much for internet and for that reason many wouldn't take the service even if it were offered to them. There is just not a lot of demand for any speed when it costs $70 per month. If Google offered 100mbps for $40 per month, I think they would possibly even double the amount of subscribers they will get. But Google is not competing on price and that will limit the demand. Granted there is a free Google Fiber service, but the jury is still out on that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Actually...
Their prices:
$120 for 1g/1g internet and TV
$70 for 1g/1g internet
Free for 5m/1m internet
I pay TWC $55 for 20m/2m (Turbo). Discounted because I have TV (no phone).
For $60 and $80, I could upgrade to 30m/2m (Extreme) or 50m/5m (Ultimate). Now, compare those speeds and prices to what Google is offering. TWC simply isn't even on the same planet in terms of price and value.
Verizon this year started offering 300m for....$210. 1/3rd the speed of Google fiber for 3 times the cost.
These incumbent players aren't interested in competing on price. Why? Because they don't have to. They have monopoly or duopoly control in many of their areas and are under no pressure, from well, anyone, to actually compete.
TWC will of course say there's no demand for this service. They can't offer it anyway. And even if they could, they wouldn't want to because they'd have to offer it for a lot less per month than they care to admit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Actually...
If Google is in the market, a cable operator that doesn't have to make additional investments can drop the price without losing money.
These incumbent players aren't interested in competing on price. Why? Because they don't have to. They have monopoly or duopoly control in many of their areas and are under no pressure, from well, anyone, to actually compete.
That's kind of the point. If Google isn't in a market, it doesn't present a threat. If it does go into a market and the current cable operator wants to stay there, it will need to offer a better price for what it offers.
Cable operators can wait it out market by market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Actually...
Almost everyone in my area who has broadband is paying right around $70/mo for it right now. That's the cheapest price you can get for it over cable modem (and cable modem is the only realistic choice. DSL etc are too flaky and/or slow).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Actually...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Actually...
That rate is for a lower service tier, with bundling. I subscribe to (but don't actually watch) cable television because the total is lower that way than if I got internet alone (which would cost closer to $90/mo).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Actually...
I'm in a major city in Canada. If I was still in my hometown, the same non-dial-up connection would cost me $175/mth. (The alternative is $40/mth, but as implied, that's dial-up)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actually...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actually...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just more of Mike's pro-Google puffery.
Hardly anyone wants that speed except pirates! Here at Techdirt, the pirato-geeks* assume their greed to download free content is universal, but it ain't.
* a new term: steal it
Take a moment for Mike "Streisand Effect" Masnick and click:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Actual unsolicited testimonial: "Until I read Techdirt.com, I didn't know what shameless self-promotion was!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just more of Mike's pro-Google puffery.
with all the b.s. you spew, I'd assume that'd be using up most of the available bandwidth. But then again, in order to use bandwidth - you actually have to say something (transmit information).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just more of Mike's pro-Google puffery.
France 9.75
Time-Warner 9.75
RIAA 9.20
Next time for a better score, do not let it be known that you have no clue what your are talking about and stick to your core "MIKE AND GOOGLE ARE BAD" / "EVERYONES A PIRATE" combo instead of trying to branch off
Those combo made you the Troll Superstar you are..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just more of Mike's pro-Google puffery.
I guess you're right.. Just like we don't need more than 640KB of RAM either.
Hardly anyone wants that speed except pirates! Here at Techdirt, the pirato-geeks* assume their greed to download free content is universal, but it ain't.
* a new term: steal it
It's shit, I don't want it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google does indeed provide 1 gig symmetric connection. Doesn't do as much good as it should. Lots of in between hardware isn't setup for the speed and there is a noticeable lack of that 1 gig per second out on the net. Connect in the same city between two Google internet users and there it is. Another issue they hit was wifi. Seems most of the wifi won't support that speed either.
What really got my attention was they addressed customer service. Once install is agreed on and paid for, a team shows up and does the outside work to the house. The next day an inside team comes in to wire the house, install the router, and other stuff if ordered, like a small wifi type connection for tv service.
At a time of the customer's choosing, Google techs will show up to explain all the stuff or trouble shoot if necessary. The customer isn't expected to wait a day for whenever the tech decides to show up. According to the article, people were raving just over the customer service after experiencing TWC's excuse for customer service.
TWC was so concerned for it's reputation they were actually sending out representatives to talk to their customers about satisfaction. You wouldn't have to be a fly on the wall to know how that went.
While I would love the speed were it to come to my neighborhood, cost is indeed a factor or I would already have a business account with the better speed provided. Present cost of internet connection is a rip off with the prices jacked way up beyond any reason beyond gouging.
As TWC admits, the cost isn't that much a factor, it's getting people to pay outrageous amounts for the service. Once again you see why the monopoly on utility service has not been in the benefit of the US. It's been purposely held back to rake in the money with slower, older, and restricted services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Where do people get the idea that just because their internet connection is 1Gbps that everything else that was ever made in their network would automatically be that fast?
it isn't about the transfer speeds. Its that its a faster link than any other *major* ISP has ever offered to its residential customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If they are doing all of the Internet browsing on devices using wifi there's no need for them to get the extra speed right now. They don't see the benefit. However, cheaper prices for the same service is a different matter. And a company that isn't laying new fiber can win the price war for lower speeds because all it has to do is drop its prices rather than increase investment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Google is using 1:1 fiber with few choke points and Ethernet switches. I'm imagining city wide LAN parties.
You could do Red v Blue style competition between two houses across the city and have it like they're playing locally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right now Google is a limited threat
And the big question is whether Google really plans to do this on a grand scale. A lot of people think not, both because of the expense and because it isn't its core business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Right now Google is a limited threat
Selling jewelry or appliances wasn't Amazon's core business, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Right now Google is a limited threat
If Google decides to pump a lot of money into rewiring the country, so be it, but some people are skeptical that this will happen. I'm not sure Google yet knows whether it will happen.
For some companies this might be ideal because it might remove Google's attention/resources from some industries to focus on this. If you want Google out of your playing field, then having Google go into a different playing field in a big way can reduce its threat to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Right now Google is a limited threat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Right now Google is a limited threat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Right now Google is a limited threat
Yes, that is the point. Time Warner does what it wants for now because it is in markets where Google is not, and may never go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm still pissed at them for trying to roll out usage caps in my area. They claimed that "bandwidth hogs" were clogging their network. Yet their own usage reports that they have to file with the SEC reports bandwidth usage minimal and a network with room to grow.
In the end usage caps are just an excuse to raise prices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The point of camping is to get AWAY from the tethers and interruptions of daily city life, at least from my perspective.
A campfire, a good book, and someone to snuggle up to at night are all that are necessary for good camping, everything else is just gravy..."
Actually I think he means "Camping" is a new game on Facebook.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am on a Non-Logging VPN so take that Slimebags.
And yes I would love to try out Google Fiber.To bad they did not choose Portland, Maine !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My question is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My question is...
I am assuming that would be part of the deal. If everything you do is run through Google, Google collects a lot of data on you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Municipal broadband
Well, what if Google teamed up with the municipal broadband groups? Let them use the "Google Fiber" name, helped them get set up, and prevented the monopolists from killing them off with legal fees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Municipal broadband
Would this require communities to fund their own rewiring? If so, I don't think most of them have to the money right now to do that. I think it is a great idea to have a community to own the system, but trying to raise the money to do this might be hard in the current economic environment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"We're often asked specifically about Best Buy, but we have to remind folks that we can beat it" - Alan McCollough, CEO of Circuit City, September 21, 2005
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Camping, WiFi
There are two kinds of Wi-Fi. The old variety is at 2.4 Ghz, which is only about 80 Mhz wide at best, and its capacity is as high as 54 Mbits under optimal conditions. The new "ad" protocol, operating at 60 Ghz, has a capacity of 7 Gbits, but its range is only across the room. New devices such laptops and smart-phones are increasingly being fitted to use both systems if available. It was not originally anticipated that people would want to use Wi-Fi merely to avoid plugging their computers into the wall with cables, but once the need was realized, a suitable radio band was selected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_IEEE_802.11#Protocols
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Well if Google doesn't keep making promises in a national scale it can't keep...it's reasonable to believe that there is currently no demand for GoogleFiber in areas it doesn't exist."
I think this is only partly correct though. Google could have gone to almost any place the wanted to tap into. But then again it's mostly Strawman from Time Warner Cable...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TAC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
data caps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong approach to their smack talk
Then they should imply that they might resort to deep packet inspection and maybe even mention what a man in the middle attack is. Also imply that since Google could watch everything you do online the government may eventually require them to store that data for future access.
I mean if you're gonna FUD, do it right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Looking forward to Google Fiber
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good timing...
Today, the Seattle mayor's office announced that they'd made a deal to roll out a gigabit fiber network. The initial demonstration will cover around 50,000 homes and businesses, with plans to then expand the coverage to the entire city.
This would seem to demonstrate that there is significant demand for gigabit fiber, at least in Seattle -- and that TWC won't be providing it, because the city made their deal with a company called Gigabit Squared.
I didn't think that Rob Marcus was correct at any point, but I do find myself somewhat amused by his horrible timing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TWC died 15 years ago...
As both an ex Comcast & TWC subscriber (two homes), I switched to DirectTV (far better value and service) and ATT/Verizon DSL services...
I would welcome any broadband competition that provides 20m at a $40 price.
You need GF to keep these companies "honest".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]