AOL/TW Plans for $230 Monthly Cable Bill 352
Jonathan Campbell writes: "According to the article, subscribers will get over the sticker shock preferring convenience over price." Yay, it'll be so convenient having one company control my television, internet access and phone service. I can hardly wait.
Time to let the TV go... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Time to let the TV go... (Score:2, Interesting)
Something like that happened to me as well, except they also yanked HBO 2 off of the extented basic as they upped the price. It was about that time I took notice of the various deals DirecTV was offering. $30-something for gobs more channels, as well as deals on hardware (which you own instead of rent) and installation.
Re:Time to let the TV go... (Score:4, Interesting)
These discussions about american cable and internet access prices always shock me. In comparison to my country (Canada) the US has a much higher population density. And therefore, for technologies like DSL and cable which require more hardware per distance from the central office, it should be LESS expensive to deploy these in the US in comparison to Canada since on average, the american companies should get more subscribers (and revenue) per amount of hardware:
For example (In Canada, monthly costs:)
Cable TV (deluxe package): CDN$44.34 [shoprogers.com]
DSL (worst case): CDN$24.95 [sympatico.ca]
Phone Service (Sprint): CDN$19.95 [sprint.ca]
Total: CDN$89.24 or US$55.93 for DSL, long distance and cable TV.
Now to me, US$200+ for all that stuff is a rip-off in the extreme. I honestly don't know how Americans have put up with prices being pumped up this high and not revolting. These prices are certainly more than inflated and you are well justtified in complaining.
Note (1): I pay abour CDN$30/month for internet access, but that's because I don't live in an area with broadband coverage, and my package includes dual-dialup multilink and a shell account.
Note (2): The deluxe packages for Canadian satellite TV are more in the CDN$40/month range.
Re:Time to let the TV go... (Score:2)
It is a ripoff...but consider that NYC is one of the most expensive places to live in the US, and it's also up there among the most expensive places in the world. In most of the rest of the country (a place of which most people from New York and LA deny its existence), rates are nowhere near that bad. In Las Vegas, I pay about $80 to the cable company ($50 for 512/128 business-class cable-modem service with modem rental and a static IP and the balance for standard analog cable service) and about $15+long distance to the phone company. That's still more than you're paying, but not too much more and nowhere near as nasty as $230/month.
(Remind me to never move to an area where AOHell runs the cable company...if I'm forced into such a move, then I'd have to make the switch to DSL and satellite TV. Now if there was only some way to get Cox to dump CNN, TBS, etc...)
Re:Time to let the TV go... (Score:2)
I'm subscribed to Telus (nee Sympatico) DSL in British Columbia. I pay $45 per month, modem-included. If you're getting it for $25, then I'm being screwed, and I want to know why, and how I can get unscrewed.
Re:Time to let the TV go... (Score:2)
-Restil
The entertainment value of fast DSL... (Score:2)
golden handcuffs (Score:2)
AOLTW vs MS. what a choice.
Re:golden handcuffs (Score:2)
What do I get for the money?! (Score:2)
Current Phone Bell (Score:2, Insightful)
I hope (Score:2)
I've got basic plus Road Runner. If my bill rises too much, I will switch to DSL and satellite.
$230 (Score:5, Insightful)
What additional services will they provide for $70?
A pay-per-view p0rn0 and a hooker?
AOL is smoking crack. Provide reliable desirable services first, then decide what you are able to charge for each one.
Re:$230 (Score:2, Insightful)
a) the phone company will cut the price of DSL to retain customers and
b) the phone company will cut the price of local phone service even more aggressively to retain its cash cow customers.
Competition is a wonderful thing. The local phone companies have a lot of room to make pricing changes as they've mostly amoritized the cost of most of their infrastructure. Wonder how Wall Street will react to AOL/TW's moves after the first Verizon price cut in Manhattan? Or the first complaints about AOL/TW's local phone service?
Re:$230 (Score:2)
Re:$230 (Score:3, Insightful)
Where the real money will come from is by attempting to replace Blockbuster or your local video rental store. If they can charge $5 dollars per movie and the average family views 5 moview per month - there is an easy $25 dollars. Not much money - but over thousands of households - not hard to ignore.
Yeah, but... (Score:2)
Re:Yeah, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
If they replace the existing dumb cable box with a TiVo-like (and TiVo is a leading contender since they seem to want to license to everyone) box, they can stash the PPV on the TiVo after you order it and you can watch it over the next few days like a normal rental (or months depending on how they set it up, and how much else you want to stash on the box).
The advantage over NetFlix is it could take a lot less time for the movie to get to your set top (depending on how frequently they transmit the movie you picked), the disadvantage would most likely be a much smaller selection. Plus it's likely not to have all the extras like a good DVD does.
I don't think I pay over $150 on all my phone/TV/connectivity stuff. I don't care if it goes to one place, or to five like it does now, so long as the service I get is of the quality I want, and I continue to have a choice of providers so I can vote with me feet if one pisses me off (for me this is hardest with my IP access - I can't find anyone affordable except the local cableco, and my TiVo - not only would I have to buy another PVR, but the others don't seem to fit my needs as well).
$70 a month for what?! (Score:2)
Long distance is not part of the bargain yet, and they had better make that servive free as it will be no better than any current voice over IP. Unless they tap into the local phone sytem they will you will not be able to place calls to anyone except those who have another stupid AOL modem. If they follow their own goofey propriatory stuff there like they do with their ISP service, then it will be worse than the usual voice over IP stuff as you will not be able to place calls to friends who you give software to. I want them to compete in the telco market, but I want others to be able to compete in the cable market and shake these turkeys down to real expectations.
As for the rest of it, fat chance. For seventy bucks, I can buy one kick ass answering machine, and people generally leave their number on an answering machine. For seventy bucks a month, I'm sure I could get a real ansering service staffed by people who will screen my calls for me, endure direct marketers and other garbage. Will AOL do that? Not if their email service is any guide, "You've got spam!". For movies, the local rental store is lucky if they can squeze $8/month from me. I doubt that AOL can match the local video store for variety and ease of use. They would have to have EVERYTHING and a good search engine. Nice as that would be, it won't be worth more than $8/month.
Re:$230 (Score:2)
Re:$230 (Score:2)
I also expect an unrestricted U/L and D/L line on my Internet connection, the ability to put up a server, tech support for any computer problem I have, and a 99.9% guaranteed uptime on the line.
And I want caller ID, call waiting, every single other feature on my phone, the ability to block business (telemarketer) calls, and the best voicemail system known to man.
Then, and only then, would it be a good deal. Sure, you could toss a free hooker per month for shits and giggles.
Re:$230 (Score:2, Interesting)
$10 and up per pay-per-view item... probably $200-$300 worth of use.
24/7 porno
A few nights a week at $8 per movie - another $100 or more.
any On-Demand movie I want for free
Another $100 or more...
and every single channel they can cram in the cable band.
Licensing and fees to the subscription channel providers = perhaps $200 or more depending on your market.
I also expect an unrestricted U/L and D/L line on my Internet connection
UUNET/Sprint T1 = $800/month...
the ability to put up a server
See above (included)
tech support for any computer problem I have
Reasonable rate of $65/hour, assuming you're calling only during office hours. Reasonable estimate of 5 hours/month = around $250...
and a 99.9% guaranteed uptime on the line
SLA for UUNET/Sprint. See above. Definitely business grade T1 service.
And I want caller ID, call waiting, every single other feature on my phone, the ability to block business (telemarketer) calls, and the best voicemail system known to man.
At least another $100.
TOTAL BILL: $2,000+ / month
And you want this for $200? What the hell are you paying with, Flooz? You'll probably have similar results...
*scoove*
But I wanna pony!
Re:$230 (Score:5, Insightful)
He didn't say "24/7 FREE pay-per-view access", and neither did he say he would be using it 40-60 hours/month, as your number implies.
Where'd that $8/movie number come from? And how is this hypothetical buyer possibly going to have free time for this *and* 50 hours per month of pay-per-view?
For $100/month, you could go to a theater every time you felt like watching a movie, and watch it on much better equipment. Off by a factor of 3 or 4.
Off by a factor of five or more. Current cable providers fill the cable as it is already; you don't see them getting away with $200/month, do you?
Everyone knows that T1 prices are a joke. Also, the price you're quoting includes business-class service (which you added MORE cost on for later), non-trivial installation, and 100% bandwidth use (which no home user reaches), and is rediculous anyways. Compare against business-class uncapped DSL to be more reasonable.
"Ability to put up a server" and "ability to put up a 5-million-hit-a-day web server" are completely different things. Many DSL providers give you this privelege, so long as you don't abuse it, and you certainly don't need a T1 for it.
The only reason for 5 hours/month is if either (a) 4 of them are on hold, (b) the support is extremely incompetent, or (c) the service gives you too many problems in need of supporting. Either way, that's completely unacceptable for $65/hour, so your "reasonable estimate" of 5 hours/month is completely unreasonable.
Three-nines uptime is "business grade T1 service"? Add one more nine to that, maybe two for a higher price. 43 minutes downtime per month would be consumer-level standard if the DSL providers weren't so blatantly incompetent.
Actually, this is more like $0/month, plus a one-time bill for a fancy phone with an LCD. None of these actually cost the provider any substantial amount, and they're certainly not worth $100/month.
You added another $250 in rounding - and, of course, all the numbers you used to get there were bogus anyways.
$200 is low, but it's in the right ballpark. Your figure is rediculous; why it's at +5 is beyond me.
Re:$230 (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe they'll stop blocking inbound port 80 on my RoadRunner connection.
Seriously, if I'm going to pay that kind of money, I'd expect unrestricted Internet access.
Re:$230 (Score:5, Insightful)
Betting? (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that the same bet that fired off the dot com craze?
And we all know how well that worked out.
as of now (Score:2)
i get analog cable, digital cable, and all the movie channels. about 250 channels in all.
i get cable modem access with 1mbit down and 788 up. yes, 788 up.
i get my telephone, call waiting, caller id, and call notes.
i get my home alarm and fire alarm monitiored.
so for me, if they toss in something my TiVo could use (video on demand, video file sharing across my local LAN, etc) then sure i will pay more. i can see $200 being an easy target as they make more things i want.
- BUT -
i currently don't use Time Warner or Road Runner...so they aren't even getting my money now b/c in houston, they don't offer a package like what i listed above.
aren't we all (Score:2)
this small provider in houston is really ontop of being inexpensive, but their offerings for extras is not much.
For 230 dollars (Score:5, Funny)
Re:For 230 dollars (Score:2, Funny)
I'll take one of the AOL (NS, ICQ, Winamp, yada yada) TW Sports Illustrated swimsuit models.
Comcast (Score:2)
Damn Right! (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, I would say I currently pay about $130/month total for cable modem/cable television (Adelphia, formerly @Home/Adelphia) and phone service... I can't think of *anything* that would justify my paying another $70-100 a month for the services I currently receive.
$230 fo rthe whole package (Score:2, Informative)
Yes and No (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yes and No (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but I can't fathom a smaller company providing this kind of buffet of services. Right now, only AT&T seems to be able to do it.
MS will have a tough time jumping into the market, unless they purchase one of the bigger media conglomerates and a data/telco company.
If the market were more fair, I'd be certain that some local players would be able to compete, but the deregulation of the indudstry, combined with all of the mega mergers, will virtually guarantee that only maybe 3-6 players will ever exist in this market.
Re:Yes and No (Score:2)
I've never seen the so called cable bandwidth hog problem with RoadRunner. The tech support is 24/7, and they usually know what they're talking about.
The AOL part of TW has gotten a lot smaller in recent time. Most of the execs are from the TW side, many top AOL execs were passed over. I think it is unfair to lambast AOL/TW for the AOL part and look past the benifits of the TW part.
DMCA a benefit? (Score:2)
I think it is unfair to lambast AOL/TW for the AOL part and look past the benefits of the TW part.
"Benefits" including lobbying for the DMCA and the Bono Act [opensecrets.org]?
Companies Subscriptions (Score:2)
DigitalTV & Phone = £25
Cable Modem = £25
Second Line = £5
My average phone bill = £20
Total = £75 (~$110 USD)
Then you have PPV on top of that if required. The competition like BT charge around £40 ($55) just for ADSL, they completely shaft people but they need the cash to fund their spurious patent claims.
Anyway, you can see why companies love subscriptions, I can't wait until I have to rent all my music!
NTL (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:NTL (Score:2, Interesting)
35 pounds per month for Internet+telephone+basic TV (the standard five channels or whatever)
An extra 25 per month gets you free local and national calls; in fact, an extra 40 quid per month gets you free calls and everything possible on the TV channels front. So for 75 pounds a month you have just about every service they offer, minus I suppose the pay-per-view porn services.
That's just a bit over 100 dollars or so.
Conclusion: AOL/TW can dream on.
Deju vu (Score:2)
Wasn't that Iridium's [archive.org] business model? It didn't do Motorola [cnet.com] a whole lotta good, either, even after they bought a $2B system from $25M.
woof.
If we all save the money we aren't spending on condoms, we could buy AOL/T-W next year! Or not, when you look at the bucks Rusty's [kuro5hin.org] raking in.
Re:Deju vu (Score:2)
Just wait 'til the monthly $450 Windows XP charges start rolling in. People sure will 'like the convenience'... but unless the anti-trust cases work out, that'll be the only game in town if you want to use anything electronic.
One company to rule them all (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't forget that they also provide a lot of the contents on both TV and the Net.
One of the first things I was taught during my classes in mass-communication was to keep content-makers, content-owners, network-owners, network programmers and network-gatekeepers as separate as possible...
I think you can figure out yourself what happens if all those functions are in the hands of one MegaCorp.
new aol message (Score:2, Funny)
Wrong tactics (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems that if you nickel&dime people, they will pay because the pain of each payment is little. But when you see a big nu mber like $230 dollars, that pain is much much greater than the individual smallers pains. And the individial smaller pains if you add them all up, wont feel like a $230 pain, if you get my meaning.
As many have already pointed out, this is great for competition,
and it may be a shock to the cable tv industry if large numbers of people balk at the large price increases.
Also, as many have noted before, we are at logger heads here, As computer tech gets cheaper and chearper, we get used to it, but the cable tv industry doesnt think like that, they beleive in always increases the price and this just might be the thing to shock them into dropping their prices.
anyway thanks
OK some good news in the bad (Score:2)
The problem is not that AOL is greedy, the problem is that we have not assured compitition in the cable market. It is improperly regulated, so we can expect the greedheads to screw us.
They have another thing comming with price resistance however. Cable where I live is already too expensive at sixty five bucks for "basic" and modem service. "Basic" is essentially broadcast TV so we don't get it. The modem charge is about fifty bucks and the bastards block port 80 and 25 inbound. If the try to charge anymore they lose me. I want more from the thing, not less. They can continue to collect $50/month from me and let me figure out how to use it as a phone, or they they can jump in the river.
$230 isn't outrageous _if_ they gave you enough (Score:4, Interesting)
Cable Internet (AT&T) - $50
Local telephone (with all the services but voicemail - Verizon) - $60
Long distance (AT&T) - $50
Cable television (AT&T - local channels only) $14)
Alarm monitoring (ADT) $26
That's $200/month worth of services that are coming in on two wires to my house. And we don't get any of the more advanced cable services - just analog antenna service. If I want analog basic cable, it's another $20. If I want premium channels, the total bill hits that $230 mark and only goes up from there.
What I don't really do at this point, though, is take advantage of any service bundling yet - though AT&T has been pushing real hard in this area to get local and long distance bundled with my cable line. I haven't bitten yet but if I do it'll save me about $15/month. It's just not worth the trouble yet. So I use two wires instead of one.
I have no issue with the total price, so long as they save me money over the cost of buying all the services I need separately from separate vendors. I'll stick to multiple bills if there's no price reason to switch.
I guess the real interesting thing is how much communications takes out of the monthly budget. I look at that $200 figure I cited above, and that doesn't include our cell phone ($35), OmniSky ($29, but it's getting dumped this spring), and my Blackberry ($40, paid by my work). All together, that's a lot of money for communications service of one sort or another. And remember, my cable TV bill is tiny. A lot of people pay for premium services - equivalent to adding my OmniSky to the cable bill.
I wouldn't be surprised to see that the average household communications total bill comes close to that $200 mark already. If AOL starts offering things like security monitoring over their wire as well, the $230 is probably a reasonable goal.
You actually pay THAT much? (Score:4, Insightful)
Local telephone (with all the services but voicemail - Verizon) - $60
Long distance (AT&T) - $50
Cable television (AT&T - local channels only) $14)
Alarm monitoring (ADT) $26
I pay $30 a month for my cable modem.
Local telephone service? I certianly don't pay $60 every month for it. Try $30, if that.
Long distance - are we talking about your calls, or the provider? I don't know of a provider on the planet that charges $50 just for their service - that's because they would be out of business so fast they would never be IN business.
Cable TV... wait... you said local? If You want local channels only (which defeats the primary purpose of cable television), I'd suggest you use an antenna. And that comes down to a cost of $0 per month.
As for the alarm monitoring, I have no idea, so I'l stick with your pricing on that. $26 per month.
If we add all that up, I only come up with a fine little sum of $86. Now, that's more like it. If you actually _NEED_ all that crap on your phone bill (460 way calling, or whatever it is now) then you can't possibly expect that everyone affected by this pricing scheme feels the same way. It's absurd to even assume a faction of that. Regardless, if people don't like the fees, they should learn to live with less - OR, get an organized complaint together and tell this monopolistic corporation to take a look at their business practices. I would NEVER commit to paying $230 per month for all that trash. I don't need half of it, and I sure would not want it from them.
Re:You actually pay THAT much? (Score:2)
The local telephone price includes unlimited usage anywhere in MA except for the 413 (Western MA) LATA. No per-minute charges. The long distance price is the average monthly bill. The fee is $4, but usage drives it up, of course. I'm married, and both my wife and I have plenty of friends out-of-state (and all of our families). Between us, that usage is an average month. I mostly communicate via computer (lots o' e-mail), but she uses the phone a lot. And I mean a lot.
As for cable TV, I've tried the antenna. In fact, for the first 7 years I owned my house, I refused to get cable. I finally got tired of crappy reception and gave in. I also get $5 off my cable modem bill for having TV service, too. Otherwise it would be $55. Even at $50 it's still the cheapest broadband I've used thus far.
Now, do I _need_ everything I buy for communications service? Of course not. But I can afford it, and I like some of the conveniences these services give me. The average Slashdot reader is not who AOLTW is thinking of when they set rates. There's a lot of TV addiction out there and people who think nothing of paying $80/month for digital everything cable TV. That's who AOLTW figures will see that $230 bill in the end.
Besides - based on the articles here I read, a lot of the Slashdot readers get their TV by hacking DirecTV dishes... Cost - $0!
Re:Cable modem is more expensive without cable TV (Score:2)
I question your numbers... (Score:2)
2) I pay $60 for two lines from Verizon.
3) I pay $50 for a combined loop from Verizon and ISP from Internet America.
4) I don't make many long-distance calls ($50 from AT&T presumes a call volume...)- many people regulate their usage such that they don't have a regular bill for long distance calling.
So, let's re-work those numbers...
Cable Internet (AT&T) - $50
Local telephone (with all the services butv oicemail - Verizon) - $60
Cable television (AT&T - local channels only) $14)
Total for just Cable, Phone, and ISP : $124
Even then, this is kind of extravagant as most people don't have all the features, Cable and/or Cable Internet. Having said this, the amount for that is a very far cry from the $200+ that AOL/TW are grabbing for. Now maybe the bundled deal is nice for those that can afford it, most people will not blow $200+ except the upper middle class and above where the pain of that is not as noticable. (I accept and tolerate the $130 or so I'm spending on things- the $200+ would result in me quickly looking for alternatives such as Dish network and other ISP options.)
Re:$230 isn't outrageous _if_ they gave you enough (Score:2)
One master exchanged for another (Score:2)
I'm so happy! Yay! Conglomerates sure do add value to society!
For everything else... (Score:5, Funny)
3 Premium Channels: $25
DSL Connection: $45
Basic Phone Services: $30
Some hellspawned idea about "convenience over price": $70
A monopoly and the knowledge you can get away with the latter: Priceless
There are some things money can't buy. For others, there's AOL
For that price... (Score:2)
Article doesn't mention the level of service (Score:2)
Local phone from Verizon is $40
Cable Internet $50
Long Distance Anyone's guess
Does the package include international calls in the price? How about pay per view and all the extra pay channels? If you get unlimited worlwide long distance and local phone service then it's a great deal.
No different than AT&T (Score:2)
Right now, here's what my AT&T monthly bills (no, they haven't consolidated billing yet) are: $50 for internet access, $25 for a minimal phone line (no features, only dial tone and long distance capability), and maybe $10 for long distance.
That's only $85/month right now. Were I paying for my extended basic cable (available because I must be the only one in Salt Lake City who has the internet and phone package, but doesn't want cable -- no filters available!), I'd be paying another $25/month.
So, that's $110.
Throw in all of the telephone perks: call waiting, caller-id, anonymous call blocking, telemarketer screening, voice mail, etc. Now that's probably another $50/month
So that brings the total to $160/mo!
Now, add all of the cable perks: digital cable (I want my Tech TV!), premium movie channels, PPV pr0n, etc. That can easily be another $75.
So that brings up the total to $235/month!
So the $230/month for TW/AOL's consolidated services is no shock.
Why This Will Work... (Score:5, Funny)
At one end of the curve you have people who have made enough money to afford this service, but they have become lazy enough to pay the extra $70/month for the "convenience."
At the other end of the curve are the people who can't afford the service but are stupid enough to believe it's of value, so they subscribe anyway.
The distribution of people on this curve is great enough that the service sells and becomes a model for other other companies to copy.
Get your gun...oh, nevermind... (Score:2)
Do everybody a favor and send this story to all on your AOL lamers and TW cable users. Maybe we can get them in droves.
What I'd pay $230 for (Score:3, Insightful)
1.5mb down / 640k up, or thereabouts, with no usage caps
4-8 static IPs
a kick-ass news server
all ports open, no service-sniffing
the right to run servers and do whatever the hell I want with my bandwidth
priority tech support numbers to people who actually know what they're talking about
pricing refunds for downtime
ok, and throw in the basic cable and local phone. That's about what I'd expect for $230.
Even with all that, I don't think I'd ever trust a "provider" like AOL enough to put all my eggs in their basket.
Re:What I'd pay $230 for (Score:2)
I asked what their cheapest rate was and that must have been a good question to ask when signing up. I have been paying $19.95 a month. No tcpip downtime yet, but I hear their mailservers are a different story (the Unstoppable Windows NT(tm.)
Re:What I'd pay $230 for (Score:2)
AOL is going to lose out on this one (Score:5, Insightful)
Analogue phone line: $16/month
Basic Digital Cable: $45/month
Consumer grade DSL or CM: $50/month
All tolled that gives us about $111 per month, and yes I factored taxes in that. That makes the AOL package over twice as expensive. Now just for the sake of argument, let's assume they give you more than just basic service. In all reality we know that won't happen, but hey, we'll assume they give you something comparable to what I have:
Analogue phone line: $16/month
Extended Digital Cable: $60/month
Professional grade SDSL: $120/month
That's still only $196. To match the AOL price, I'd have to buy 3 premium networks per month (and with digital cable, that gives me about 10 channels per network). Plus, I really doubt they'll offer anything more than basic digital service and just normal CM service, making the first comparison more likely.
Personally, I think the idea of all-in-one providers is a good idea, provided there are several to choose from. However the reason it would be cool is that in theory it should save you money. Companies should be willing to charge you less overall in return for the fact that you buy more services form them. Cox already does this. You get a discount if you get both a cable modem and digital cable. It's been effective too, it encourages digital cable subscribers to get a CM instead of DSL, and encourages people with CMs and cable to upgrade to digital cable.
AOL is full of it if they think people are going to pay that much more for one provider service, espically since for most people it is probably going to be double the cost. If they want people to go for this they are going to need to make ti at the very least comparable and probably cheaper than getting all the services seperatly.
Re:AOL is going to lose out on this one (Score:2)
Re:AOL is going to lose out on this one (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:AOL is going to lose out on this one (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, and don't ask me what makes it professional, I'm not sure. Near as I can tell, it's that they let you run servers and don't bitch about it.
Just like the Maytag repairman... (Score:2)
Seriously, how can be suits so brain-dead to actually believe that the people will merrily fork-over $230 per month for cable????
Perhaps AOL/TW should heed a previous lesson. (Score:5, Interesting)
What, besides lack of marketing killed it? Bundling all that together made customers realize they were paying two hundred bucks for telecommunications! Guess what'll happen when AOL/TW tries the same thing?
These are not the droids you're looking for. (Score:2)
Heck, we bought the Hollywood Diet and pet psychologists.
Analyzing the proposed fees (Score:2)
$200 for AOL Time Warner vs. My current bills of about $150 per month.
Cable TV $45
Cable modem $45
Telephone $50-$60 depending on how much I talk
Tell me where the benefit to me is? I'll have the privelege of paying the conglomerate through the nose for these services on "one-bill"?
Thanks, but no thanks.
cell phone? (Score:2)
As long as I can still get net service separate. (Score:2)
costs. It could cost $1000 and I don't care.
As long as I can get the cable modem service
separate from all the other junk and still pay the
same price (~$50 here), I'll be happy.
Now if AOL/Time Warner forces everyone who wants
a cable modem to buy all the other crap, that would
be a different story. I hope they don't plan on replacing all of their cable services with this one package.
$1,984,177.35 (Score:4, Interesting)
If you were to invest $230/month at a 10% annual rate, compounded annually, from the time you were 20 to the time you were 65, you'd have two million dollars in the bank.
So, which would you rather have: AOL's ultimate media package, or multiple millions in the bank when you retired?
b&
Re:$1,984,177.35 (Score:2)
Re:$1,984,177.35 (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not saying that you shouldn't save. You should plan for the future. Just remember, you can always earn more money, time comes in a fixed amount.
Re:$1,984,177.35 (Score:2, Funny)
This may be what makes cable a common carrier (Score:2)
Wouldn't be a bad deal... (Score:2)
If these things were to take place, it'd be a bargian compared to what I'm paying for similar unrestricted service. But although they'll definitely lose some customers, I don't see them letting up on anything. Wouldn't make much sense from their point of view.
The fact of the matter is, they're just trying to survive. They suffer from the same problem every other dot com was suffering from. Trying to offer more than they're realisticly able to, and they're losing money in the process. This is all they can do to avoid bleeding cash.
-Restil
don't give them jack (Score:2)
As far as phone service goes, I can't be the only one that's given up a landline for cellular. There's no need to give ANY of your money to AOL/Time Warner. Remember, they can't sell it if you don't buy it.
An even scarier scenario... (Score:2)
I think not...the fact that AOL/TM is putting their future revenue-collection tactics on public display is evidence that they could use some "extra" support from the rest of the cable industry to help them out in fleecing their customers.
Have this in the UK: NTL (Score:2)
Move to the UK. I have NTL's [askntl.com] cable TV, cable modem service and two phone lines. Price? £72.97 per month, ie. about $102.16 (for around 30/35 channels I think).
Cheers,
Ian
$230/month is not so bad... (Score:2)
Noooo thanks! (Score:2)
In short, I'm going to get my services from as many different places as I can, and as small a place as I can so they'll actually be motivated to CARE if I'm not happy with their service. If you want any decent quality of service, I strongly recommend you do the same.
you mean like.. (Score:2)
Like AT&T global? They control my cable TV, phone, cell phone, and my roommates ISP. (I use someone else for my ISP).
So what's the difference here? You get one bill instead of my current 4? This would be nice if my cable and home phone and cell were on one bill, I'd be able to write one check instead of 3.
I think with the phone you have a choice, but cable you don't. My condo has rules about getting satelite. It has to be approved and proven that it will not damage the property. No real big deal, just a hastle. If I were to throw in a dish and it was determined it did damage to the building or something then I could get in trouble. That's why they have the approval. And yes they can do that it is in the regulations which were approved by the condo owners.
Re:you mean like.. (Score:2)
There is a federal law written and passed a few years ago that supersedes all condo regulations, neighborhood associations, housing covenants, etc. that allows you to have a DBS satellite. (ie one of the 18" ones) I believe it to be called the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1994. Your condo may not allow it if you damage it but they can't tell you you can't put the satellite on a pole in a bucket of concrete on your balcony.
Perhaps I'm confused. (Score:2)
Cable - $39.99
Cable Modem - $49.99 ($39.99 if you have cable)
Phone - $14 - $39, depnding on extra services, without Long Distance.
Hmmm.. at most that's $130... So where does $230 exactly come from?
Just how much crack ARE they smoking? (Score:2)
Econ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Pay for usage? (Score:2, Funny)
technological challenges (Score:2)
Are there providers in the US that supply ADSL at an unrestricted speed ...
There are more serious technological challenges in ADSL. Residential phone lines are a very challenging medium for high-speed data transfer, since they were only designed to carry narrowband voice signals; transmission line effects cause major degradations in these channels. Transfer rates will depend on the quality and layout of the wire in your neighborhood, and distance from the central office. Huge speed increases are highly unlikely for the forseeable future, perhaps ever. By contrast, cable was designed to carry wideband television signals over long distances, and can therefore offer much higher potential rates. Consider that cable can carry around 100 TV channels at 5 MHz of bandwidth each; if you used a cable entirely for data, that's 500 MHz of bandwidth, which (depending on the signalling scheme) could be 1 GBit/s or more.
As a competitor to cable, what you should watch for are companies offering wireless systems that combine high speed internet, video, and local phone service ... I've heard of some promising systems that may come to market soon.
You totally missed his point.. (Score:2)
His point is he wants an ISP that says
"we'll let the line go as fast as it can, and we'll let you do whatever you want, and we'll bill you for your traffic"
Re:technological challenges (Score:2)
That's fine, but is there an ISP that lets you get that far? My cable co doesn't let me offer any services at all. My DSL provider use to, but they went bankrupt, feel off a cliff, rolled into the swamp, and vanished from view. Neither of the other DLS providers that claim to serve my area will serve my house....
As far as the original poster goes, you can try SpeakEasy, I think they let you have fixed IP addresses and do what you wanted with them, and were cheap (if you don't care about cheap UUNET sells a number of unrestricted services -- as do many other ISPs). MegaPath use to, if you can find them again. Pretty much all the "business class" DSL services let you have a handful of fixed IP addresses and do more or less what you want. They also cost $100 to $200 a month.
Re:Pay for usage? (Score:2)
With 24x7 for 2+ years, and never a thought given to bandwidth usage, (sometimes I use ALOT) I have no time or download limits.
I have a fixed IP, and host my own web, email, DNS, NTP, etc. on Linux but they won't allow me to set up reverse DNS as anything but what they decide it is. (it's something hideous with ip address included)
I have no fee per MB downloaded. It's a good thing, too, since weekly usage probably peaks around 2-3 Gigabytes.
Pac Bell has weak customer service, and their servers tend to be unreliable, but their basic IP routing works wonderfully. So, provide your own services, (which is why I started in the first place) call only at 2:00 AM, and they leave me alone. I've never seen any indication of port-scanning or a/t like that - they honestly don't seem to care.
I'm happy!
=)
-Ben
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with this isn't just that the company can charge whatever it wants...the problem is that it can report what it wants to report and ignore what it wants to ignore. IOW, don't be surprised if the news coming out of the member companies -- CNN for instance -- starts to become blatantly biased.
Incidentally, when the hell is the FTC going to wake up and start giving a damn about anti-trust and consumer protection once again? First, you have AOLTW. Next, you have oil companies merging left and right to eventually form the next Standard Oil. (Were the companies that are merging -- Phillips/Conoco and Texaco/Chevron -- formed as a result of the Standard Oil breakup? If so, then there is NO WAY they should be allowed to merge. That would be just like allowing the broken-up pieces of Microsoft to merge back together should that breakup happen, which I unfortunately doubt it will.)
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
I guess you don't watch TV...
Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hmm... (Score:2, Informative)
Also it's worse than you think, the Audio Home Recording Act explicitly makes it legal to copy CDs for "non-commercial" purposes. that's even broader than just fair use.
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
Re:Where does all that cost for cable come from? (Score:2, Informative)
Later