Just received Suddenlink bill, went up $17 per month. Anybody else? Impossible to get them on phone, all automated. Help!
Can you cancel and get it back 1 month later, at the lower price?Average Joe said:
Mine went up $14/month. I have the grandfathered 200/20 with unlimited and paying almost double what a new customer with the 400/40 package does. I called and got it dropped down $30, but that's still $20 more than new costumers with twice the speed.
Makes perfect sense actually. Deployment of any kind of broadband network system is an incredibly complex and incredibly expensive endeavor. Suddenlink, by way of corporate buyouts over the years inherited a fairly robust network infrastructure in the area for pennies on the dollar for what it would cost to replace or rebuild, and the investment costs in developing that network were written down by other companies years ago.aggiepaintrain said:
No other company wants around 100k customers???
Makes no sense
nwspmp said:Makes perfect sense actually. Deployment of any kind of broadband network system is an incredibly complex and incredibly expensive endeavor. Suddenlink, by way of corporate buyouts over the years inherited a fairly robust network infrastructure in the area for pennies on the dollar for what it would cost to replace or rebuild, and the investment costs in developing that network were written down by other companies years ago.aggiepaintrain said:
No other company wants around 100k customers???
Makes no sense
Look at the roadblocks that even larger entities like Google face in deploying their own networks. Virtually unlimited capital, and with the cost of deploying fiber, getting right-of-way agreements and fighting lawsuits (some with merit, and some simply designed to slow competitors down) and they still have a tiny tiny network footprint.
AT&T and Verizon couldn't even do a decent high-speed FTTH network with FIOS or U-Verse (which in some areas was a renamed DSL solution)
Look at municipal utilities that have tried to deploy networks, where the labor for installation and right-of-way problems are inherently less, and they still have to contend with lawsuits from entrenched providers who often didn't deliver services at a level that satisfied consumers but was all that was available.
To be perfectly honest, anyone getting into someone else's wire-line service area is next to impossible. All that incumbent provider has to do is drop price temporarily or increase speeds/reliability marginally, and the available market of people dries up making any new network financially untenable, and then once that threat is gone, the prices go back up. Until you get to the metropolis size cities, there simply aren't enough people who'd hold out or pay more for the service to justify deploying a second network.
Even in the heady days of tons of different varieties of CLEC provided DSL, the final loop was always a single ILEC who would provide the final physical copper loop over existing infrastructure. And that was with dot-com money flowing like the beer at a Dodgers game.
Wireless ISPs have a LOT less of the last mile infrastructure to setup and even still the margins in that field are typically very slim for a reliable and good service.
As much as I personally would love an alternative to Suddenlink, a new connection coming into the house isn't very likely, simply because there isn't a financial case for it.
CenturyLink released some figures and that deploying using existing aerial plant, and using new microtrenching along streets, initial deployment of GPON fiber runs about 600-800 per house or apartment. That's for an existing provider in an area that already had agreements for pole access, pole upgrades in some cases, and right of ways and franchise agreements. And backbone infrastructure in an area is already in place.
Adding in a new network with supporting infrastructure and plant, and you're likely looking at about $1k/drop for hardware and installation alone. Now, add in the CPE (the modem or whatever is needed for the network) and that's another $400-500 including truck roll for installation.
An recent example of a city-size FTTH deployment project estimate came in with this:
City size: 63,000 (approx)
Take rate on FTTH deployment: 35%, or 22,100 customers
Cost (initial): $52,000,000
Initial cost per subscriber: $2,352 (hardware and network deployment)
Ongoing costs of maintenance, bandwidth, etc aren't included in that.
Looking at the financials of Verizon's FIOS, their profit margin on services in the wireline division (of which about 70% was FIOS) was 22% but that was before servicing the debt on the network buildout, after which, the overall profit margin was around 5%. Even if you're generous and say that they profited $15/month on the FIOS system after all ongoing maintenance and operations costs, you're still 13 years away from paying off the network buildout and starting to turn a profit. Of course a higher take rate or higher monthly service cost and that number can come down.
As much as it would be nice, 100K in a service area isn't close to worth the cost of deploying a net wire-line network.
Not to rain on anyone's parade but most Municipal Broadband projects are giant budget sinkholes that never achieve profitability. Sure all the contractors and consultants get rich but the taxpayers take it on the chin.nwspmp said:
Maybe a new player in the near future? BTU
Well, if I recall correctly, currently the law in Texas directly prohibits a municipal utility from directly owning an ISP and offering services directly. They'd have to partner with an ISP, and essentially be the financial backing/labor backing were they to do so.BrazosWifi said:nwspmp said:
Maybe a new player in the near future? BTU
I am hopeful the course forward with COCS and COB is that they lessen the regulatory hurdles to deploying broadband instead of creating a municipal monopoly that isn't commercially viable.