Very few consumers want subscriptions in their cars, survey shows

[bulldog1979]

I honestly don't know what other kinds of subscription services would be available for vehicles. On-board WiFi would only be as good as the available cell service, and if you have a data-enabled phone or tablet, why duplicate the coverage?

I've had two vehicles now with WiFi hotspots: a 2017 Chevy Cruze and a 2021 Chevy Trailblazer. While they both work over the same AT&T network like my iPhone, because they have an external antenna on the roof, they get better reception than my phone does in many rural places. I can get an extra bar or two of signal strength on the car than I do on the phone. The extra data plan also provides an additional pool of data for use, a benefit because sometimes our home internet goes out, pushing me to use cell data to fill in the gaps.

[cu2010]

I reguarly travel into Canada, so having a built-in hotspot with unlimited data anywhere is a godsend. The $25 or so a month I spend on it is worth it; otherwise I'd be paying roaming charges out the ass.

I also pay for SiriusXM, but nowhere close to full price...every year when the price goes up, I contact customer service and threaten to cancel their service; their desire for money causes them to offer me a much lower price just to keep me as a customer, because $6 of my money every month is way better to them than $0.

[wanderer2575]

Satellite and cable programming is different (IMO) because it's not a physical product that is purchased.  I accept the concept of a subscription model for that.

Technically, faster internet requires improvements to the physical cable network.  For example, Cox can only offer gig service if the customer has a DOCSIS 3.1 modem, which means it can receive packets over 32 downstream channels and transmit packets over 8 upstream channels simultaneously.  But that means Cox's network also has to be able to carry all those channels between your house and the headend simultaneously.  This means installing a lot of fiberoptic cable across their network.  And, if you subscribe to such a service, then there your house may also have to have a micronode, ONT, and/or GPON installed–which are all more expensive devices than what's used to install "regular" internet service to a house.  So, with that in mind, the higher price of gig internet doesn't just reflect a non-physical product, but it also reflects the higher cost of materials used to deliver that service.

Similarly, even before the fiber days, the ever-increasing internet speeds demanded an ever-improving physical network.  Just moving up from 50 mbps to 100 mbps download speeds required upgrading from DOCSIS 2.0 standards to DOCSIS 3.0 standards–and I'm not even 100% sure that the first-gen DOCSIS 3.0 modems (4x1 channel bonding) could handle 50 mpbs.  Again, it wasn't just the modems in customer's houses that needed to be upgraded, but all sorts of network facilities along the way.  Some of those upgrades might need to happen on the customer's property.  For example, if you were able to get 15 mpbs with no problem, upgrading to 100 mpbs might require upgrading a bunch of coax in your house from RG59 to RG6, replacing old crimped fittings to new compression fittings, reconfiguring splitters, etc–all of which would be done by the field tech at no extra up-front cost during the installation.  The higher price of the upgraded internet package therefore did indeed represent something physical.

Maybe I didn't give the best example, but you're missing my point.  If I have to purchase a DOCSIS modem to access some services, and such purchase is an option, I'm fine with that.  But if that modem comes with my car/house/whatever and it's factored into my purchase price, and I have no option to exclude it (i.e. I'm paying for it no matter what), you'd better not be charging an additional subscription fee for me to use it.  Doing so is probably a dealbreaker for me.

[jeffandnicole]

Satellite and cable programming is different (IMO) because it's not a physical product that is purchased.  I accept the concept of a subscription model for that.

Technically, faster internet requires improvements to the physical cable network.  For example, Cox can only offer gig service if the customer has a DOCSIS 3.1 modem, which means it can receive packets over 32 downstream channels and transmit packets over 8 upstream channels simultaneously.  But that means Cox's network also has to be able to carry all those channels between your house and the headend simultaneously.  This means installing a lot of fiberoptic cable across their network.  And, if you subscribe to such a service, then there your house may also have to have a micronode, ONT, and/or GPON installed–which are all more expensive devices than what's used to install "regular" internet service to a house.  So, with that in mind, the higher price of gig internet doesn't just reflect a non-physical product, but it also reflects the higher cost of materials used to deliver that service.

Similarly, even before the fiber days, the ever-increasing internet speeds demanded an ever-improving physical network.  Just moving up from 50 mbps to 100 mbps download speeds required upgrading from DOCSIS 2.0 standards to DOCSIS 3.0 standards–and I'm not even 100% sure that the first-gen DOCSIS 3.0 modems (4x1 channel bonding) could handle 50 mpbs.  Again, it wasn't just the modems in customer's houses that needed to be upgraded, but all sorts of network facilities along the way.  Some of those upgrades might need to happen on the customer's property.  For example, if you were able to get 15 mpbs with no problem, upgrading to 100 mpbs might require upgrading a bunch of coax in your house from RG59 to RG6, replacing old crimped fittings to new compression fittings, reconfiguring splitters, etc–all of which would be done by the field tech at no extra up-front cost during the installation.  The higher price of the upgraded internet package therefore did indeed represent something physical.

This just kind of reinforces my belief that internet service should be a publicly owned utility, the same way the water system is.

So you're required to pay for it, regardless of how little you use it?  And the more you use it, the more you pay for it?

Currently, I pay a monthly rate for at home internet, and I get unlimited use.

By making it a public utility, based on how my water bill works, I'll probably be paying more.

[Scott5114]

Satellite and cable programming is different (IMO) because it's not a physical product that is purchased.  I accept the concept of a subscription model for that.

Technically, faster internet requires improvements to the physical cable network.  For example, Cox can only offer gig service if the customer has a DOCSIS 3.1 modem, which means it can receive packets over 32 downstream channels and transmit packets over 8 upstream channels simultaneously.  But that means Cox's network also has to be able to carry all those channels between your house and the headend simultaneously.  This means installing a lot of fiberoptic cable across their network.  And, if you subscribe to such a service, then there your house may also have to have a micronode, ONT, and/or GPON installed–which are all more expensive devices than what's used to install "regular" internet service to a house.  So, with that in mind, the higher price of gig internet doesn't just reflect a non-physical product, but it also reflects the higher cost of materials used to deliver that service.

Similarly, even before the fiber days, the ever-increasing internet speeds demanded an ever-improving physical network.  Just moving up from 50 mbps to 100 mbps download speeds required upgrading from DOCSIS 2.0 standards to DOCSIS 3.0 standards–and I'm not even 100% sure that the first-gen DOCSIS 3.0 modems (4x1 channel bonding) could handle 50 mpbs.  Again, it wasn't just the modems in customer's houses that needed to be upgraded, but all sorts of network facilities along the way.  Some of those upgrades might need to happen on the customer's property.  For example, if you were able to get 15 mpbs with no problem, upgrading to 100 mpbs might require upgrading a bunch of coax in your house from RG59 to RG6, replacing old crimped fittings to new compression fittings, reconfiguring splitters, etc–all of which would be done by the field tech at no extra up-front cost during the installation.  The higher price of the upgraded internet package therefore did indeed represent something physical.

This just kind of reinforces my belief that internet service should be a publicly owned utility, the same way the water system is.

So you're required to pay for it, regardless of how little you use it?  And the more you use it, the more you pay for it?

Currently, I pay a monthly rate for at home internet, and I get unlimited use.

By making it a public utility, based on how my water bill works, I'll probably be paying more.

You live in a shitty town then.

[kphoger]

Are you saying you pay the same amount for your water bill, no matter how much water you use?

[kkt]

If I ever get a BMW again (or if any other manufacturers go down this road), I'll just get one of the many heated seat covers that plug into the cigarette lighter outlet online, rather than pay a subscription to use a feature that was free before.

That it used to be free isn't what really bugs me.  It's that the item physically exists in my vehicle and was factored into my purchase price but I have to pay extra to actually use it.  That's like buying a paper newspaper but having to pay an extra fee to read the sports section even though it came with the paper when I bought it.  If the standard-issue car doesn't come with seat heaters and I pay extra to have them installed, that's different.  But once purchased and installed, I'd better not have to pay for a subscription to use them.

Satellite and cable programming is different (IMO) because it's not a physical product that is purchased.  I accept the concept of a subscription model for that.

Back in the 1960s and 1970s, big computers were usually leased.  The company that owned it would send out their own field service engineers to do regular maintenance.  One particular computer was made in two models, that differed only in a single wire - cut it enabled "high speed mode" for which the lease payments were higher.  At one college campus computer center, the staff figured out how easy it was and cut the wire on their own and enjoyed the faster computer at the lower lease payments.  But nothing is free, and that meant that when the field service engineer made his regular visit the computer center had to have a couple of people stall the field service engineer while other people replaced the "go slow" wire...

[Hobart]

Satellite and cable programming is different (IMO) because it's not a physical product that is purchased.  I accept the concept of a subscription model for that.

Technically, faster internet requires improvements to the physical cable network.  For example, Cox can only offer gig service if the customer has a DOCSIS 3.1 modem, which means it can receive packets over 32 downstream channels and transmit packets over 8 upstream channels simultaneously.  But that means Cox's network also has to be able to carry all those channels between your house and the headend simultaneously.  This means installing a lot of fiberoptic cable across their network.  And, if you subscribe to such a service, then there your house may also have to have a micronode, ONT, and/or GPON installed–which are all more expensive devices than what's used to install "regular" internet service to a house.  So, with that in mind, the higher price of gig internet doesn't just reflect a non-physical product, but it also reflects the higher cost of materials used to deliver that service.

Similarly, even before the fiber days, the ever-increasing internet speeds demanded an ever-improving physical network.  Just moving up from 50 mbps to 100 mbps download speeds required upgrading from DOCSIS 2.0 standards to DOCSIS 3.0 standards–and I'm not even 100% sure that the first-gen DOCSIS 3.0 modems (4x1 channel bonding) could handle 50 mpbs.  Again, it wasn't just the modems in customer's houses that needed to be upgraded, but all sorts of network facilities along the way.  Some of those upgrades might need to happen on the customer's property.  For example, if you were able to get 15 mpbs with no problem, upgrading to 100 mpbs might require upgrading a bunch of coax in your house from RG59 to RG6, replacing old crimped fittings to new compression fittings, reconfiguring splitters, etc–all of which would be done by the field tech at no extra up-front cost during the installation.  The higher price of the upgraded internet package therefore did indeed represent something physical.

This just kind of reinforces my belief that internet service should be a publicly owned utility, the same way the water system is.

So you're required to pay for it, regardless of how little you use it?  And the more you use it, the more you pay for it?

Currently, I pay a monthly rate for at home internet, and I get unlimited use.

By making it a public utility, based on how my water bill works, I'll probably be paying more.

Perhaps you should inspect how your water bill works, and re-evaluate this statement. Your rate depends on water usage, which is why there's measurement equipment in your home. Your electricity rates depend on usage, likely by the kilowatt-hour, which is also measured. Almost every public utility still charges on use (and will shut your water off if you don't pay the bill, my dad's job used to be turning the meters off at people's houses). It's just owned by an entity that isn't purely profit-driven. American Water, for example, really doesn't provide a great service to its customers. It's a for-profit contractor. I don't think this is a coincidence.

[J N Winkler]

It depends.  I have heard of water utilities (admittedly not in the US) that default to billing by the connection, not the volume of water consumed, which can make sense in areas where water is abundant.  In Wichita, the city bills by use, but it is not a fixed amount per gallon and the rate goes up if a household consumes more than a set number of gallons per month.

[kphoger]

This just kind of reinforces my belief that internet service should be a publicly owned utility, the same way the water system is.

So you're required to pay for it, regardless of how little you use it?  And the more you use it, the more you pay for it?

Currently, I pay a monthly rate for at home internet, and I get unlimited use.

By making it a public utility, based on how my water bill works, I'll probably be paying more.

You live in a shitty town then.

It depends.  I have heard of water utilities (admittedly not in the US) that default to billing by the connection, not the volume of water consumed, which can make sense in areas where water is abundant.  In Wichita, the city bills by use, but it is not a fixed amount per gallon and the rate goes up if a household consumes more than a set number of gallons per month.

I think that's fairly normal.  I decided to just look it up:  Norman doesn't have a flat rate either, and the rate goes up if you use more than 5000 gallons.

The following rates are per unit minimums.

Water Rates

Residential

$6.00 Base Fee per Unit
$3.35 per 1,000 up to 5,000 gallons
$4.10 per 1,000 for 5,001 to 15,000 gallons
$5.20 per 1,000 for 15,001 to 20,000 gallons
$6.80 per 1,000 over 20,000

Low Income Rate - $4.50 Base Fee and $2.5125 per 1000 up to 5,000 gallons; normal rates after 5,000 gallons (must qualify based on Federal Guidelines)

High Usage Surcharge of $0.35 per 1,000 gallons of water usage for each 1,000 gallons used by a household that is in excess of 20,000 gallons for each month during the months of July and August

[triplemultiplex]

This makes me wonder...  Who paid for all those fiber optic cables to be laid on the ocean floor?  And are they repairable?

They literally pick them up off the ocean floor with a ship, fix them, and let them back down to the bottom.



Knoxville, Tennessee and their public internet utility constantly ranks as one of the best in the nation in terms of price, reliability, and customer service.  It's a model the big TelComs are scared shitless of and why they've spent millions of dollars lobbying against any other similar arrangements elsewhere for the last two decades. 

[kphoger]

This makes me wonder...  Who paid for all those fiber optic cables to be laid on the ocean floor?  And are they repairable?

They literally pick them up off the ocean floor with a ship, fix them, and let them back down to the bottom.

We used to have a field tech years ago whose previous job had been doing fiber splices.  He talked once about having to do one underwater in the Hudson River or the East River (I can't remember which one).