From Ars Technica:
In-car subscriptions are not popular with new car buyers, survey shows
Automakers are pushing subscriptions, but consumer interest just isn't there.QuoteThe last decade or so has seen the creeping techification of the auto industry. Executives will tell you the trend is being driven by consumers, starry-eyed at their smartphones and tablets, although the 2018 backup camera law is the main reason there's a display in every new car.
But automakers have been trying to adopt more than just shiny gadgets and iterating software releases. They also want some of that lucrative "recurring revenue" that so pleases tech investors but makes the rest of us feel nickeled and dimed. Now we have some concrete data on just how much car buyers are asking for this stuff, courtesy of a new survey from AutoPacific. The answer is "very little."
AutoPacific asked people looking to buy a new vehicle about their interest in 11 different in-car connected features, starting with a data plan for the car for a hypothetical price of $15/month.
The results may chasten some of the investors demanding that the car companies keep traveling down this path. The most in-demand or desirable feature was Internet connection with a Wi-Fi hotspot–not an unreasonable demand for $15 per month. But only 30 percent of people looking to buy a new car said they were interested in paying for their car's Internet access.
FULL ARTICLE HERE (https://markholtz.info/2qe)
I feel these surveys will be summarily ignored by auto manufacturers.
The head goober of this push makes junk (from an assembly perspective) cars and some vehicles that are still vaporware, and from there we now have Chevys that you can only turn on the headlights from the infotainment center and Lexus' with steering yokes because they think that everyone wants that. It's only going to get worse until common sense prevails, and we know with auto manufacturers it is an industry where that comes in short supply, especially the American ones.
An actual feature that would be useful (and exists on at least one car model, but the idea didn't stick for some reason): a "move horizontally" feature, useful for parallel parking.
So, my take on this is... what???
I will preface my response with this: Car manufacturers are notorious slow for adopting to new technology. Some of these is directly related to safety and liability concerns, and often this means that the technology in the new cars probably contains components or underlying OS that are several years old and can be slow compared to modern technology. Also, they aren't as specialized in software as say Google and Apple.
I'm currently not in the market for a car (and probably won't be for another six years), but if I was, my requirements would be that it has both Android Auto and Bluetooth. (If I was a Apple fanboy, it would be CarPlay instead). It would be very nice if it had Android Automotive also, but that is taking it's own sweet time. The apps within the Android/Apple ecosystem tend to be more robust and more frequently updated than those that are tied down to a proprietary and locked-down OS. I would also prefer to link my vehicle as part of my existing mobile data plan. Just include it in the price of the vehicle itself rather than trying to nickle and dime me every month. Why reinvent what already exists?
Also, some of these features leave me scratching my head. Why would you want to play video games or be in video conferencing on your console display? There is a mobile phone for that, and surprise, if you are going over 5 MPH, video gets disabled and has to be overridden if you are a passenger. Some of it may be the longer charge times with the electric vehicles. It would be nice if my vehicle could tell me where it is. :D
Some of the reluctance is probably due to subscription overload in people's non-automotive lives, especially since the onset of the pandemic.
I generally don't want subscriptions to anything. I will happy pay more to get something upfront forever than to get nickel and dimed by subscription fees for the next decade. But of course there are some things you cannot get at all if you don't want a subscription. I'm generally fine with doing without, but not everyone is in the position to.
But of course, capitalism is never about what the consumer wants, it's about what the industry can get away with forcing on their customers.
I still get offers from Dodge to reactive whatever their On-Star equivalent system is in my eight year old Challenger that doesn't even have 10,000 miles. The only subscription anything I ever have had in vehicle was when I installed an XM radio receiver in my 1997 Silverado. At the time that service was worth it given it had some really nice assortments of sports stations.
I had OnStar in my Saturn Vue. I rarely used the phone calling service, the navigation system wasn't all that great, and I only used the roadside assistance service (which was probably to my detriment; this was the Missouri incident where my serpentine belt broke along US 160 south of Springfield, and I punched the OnStar button instead of calling AAA. OnStar took me to a GM dealer that didn't have the belt in stock; I get the feeling that if I had called AAA they would have towed me to an independent garage that probably could have obtained the belt immediately.) I let the service go due to financial reasons. I'm not even sure if the OnStar system will work now. I'm sure it was built on 3G technology and all the cell carriers in my area have done away with 3G.
The only other subscription I've had was XM Radio. I had a portable unit that I used in other vehicles and in a land-based boombox system, but the Vue had a built-in XM Radio and I subscribed to that for awhile. I eventually cut the Vue's service -- why pay twice for the same service -- and then let the other radio's service expire because I couldn't justify it financially.
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?
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.
Quote from: Molandfreak on April 08, 2023, 09:00:44 PM
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.
I would be apt to get some electronically-inclined friend to help me figure out how to jump the contacts on it and bypass the switch.
My family got in car wifi for our big trip this summer. Was a godsend to save mobile data. Though you start to wonder if just getting unlimited data would be better in the long run...
In other words, water is wet.
Quote from: hbelkins on April 08, 2023, 08:45:52 PMI had OnStar in my Saturn Vue. I rarely used the phone calling service, the navigation system wasn't all that great, and I only used the roadside assistance service (which was probably to my detriment;
(text deleted)
The only other subscription I've had was XM Radio. I had a portable unit that I used in other vehicles and in a land-based boombox system, but the Vue had a built-in XM Radio and I subscribed to that for awhile. I eventually cut the Vue's service -- why pay twice for the same service -- and then let the other radio's service expire because I couldn't justify it financially.
So, I had both SiriusXM service and OnStar service in my 2013 Buick Verano, and I have to somewhat agree with your sentiments. First off, never used the phone service, and the Onstar navigation service terrible in comparison to Google Maps... and this was in 2014 when I got the vehicle. The nice thing was the in-car diagnostics and being able to unlock the car remotely from my smart phone, but that was constrained by both the sunsetting of 3G coverage and the fact that I'm rarely using my vehicle.
As for SiriusXM... good service, but too expensive, especially with the extremely limited driving I do nowadays. Every year, I had to threaten to cancel my service to get a decent price. In late 2021, when upgrading my phone meant switching to an unlimited plan, I took advantage of the situation by canceling my SiriusXM service and streaming from my media service, the included Apple Music, the free Amazon Music, or the Radio Garden (https://markholtz.info/radiogarden) app.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 09, 2023, 01:32:02 AM
My family got in car wifi for our big trip this summer. Was a godsend to save mobile data. Though you start to wonder if just getting unlimited data would be better in the long run...
Huh. I have an unlimited plan now, but with the old plans of data with rollover, I still didn't need to worry about going over on vacation.
Had to be careful near international borders, though.
Quote from: Rothman on April 09, 2023, 08:54:25 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 09, 2023, 01:32:02 AM
My family got in car wifi for our big trip this summer. Was a godsend to save mobile data. Though you start to wonder if just getting unlimited data would be better in the long run...
Huh. I have an unlimited plan now, but with the old plans of data with rollover, I still didn't need to worry about going over on vacation.
Had to be careful near international borders, though.
I have international roaming turned off so I can't ever get crazy fees. There's a report on FlyerTalk, another forum I'm active on, of someone from Canada who checked email while transiting Ethiopia and got $1,000+ bill from Rogers.
I also cannot get the 'why?s' of subscribing the an on-line music service that is essentially a glorified radio station.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on April 09, 2023, 02:02:04 PMI also cannot get the 'why?s' of subscribing the an on-line music service that is essentially a glorified radio station.
From what I can see, the lack of both commercials and annoying announcers translating to more music per hour sounds like a significant difference in comparison to terrestrial radio stations. Plus, you can customize the playlists to your tastes. :popcorn:
Also, if you happen to like niche formats such as opera, big band, showtunes, 1940s, 1950s, or in a non-English format other than Spanish, good luck. I know that DFW has a couple of Asian-language stations, but elsewhere... good luck!
Quote from: ZLoth on April 08, 2023, 12:28:50 PM
From Ars Technica:
In-car subscriptions are not popular with new car buyers, survey shows
Automakers are pushing subscriptions, but consumer interest just isn't there.
It's the modern version of a car salesperson selling someone on window-etching, fabric protection and undercoating.
These are high-profit, low-benefit items. They add money to a dealership's bottom line and a salesperson's commission, but for a consumer, they're mostly duplicating something they are paying for already, if they ever actually use it.
Quote from: mgk920 on April 09, 2023, 02:02:04 PM
I also cannot get the 'why?s' of subscribing the an on-line music service that is essentially a glorified radio station.
For me, I live in an area where I get one music station of a genre I like on the radio. With a subscription-based service, for about $7 a month, I get 7 or 8 stations I like within that genre. And when I on the edge of the market and going between markets, I'm not dealing with static and finding other stations.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 08, 2023, 07:12:10 PMI generally don't want subscriptions to anything. I will happy pay more to get something upfront forever than to get nickel and dimed by subscription fees for the next decade. But of course there are some things you cannot get at all if you don't want a subscription. I'm generally fine with doing without, but not everyone is in the position to.
But of course, capitalism is never about what the consumer wants, it's about what the industry can get away with forcing on their customers.
Preach!
I'm not sure what subscription an automaker could plausibly sell for a 29-year-old car like my current daily driver. There are perfectly good cars still on the road where features just don't work because of obsolescence, such as Android integration in early-2010's Toyotas or the car clock in the late-noughties Honda Fit.
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 09, 2023, 02:18:06 PMI'm not sure what subscription an automaker could plausibly sell for a 29-year-old car like my current daily driver. There are perfectly good cars still on the road where features just don't work because of obsolescence, such as Android integration in early-2010's Toyotas or the car clock in the late-noughties Honda Fit.
One piece of context that is missing is how many miles that 29yo daily driver have. The average lifespan of a car is 12 years and owning a car for over 200,000 to 300,000 miles isn't that uncommon anymore provided that the vehicle is well maintained. As for Android integration, the first vehicles to have that were Hyundais in May 2015 while Carplay was launched in March 2014. Toyota was one of the big holdouts for Carplay/Android Auto with the 2019 Toyota Avalon. Previously, it was their own proprietary system. Also, the Honda Fit was first introduced in the 2001-2002 time frame.
Shrug... having Android Auto integration is not a compelling reason to replace my car, plus I can't afford a new vehicle until I pay off my home in 2029. My mother had a more compelling reason to replace her 20yo Monte Carlo a few years ago because the cost to repair the leaks (over $4k) was more than the vehicle was worth.
Quote from: Molandfreak on April 08, 2023, 09:00:44 PM
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.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on April 17, 2023, 10:36:58 AM
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.
Quote from: ZLoth on April 09, 2023, 03:10:24 PMOne piece of context that is missing is how many miles that 29yo daily driver have. The average lifespan of a car is 12 years and owning a car for over 200,000 to 300,000 miles isn't that uncommon anymore provided that the vehicle is well maintained. As for Android integration, the first vehicles to have that were Hyundais in May 2015 while Carplay was launched in March 2014. Toyota was one of the big holdouts for Carplay/Android Auto with the 2019 Toyota Avalon. Previously, it was their own proprietary system. Also, the Honda Fit was first introduced in the 2001-2002 time frame.
Shrug... having Android Auto integration is not a compelling reason to replace my car, plus I can't afford a new vehicle until I pay off my home in 2029. My mother had a more compelling reason to replace her 20yo Monte Carlo a few years ago because the cost to repair the leaks (over $4k) was more than the vehicle was worth.
The daily driver in question has probably about 160,000 miles, but this is just a guess since the odometer has not worked for 10 years, and GPS logging of travel has been less consistent over the past year due to battery issues with my old phone. While I have fallen behind on maintenance, especially during the time of covid, there are no critical deficits in terms of mechanical items.
With a very old car, I think one has to accept that money spent on repairs is about buying further service, hopefully at a much lower cost per month than a typical loan payment for a new car, and not about defending resale value. For a car almost 30 years old, just replacing two tires to meet the legally mandated minimum tread depth of 2/32" can easily come to half or more of the scrap value.
It is also much easier to keep an older car as part of a fleet of mostly newer vehicles since that scenario affords more options for working around age- and wear-related problems that are very difficult to fix. For example, no-one makes ready-to-install new carpet, seat upholstery, or headliners for out-of-production models, unlike the case with mechanical parts like alternators where manufacturers simply restart the production line (typically at longer and longer intervals) as needed to rebuild stocks to meet demand. This means that if the driver's seat develops rips, or the headliner starts to sag, NOS replacements are typically long gone, so making good on that wear and tear instantly puts you into craft project territory. On the SaturnFans forum, for example, there are threads full of instructions for renewing sagging headliners by dropping the fiberboard shell, removing the seats so it can be maneuvered out through one of the door openings, and re-covered with color-matched felt purchased from JoAnn Fabrics.
In addition, some repairs are basically impossible to do economically unless you train to DIY, simply because of the business practices repair shops must adhere to in order to turn a profit. Leak-proofing a R-134a air-conditioning system is a classic example. The failure mode (especially with early to mid-1990's systems) is a leak so slow it is unreasonably costly in shop time (bay occupancy plus effort to swap the vehicle in and out of the bay) just to determine the system is leakproof (i.e., will hold hard vacuum for a week). So SOP becomes just to recharge without repair, knowing that the refrigerant gas will leak out over the course of a year and, due to its high GWP, will double the car's greenhouse gas contribution for that period.
Quote from: kphoger on April 17, 2023, 11:04:07 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on April 17, 2023, 10:36:58 AM
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.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 17, 2023, 08:09:34 PM
This just kind of reinforces my belief that internet service should be a publicly owned utility, the same way the water system is.
This makes me wonder... Who paid for all those fiber optic cables to be laid on the ocean floor? And are they repairable?
Quote from: hbelkins on April 08, 2023, 08:45:52 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: kphoger on April 17, 2023, 11:04:07 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on April 17, 2023, 10:36:58 AM
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.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 17, 2023, 08:09:34 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 17, 2023, 11:04:07 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on April 17, 2023, 10:36:58 AM
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.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 17, 2023, 10:51:43 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 17, 2023, 08:09:34 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 17, 2023, 11:04:07 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on April 17, 2023, 10:36:58 AM
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. :D
Are you saying you pay the same amount for your water bill, no matter how much water you use?
Quote from: wanderer2575 on April 17, 2023, 10:36:58 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on April 08, 2023, 09:00:44 PM
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...
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 17, 2023, 10:51:43 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 17, 2023, 08:09:34 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 17, 2023, 11:04:07 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on April 17, 2023, 10:36:58 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 20, 2023, 05:26:06 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 17, 2023, 10:51:43 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 17, 2023, 08:09:34 PM
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. :D
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 21, 2023, 12:45:34 PM
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.
Quote from: https://www.normanok.gov/
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
Quote from: kphoger on April 17, 2023, 08:29:53 PM
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.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Submarine_cable_repair_animation.gif)
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.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 21, 2023, 01:18:44 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 17, 2023, 08:29:53 PM
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.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Submarine_cable_repair_animation.gif)
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).