Internet options besides Optimum in "Crow Hill"?

Brooklynian » Forum » Crown Heights and Prospect Lefferts Gardens »

Internet options besides Optimum in "Crow Hill"?

Share this!

Kursty
rookie newb
Joined: Apr '12
Posts: 14

Hey,
Not sure if this was asked already many times, but are there any internet options in Crow Hill area (Franklin and Park to be exact), besides Optimum online?

I've been using Optimum for a year, since I moved into my place, and it was fine when they were only charging me $30, but now the "one year introductory price" is through and they jacked up the price to $55 a month! That's kinda steep just for Internet, me thinks.

Are there any other internet providers in the area, perhaps independent ones, that can offer me a better deal? I don't need cable or anything, just internet. It doesn't even have to be blazing fast or have no caps. I am not a heavy user.

Or am I stuck with Optimum? If so, is there a way to nag them down to a lower rate?

Thanks for the advice!

# Posted 4 mos ago
newguy88
what am I, new?
Joined: Aug '12
Posts: 183

I got Earthlink DSL for about $25 a month. Just be warned it's slower then a snail on sedatives.

I tried to get Verizon FIOS but they insisted that I needed to get a phone line as well. Also I have had good luck calling the sales number of ISPs and saying I'm going to switch if they don't give me a lower rate.

# Posted 4 mos ago
eastbloc
comprador bourgeois
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 902

There's no FIOS around here, at least, not on Sterling between Franklin and Classon. There isn't even Verizon DSL.

The likely reason they said you needed a phone line was because they weren't selling you FIOS but rather a combination satellite downlink (via DirecTV) and dial-up up link via the phone line. That is the only internet service provided by Verizon where I live.

# Posted 4 mos ago
eastbloc
comprador bourgeois
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 902

Your best alternative is probably going to be mobile LTE hotspots. Sprint will give you 3GB for $35, and you can bring it with you.

# Posted 4 mos ago
Kursty
rookie newb
Joined: Apr '12
Posts: 14

I know I said I'm not too concerned about caps, but 35$ for 3gigs/months is psycho. I should mention that my roommates and I do watch Netflix regularly... Sill, there should be other competitive options out there. This is America, for god's sake!

Also, offhand, does anyone know how to view your monthly data usage on the Optimum website?

# Posted 4 mos ago
newguy88
what am I, new?
Joined: Aug '12
Posts: 183

Eastbloc, thats right I couldn't FIOS so I was trying to get a dry loop DSL line from them. Which they refused to do.

Kursty, check out Earthlink. If your really not all that concerned with the speed. I tend to peek around 3 Mb/s DL and 1 MB/s UL. I do sometimes drop to around 1.5 Mb/s DL and .5 Mb/s UL.I don't know what the data cap is but I know I really can't hit it. It really is shocking how few broadband options there are. But America is actually lagging behind many other first world countries in broadband access.

# Posted 4 mos ago
homeowner
mod
Joined: Jan '06
Posts: 3,018

Verizon is being very cagey about DSL now as they are preparing to switch over to FIOS. I'm further down on Park and I have Verizon DSL on a dry loop. However, its on a line I previously had phone+internet on and then switched over to internet only.

My understanding is all of us current Verizon DSL users are getting our DSL over copper cabling and its pretty crappy infrastructure which they aren't trying to put any money into as the switch to fiber optics is imminent. (Or at least that's what my Verizon repairman told me). Unless you are a historic phone customer with them, expect that they'll say no to DSL until they complete the FIOS switch.

# Posted 4 mos ago
eastbloc
comprador bourgeois
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 902

Cablevision has 100mbps service for $99/month. It's among the fastest connections you can get in the USA, and the cheapest per mb/sec.

Talk a few neighbors into splitting the bill with you and you should be a happy man.

# Posted 4 mos ago
eastbloc
comprador bourgeois
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 902

homeowner, DSL is by definition over copper POTS lines. FIOS is a different technology altogether.

Verizon will still happily give you a copper POTS line, they just won't give you DSL. Which is either because they refuse to invest in the technology at the central office, or because the central office is too far away for DSL service to be viable. It's not because they won't give you new copper (voice) service -- they clearly still will.

# Posted 4 mos ago
newguy88
what am I, new?
Joined: Aug '12
Posts: 183

All of this talk about ISPs reminded me of this comic. http://theoatmeal.com/comics/state_web_winter_2012

# Posted 4 mos ago
Kursty
rookie newb
Joined: Apr '12
Posts: 14

@NewGuy, thanks for the recommendation, but according to the Earthlink website, they only provide Dialup or satellite service for my house. Maybe I'll try calling them, but I think I'm shit out of luck.

The splitting with neighbors seems like a hassle. We'd have to pay the 300 dollar instillation fee, setup enough routers for everyone to have a strong connection, etc....

Argh! Where's free market Capitalism when you need it?

# Posted 4 mos ago
eastbloc
comprador bourgeois
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 902

You've got free market capitalism, within reason, in the broadband market in New York. The problem is it doesn't make very good business sense to make the investment to lay down coax, fiber, or copper to try to compete with the established services. So you're stuck with satellite or cellular options if you don't like who you have in your 'hood.

Or you can always move. There are many areas in Manhattan where you can pick from RCN, Optimum Online, FIOS, and several DSL providers. The money to sustain that competition just isn't here.

# Posted 4 mos ago
booklaw
admin
Joined: Nov '07
Posts: 2,408

How can a monopoly system be called
"free market capitalism"? I understand that Verizon competes with whichever cable system is licensed in a given neighborhood... but the fact that each cable system has an exclusive license in the particular neighborhoods where it operates, combined with the lack of FIOS broadband capability in most Brooklyn neighborhoods, equates to a monopoly system for broadband, except where FIOS is available.

# Posted 4 mos ago
eastbloc
comprador bourgeois
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 902

It's not true that they have an exclusive license. They simply paid for and own the infrastructure investment in the cable runs, digs, poles, etc.

In some areas, there are multiple cable providers, because multiple providers made the investment.

# Posted 4 mos ago
newguy88
what am I, new?
Joined: Aug '12
Posts: 183

Eastbloc, that might be true in Brooklyn/ New York. I'm Not sure though. But in many areas the local or sometimes even the state or federal government have taken steps to ensure that only one or a very few isps provide service.

If NYC isn't actively blocking new ISPs from providing service they certainly aren't working to encourage new ones. Read this article about why we're falling behind Europe in broadband. http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/28/why-is-european-broadband-faster-and-cheaper-blame-the-governme/

# Posted 4 mos ago
booklaw
admin
Joined: Nov '07
Posts: 2,408

I used to work for Warner Communications, the parent company of Warner Cable (now Time Warner Cable), at the time when Warner Cable was awarded the exclusive franchise for part of Brooklyn. The franchises were in fact exclusive, because that was the only way the franchisees would agree to make the very substantial investments necessary to lay cable under city streets.

# Posted 4 mos ago
homeowner
mod
Joined: Jan '06
Posts: 3,018

Booklaw is right. Historically cable franchises were exclusive. Companies applied for rights in specific areas and were granted those rights. Verizon applied for a citywide franchise in 2007 which was granted in 2008. It was a huge deal because it was the first time anyone had a citywide franchise and the first time cable companies would have head to head competition. Verizon was able to do it because the technology had advanced to the point of being able to use their existing investments in phone infrastructure for cable as well.

Also, there's been a long history of corruption in NYC around the awarding of franchises for lucrative areas like Queens the Bronx and western Brooklyn. This story from 1987 tells about three major scandals that folks may remember

Cable made more progress in the city in 1987 than in the 21 years since Manhattan got the first installation in 1966. But at the same time, the industry has become increasingly tainted by New York City's corruption scandals. And the reason, not surprisingly, is money. Tomorrow, in the third cable-linked prosecution in just three months, John A. Zaccaro, the real estate broker whose wife, Geraldine A. Ferraro, ran for Vice President in 1984, is to go on trial charged with soliciting a $1 million bribe to help Cablevision obtain a franchise for Queens. In July Francis X. Smith, the former administrative judge of Queens, was convicted of perjury for lying about a meeting with cable executives and the late Queens Democratic Chairman Donald R. Manes. And Michael A. Nussbaum, a former public relations and campaign aide to Mr. Manes, was convicted in August of soliciting a $250,000 bribe from Orth-O-Vision, another cable company seeking a franchise

# Posted 4 mos ago
Kursty
rookie newb
Joined: Apr '12
Posts: 14

I understand that some business had to invest in the infrastructure, etc, but how come there are no smaller companies who buy wholesale access and then resell portions of it to customers, at a discount rate? That's how it works in Toronto, where I grew up (and in the suburbs of Toronto, too). Bell (our AT&T/Verizon) owns the actual fiberoptic "tubes," and does offer consumer internet packages. But then there are also smaller companies that buy commercial access/packages from Bell and resell them to consumers. It's perfectly legal. So you always have several internet options: Bell, Rogers (cable), and a host of small indie piggy-backers.
How come this isn't allowed here, especially since this is already done with cellphone carriers (i.e. the discount Virgin carrier uses Sprint's network)?

Bloomberg should tackle this issue, instead of wasting his time encroaching on my civil liberty to smoke in a public park.

# Posted 4 mos ago
Cool The Kid
We out this mother effer
Joined: Jan '07
Posts: 1,385

Kursty said:
I understand that some business had to invest in the infrastructure, etc, but how come there are no smaller companies who buy wholesale access and then resell portions of it to customers, at a discount rate? That's how it works in Toronto, where I grew up (and in the suburbs of Toronto, too). Bell (our AT&T/Verizon) owns the actual fiberoptic "tubes," and does offer consumer internet packages. But then there are also smaller companies that buy commercial access/packages from Bell and resell them to consumers. It's perfectly legal. So you always have several internet options: Bell, Rogers (cable), and a host of small indie piggy-backers.
How come this isn't allowed here, especially since this is already done with cellphone carriers (i.e. the discount Virgin carrier uses Sprint's network)?

Bloomberg should tackle this issue, instead of wasting his time encroaching on my civil liberty to smoke in a public park.

Probably because the costs don't work out. Even w/o maintaining the infrastructure, there are huge investments associated with starting something as huge as an ISP business. Virgin Mobile for example was started by a billionaire, and was not profitable for quite some time after its IPO. Most people don't go into business to lose money, and the risk associated w/this wholesale business you envision is huge.

And I can think of a few slightly more pressing issues Bloomberg should prob jump on before making your internet cheaper. Lets keep things in context

[
Mamacita said:
I <3 CTK

# Posted 4 mos ago
eastbloc
comprador bourgeois
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 902

Why would Cablevision wholesale to a competitor for a price that would allow them to be undersold?

Bloomberg understandably has more important things to worry about, like my civil liberty to not be exposed to carcinogens in a public park.

# Posted 4 mos ago
eastbloc
comprador bourgeois
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 902

And by the way, your Toronto model isn't too different than here. You have one cable provider, and you have Verizon's infrastructure, which Verizon does in fact have to provide wholesale to other would-be market entrants under the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

The main problem is that Verizon themselves don't have broadband infrastructure where you live, so there's nothing to be shared.

By the way, competition doesn't necessarily result in lower prices. When I lived in Stuyvesant Town, we had RCN, Comcast, and FIOS available, and the prices there were more or less the same as they are here from Cablevision. In fact, Cablevision is cheaper than FIOS for the same bit rate.

It's simply what people are willing to pay.

# Posted 4 mos ago
newguy88
what am I, new?
Joined: Aug '12
Posts: 183

eastbloc said:

It's simply what people are willing to pay.

Because they have no alternatives.

# Posted 4 mos ago
hambone
rookie newb
Joined: Jun '11
Posts: 11

Hmm, free markets.

# Posted 3 mos ago
eastbloc
comprador bourgeois
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 902

newguy88 said:
Because they have no alternatives.

In my example, there were three alternatives. How many alternatives do you think there need to be?

# Posted 3 mos ago