Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ting Gigabit Fiber Internet

ting.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 66 posts

Re: Ting Gigabit Fiber Internet

#51

Post by morganvachon »

freejack wrote: post #46
devsquid wrote: post #40

I would like to say, having used Ting for a while. Its customer service was amazing. You called, someone picked up immediately. They worked for ting, and it was not outsourced. So they resolved my issue within 5 minutes and I got a email transcript within the hour detailing what happened. It was awesome. Plus Ting was cheap af, I would spend like 10$ a month for a smart phone. Its data service was extremely slow, whi…

If you feel like giving us another chance, we've got Ting in GSM which might resolve the Ting on CDMA data issues you experienced. Thanks for the kind words about our customer service. Our team thrives on great feedback like this :)

I was in the private beta for Ting GSM, and I loved every minute of it. I'm still on GSM with my main line, and we'll be moving my wife to Ting GSM once her CDMA phone finally kicks the bucket. I had tried Ting CDMA a few times since they first launched, and came back for good once I found out about the coming GSM service. Ting's customer support is simply unmatched, an anomaly among not just cellular companies but all tech companies I've ever dealt with.

Justen went above and beyond to help us beta testers resolve issues, and I feel like a part of the Ting family now even though I don't work there (though I'd love to if I lived further north!).

Re: Ting Gigabit Fiber Internet

#52

Post by theg2 »

MrFoof wrote: post #32
freejack wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

symetric, $89/mos, use your own router, NN before it was cool. (oBDisclaimer: I work for Ting)

Please, for the love of all that is good and holy, explore the idea of deploying in Boston proper. The state refused to give Verizon tax breaks years ago, so they abandoned their plans to ever deploy FiOS within Boston city limits. Surrounding communities have it, but we don't -- only Comcast. Now, to be fair to Comcast, I've never had a service problem save for 1-2 days in the past 6 years. They were also very quick…

Cambridge is all but stuck with Comcast and their ever rising rates for degrading service...meanwhile Arlington just north of the city/Cambridge is still serviced by Fios fiber.

Re: Ting Gigabit Fiber Internet

#53

Post by avn2109 »

devsquid wrote: post #40

I would like to say, having used Ting for a while. Its customer service was amazing. You called, someone picked up immediately. They worked for ting, and it was not outsourced. So they resolved my issue within 5 minutes and I got a email transcript within the hour detailing what happened. It was awesome. Plus Ting was cheap af, I would spend like 10$ a month for a smart phone. Its data service was extremely slow, whi…

Yeah, I'm a Ting customer for 7 months now, and honestly it's been a dream. I haven't had to interact with their support because everything has just worked, for less than half of Verizon's price.

Re: Ting Gigabit Fiber Internet

#55

Post by throwaway9324 »

rayiner wrote: post #39
jauer wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because there was a time when services were deployed in a discriminatory manner: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining So because of historical discrimination it's common for government to require providers to serve everyone in a area instead of just the profitable areas (e.g. people that would buy $100 IP+TV packages instead of basic 5Mbps internet).

I think its more of a matter of class-warfare politics. Cities would rather have nobody have fiber than just the people who could afford it.

If there's anything that is class-warfare it's not adopting the very proven model of municipality networks. Of course government doing something good doesn't sit right with 'those who can afford'.

Re: Ting Gigabit Fiber Internet

#56

Post by kirk21 »

jauer wrote: post #37
georgerobinson wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain why this is illegal in the US? It in the UK, there are a number of companies investing in rural fibre broadband for communities where 1. the area is not expected to receive FTTC from BT Openreach and 2. there is sufficient demand from the local residents (i.e. how many people have signed up).

Because there was a time when services were deployed in a discriminatory manner: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining So because of historical discrimination it's common for government to require providers to serve everyone in a area instead of just the profitable areas (e.g. people that would buy $100 IP+TV packages instead of basic 5Mbps internet).

If you take this to the extreme, then Tesla should not be allowed to only sell very expensive cars... New technology often is adopted by the wealthy, the price goes down and then everyone can be served. The installation costs might go down over time by serving the ppl that are willing to pay so they can serve the others as well.

This regulation is counterproductive, the result is that no one gets fiber.

Re: Ting Gigabit Fiber Internet

#57

Post by brajkovic »

theg2 wrote: post #52
MrFoof wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please, for the love of all that is good and holy, explore the idea of deploying in Boston proper. The state refused to give Verizon tax breaks years ago, so they abandoned their plans to ever deploy FiOS within Boston city limits. Surrounding communities have it, but we don't -- only Comcast. Now, to be fair to Comcast, I've never had a service problem save for 1-2 days in the past 6 years. They were also very quick…

Cambridge is all but stuck with Comcast and their ever rising rates for degrading service...meanwhile Arlington just north of the city/Cambridge is still serviced by Fios fiber.

Somerville at least has RCN to fall back on to, and they've been good to us. Still, more competition can never hurt!

Re: Ting Gigabit Fiber Internet

#58

Post by CanAmFam »

georgerobinson wrote: post #34
rayiner wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the Netherlands x% of a community had to sign up before they would roll out the system (to make sure that the ISP could recoup their costs). In most U.S. cities, this is illegal. In fact, Google got crucified when they did that originally for Fiber in Kansas City and a bunch of minority/low-income communities didn't make the list: http://www.wired.com/2012/09/google-fiber-digital-divide . Embarrassingly, the sig…

Can you explain why this is illegal in the US? It in the UK, there are a number of companies investing in rural fibre broadband for communities where 1. the area is not expected to receive FTTC from BT Openreach and 2. there is sufficient demand from the local residents (i.e. how many people have signed up).

It's not illegal; that's incorrect.

The type of franchise that requires universal buildout (with a number of caveats) is a cable franchise, with the intention that everyone has access to TV services, not broadband. And the standards for new entrants into a cable franchise are generally less onerous (or provide time to get to universal coverage).

Re: Ting Gigabit Fiber Internet

#59

Post by greggyb »

joshmn wrote: post #42

If you guys want to fuck up Comcast, head to the Twin Cities. We're one of their biggest markets, and there's a reason why we have a few fiber competitors here already making them sweat. One is CenturyLink. Another is a local ISP. Yes, I said it, local ISP.

To be honest, I'd prefer to see them go to other markets.

I'm actually with Comcast, and they've been a dream. I've not even had to threaten with USI or CenturyLink yet, and my service is always at advertised speeds and I've not had any downtime.

While it would almost definitely expand the fiber build-out around here, and that would be great, there are plenty of places with a single broadband provider. I also imagine Ting would have better chances in a sparser market.

Re: Ting Gigabit Fiber Internet

#60

Post by cowsandmilk »

kirk21 wrote: post #56
jauer wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because there was a time when services were deployed in a discriminatory manner: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining So because of historical discrimination it's common for government to require providers to serve everyone in a area instead of just the profitable areas (e.g. people that would buy $100 IP+TV packages instead of basic 5Mbps internet).

If you take this to the extreme, then Tesla should not be allowed to only sell very expensive cars... New technology often is adopted by the wealthy, the price goes down and then everyone can be served. The installation costs might go down over time by serving the ppl that are willing to pay so they can serve the others as well. This regulation is counterproductive, the result is that no one gets fiber.

You're arguing that regulations against redlining would mean Tesla cannot just sell expensive cars.

Tesla does not discriminate based on your address. They discriminate based on income.

The problem with discrimination based on neighborhoods is that historically, it has not been income-based, despite claims by businesses that their only criteria was income[1].

[1] http://powerreporting.com/color/

Post reply on HN