• On CHOW: Can girls use the guys' bathroom?
November 19, 2009 4:00 AM PST

Broadband economics: How I'll save $700

by Marguerite Reardon
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 59 comments

It's a simple principle of economics: competition and more customer choice results in lower prices.

And so it is true of broadband services. With about 65 percent of the U.S. population now subscribing to broadband, cable operators and telephone companies are duking it out for new customers. The companies are offering cut-throat prices and new promotions to win over new subscribers.

For consumers in areas of the country where competition is heating up, the savings can be huge. For example, Verizon Communications, which has been losing DSL customers to competitors, this week announced aggressive new promotional deals for its high-speed DSL and Fios, fiber-to-the-home Internet services, as it tries to tempt new subscribers.

New Verizon DSL customers can get six months of free Internet service if they commit to a one-year contract. The company also announced a slew of deals for Fios customers, including one that offers new Fios TV subscribers who sign up for service as part of a bundle, free multiroom DVR capability for three months.

These deals sound terrific to consumers, like me, who live in markets with at least two broadband competitors. But for millions of Americans living in rural regions of the country and for people living in some urban areas, where carriers don't find it profitable to offer service, only one choice of Internet provider exists today.

And as a general rule of thumb, these consumers aren't usually offered enticing promotional deals or discounts on service. In fact, on average they pay much more for their services than people living in more competitive markets.

A task force at the Federal Communications Commission that is developing a national broadband policy highlighted this fact as a major barrier to universal broadband access during an open meeting at the commission on Wednesday.

The group also noted that broadband service providers tend to deploy service in higher income neighborhoods where more people are likely to sign up for service over low-income areas. As a result these markets generally have only one provider. What this means is that lower-income people, who have less disposable income, are often the ones forced to pay higher prices, while people who have more money pay lower prices for service.

Big savings in the Big Apple
To test this concept and to see if I could significantly put a dent in my monthly expenses, I decided to investigate my own broadband options in New York City, where I have lived and been a cable subscriber for nearly 12 years. With a little bit of leg work, I quickly discovered, I could save nearly $700 in one year by switching broadband providers.

I currently pay about $147 a month for cable TV and broadband service from Time Warner Cable. This bill does include two DVRs, two remote controls, and HBO channels and on-demand services. But it does not include taxes or a home phone service.

I live on the Upper West Side of Manhattan and even though I have seen Verizon putting fiber underneath the street on my block and even though my inside sources at the company have told me that two central offices near my neighborhood are currently being upgraded this month to provide Fios TV service, I am still not yet eligible for Fios service.

The only option I have from Verizon right now is DSL service. With the new six-month broadband-for-free promotion, Verizon is offering a triple play package that includes 3 Mbps or 7.1 Mbps DSL, DirecTV Plus DVR package, and Verizon's unlimited local and long-distance calling plan for $70 per month for the first six months.

During the second six months of this annual plan, the bundle with up-to-3 Mbps service is $99.99 per month. And for the faster 7.1 Mbps broadband service, the price is $109.99 per month after the first six months.

Factoring in the first six months of free DSL service in this total package, my average monthly cost would be $90 per month for home phone, broadband, and subscription TV services. This is an average savings of $57 per month over my current service, and a yearly savings of about $684.

I called Time Warner Cable to see if the company could beat Verizon's price. The best price offered to me for the same exact package, which includes one set-top box with DVR service, was $119 per month before taxes. The only difference in this package is that I would not have to sign a contract, but the price would be guaranteed for a year. The representative I talked with on the phone offered to give me free Showtime service for a year to sweeten the deal. Even at this price, Verizon's offer is still $29 a month cheaper than Time Warner's revised service. In total, I would still be saving $348 for the year.

But there is one catch to Verizon's deal. Verizon guarantees the price of the bundle for a year. And if customers cancel the service during that time period there is an early termination fee. But DirecTV requires users sign a two-year contract. And pricing on the TV service is not guaranteed during the second year, which means it could go up significantly in 2011.

What's more, if Fios becomes available in my building, I can upgrade my Internet and phone services at no penalty. And I would be eligible for whatever special deal Verizon might offer me. But I would have to pay a penalty to DirecTV if I terminate my TV service early to get Fios TV.

Still, with a yearly savings of almost $400 to $700 sitting on the table, I'd be a fool not to make some kind of change now. But just imagine if there was a third or even a fourth competitor in my market? The savings could be even greater.

More competitors lead to lower prices
According to a Pew Internet and American Life Project study released in June, the more competitors there are in a market, the cheaper the price of the service for consumers. In the survey, about 21 percent of high-speed Internet users said they had only one choice in broadband provider. And on average these customers spend about $44.70 a month on high-speed Internet service. About 69 percent of respondents said they had two choices in broadband providers, and on average they spent about $38.30 on Internet per month. Average prices fell yet again for the 17 percent of respondents who said they had four or more broadband provider choices. The average amount they paid for service was about $32.10 per month.

What this tells us is that more choices matter. And when broadband service providers are forced to compete, consumers get better deals.

This basic thesis was also the conclusion of a recent study (PDF) commissioned by the FCC and conducted by Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet & Society. This study concluded that that other countries have faster and cheaper Internet access because there is more competition. The report went on to conclude that this new competition was made possible by regulatory policy that promoted open-access rules or rules that force service providers to share their infrastructure with competitors.

"The lowest prices and highest speeds are almost all offered by firms in markets where, in addition to an incumbent telephone company and cable company, there are also competitors who entered the market, and built their presence, through use of open access facilities, " the report says.

The report has gotten plenty of criticism. AT&T and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association have filed letters warning the FCC against applying the findings to its national broadband policy. The NCTA said the FCC should be careful in accepting these results when past attempts here in the U.S. to impose open access rules have failed.

Whether open access rules really create more competition is debatable. But one thing that cannot be debated is the effect that more competitors have on prices and the quality of service in the overall market.

With this in mind, I hope that the FCC's new national broadband policy, when it's finally presented to Congress in February, will do more than simply ensure everyone in the U.S. has access to at least one broadband provider. I hope the plan also includes aggressive measures to encourage competition among two or more companies in as many markets as possible.

Marguerite Reardon has been a CNET News reporter since 2004, covering cell phone services, broadband, citywide Wi-Fi, the Net neutrality debate, as well as the ongoing consolidation of the phone companies. E-mail Maggie.
Recent posts from Signal Strength
Cisco predicts wireless-data explosion
Lawmakers grill execs over Comcast-NBC deal
Report: Deutsche Telekom considers IPO for T-Mobile USA
Could cable lose its grip on TV business?
AT&T green-lights SlingPlayer on iPhone
Cisco results signal economic recovery under way
Global cell phone sales on the rise
AT&T 3G version of Nexus One coming
Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 1 of 2 pages (59 Comments)
by Squashman2 November 19, 2009 4:58 AM PST
My options are Time Warner and AT&#38;T and they aren't doing a whole lot to compete with each other here in the Frozen Tundra. I pay over $100 a month for STANDARD cable and Road Runner from Time Warner.<br /><br />I won't be caught dead switching to AT&#38;T U-verse. DSL was horrible at my house because I have a bad phone line. AT&#38;T won't replace it because my analog phone service works fine. <br /><br />And if I am going to switch to anything it might as well be Fiber and I know that is not going to be any time in my life time because change is slow.
Reply to this comment
by Foxh8er November 19, 2009 5:25 PM PST
Errm, uh, U-Verse is fiber.......<br /><br />I would know, they just installed it a week ago.<br /><br />As of now, U-verse = WIN
by krosafcheg November 19, 2009 5:56 PM PST
No, Uverse is fiber to the central office nearest you and then the same old copper wiring that you used for dsl. This is why AT&#38;T can only deliver 25megabits download right now and the HD that they offer is highly, highly compressed. So Uverse for the...tie?
by butcherben November 19, 2009 5:20 AM PST
I pay $110 a month for 10mbps connection and 300 channels with time Warner her in Dallas Texas
Reply to this comment
by wetterling November 19, 2009 10:13 AM PST
I live in the Dallas area too and pay $95 for FIOS TV and Internet........hundreds of channels, HD, HD dvr, and a 20/5 mb connection. Maybe you ought to switch?
by butcherben November 19, 2009 1:57 PM PST
i think will call Verizon, but they do have crappy customer service from what I've heard.
by SEXYDIVERGUY November 19, 2009 5:28 AM PST
We need competition in my part of Canada. We have the highest number of users per-capita and the rates just keep increasing due to no one complaining and lack of competition.
Reply to this comment
by Jamie_Foster November 19, 2009 5:37 AM PST
In England I pay BT £37 about $52 a month. I get phone line rental, free calls to other landlines, 9mbps DSL and BT Vision. Vision is a DTT PVR which has 60 TV stations and 30 radio radio stations free of charge. Plus my bundle includes EPSN and 10,000 hours of TV programs on demand through the MS mediaroom STB.
Reply to this comment
by Jamie_Foster November 19, 2009 5:53 AM PST
I was using an old exhange rate. £37 is $61.74 at current levels. And my line has just been upgraded to ADSL2 plus Freeview (DTT) HD is now being rolled out in London and Manchester.
by G2001 November 19, 2009 5:55 AM PST
"The group also noted that broadband service providers tend to deploy service in higher income neighborhoods where more people are likely to sign up for service over low-income areas. As a result these markets generally have only one provider. What this means is that lower-income people, who have less disposable income, are often the ones forced to pay higher prices, while people who have more money pay lower prices for service." <br /> <br />Like this is news? It has been this way since humans existed. Those who are advantaged are abled to take more advantage of every situation. duhhh! <br /> <br />Philly area has Comcast, DirecTV, and Fios competing. Some good deals for new subscribers but not for existing. Love my Fios, but thinking of jumping ship for the savings that can be had. Might jump back and forth year over year. Customer service for all of these companies (had a good experience with DirecTV) are questionable. <br /> <br />Sharing of the networks would be a great thing! Maybe people in this country could get good customer service to go along with their communications. I would pay an equal price (or a little more) to a company that I know would provide great service.
Reply to this comment
by Knightro2 November 19, 2009 6:05 AM PST
I'm one of the lucky ones that FiOS is available for me. I switched from Brighthouse to FiOS this past summer. I pay about the same price as I was before ($118) but I went from 10mbps to 20mbps on my download and 512k to 5mbps upload. I also have free HBO, a crap load more HD channels and a lot more on-demand options. So far I love FiOS. There was only one issue that I had/have which multiple techs couldn't figure out. Whenever I tried to go online with my iPod touch...the Verizon supplied router would reboot. This continued to happen after three router swaps so I just popped my old trusty Linksys router back on and everything is hunkydorey.
Reply to this comment
by john55440 November 19, 2009 6:19 AM PST
I recently signed up for Qwest (telco) fiber-to-the-node/neighborhood service. So far, so good. Their "you can't get that from cable" addition is free access to AT&#38;T wi-fi hotspots. <br /> <br />Since the service uses regular phone lines, there was no drilling of holes in the side of the house, and no big, ugly black cables.
Reply to this comment
by gorillalovesac November 19, 2009 6:24 AM PST
Putting prices at its lowest will definitely benefit each subscriber. But hopefully, as they lower their price, their services will be better because at times, their broadband connection suddenly gets disconnected.<br />--gorilla&lt;a href="http://gorillabags.com/faq.php"&gt;love sac&lt;/a&gt;--
Reply to this comment
by ProDigit November 19, 2009 6:38 AM PST
Don't believe those prices!<br />Comcast gave us $30/month broadband with TV access and the second month charged us for $140 for movies we did not purchase, nor viewed!<br /><br />Even if this corruption was done once, the $110 surplus you need to pay to keep the service going, is going to nullify the bonus, and bring the REAL monthly price to about $40 per month!<br />Not to say if they will not do this again in the future...
Reply to this comment
by Lerianis3 November 19, 2009 3:50 PM PST
Uh, better think again....... Comcast links your box to your account, so you or someone IN YOUR HOME had to have ordered those movies! Might want to have a serious talk with your kiddies, or if they weren't in the home when the movies were ordered, with other people in the home.
by pentest November 19, 2009 7:59 PM PST
Yeah, Leria, Comcast couldn't have possibly made an error.
by regulator1956 November 20, 2009 9:06 AM PST
Fios said I ordered a boxing event. They had the day/time I ordered it and the start and finish time I watched. <br /> <br />Problem is, I've never ordered Pay-per-view in my life and certainly not a $60 fight. <br /> <br />The bill was weeks later, we were at a party that night (we have no kids) and that particular TV is a 19" in the guest room that the power is normally off, not the 50" plasma. <br /> <br />Several customer service calls did nothing. I finally complained to their corporate fix-it group and when she got back to me, she wouldn't say that they had a computer error, but that what she was saying without saying it. <br /> <br />She removed the charge. <br /> <br />Shocking !! Computer software isn't perfect.
by TRW2 November 19, 2009 7:04 AM PST
DSL isn't available where I live in Maine (maybe next year or two)<br /><br />Time/Warner cable is on the main road 800 feet from my house. However, they don't feel it's economic to wire my house, since there are only 3 other houses on the street. So no go there.<br /><br />A local wireless company in next town checked things out -- we're too deep in the trees in the valley.<br /><br />So in spite of the fact that I maintain 6 web sites, use the internet frequently, I'm using dialup as it's my ONLY option. And even worse, I only get about 28.8 speed on the 56K connection &lt;sigh&gt;.<br /><br />I'd love high speed access -- let alone competition.
Reply to this comment
by Endbringer November 19, 2009 7:21 AM PST
What about that Hughsnet thing that DirecTV always advertises about? I have no knowledge of the speeds or price, but doesn't it work anywhere?
by cbscowards November 19, 2009 8:54 AM PST
Hughesnet is very expensive and very slow. There is a 1/2 second of travel time for a packet to travel up to the satellite and back to earth. Thet's not so noticeable for big downloads that start a stream, but it is sluggish for web browsing. If you try to do something packet intensive like VPN or gaming, you're better off with a 56K dialup modem.
by AlexYuriev November 19, 2009 9:20 AM PST
Yes, because of course the cable company or DSL company must allow you to enjoy what they provide at the price you want to pay while you maintain your 6 websites while living your dream life in Maine. Hint: Either pay the price or move or live without. We all make choices.<br /><br />Or you could start your own ISP
by pentest November 19, 2009 9:35 AM PST
Funny how countries that force corporations to be responsible to more than greedy shareholders have far better broadband service.<br /><br />Corporate greed is exactly the reason why the US is behind.
by pentest November 19, 2009 9:37 AM PST
"If you try to do something packet intensive like VPN or gaming, you're better off with a 56K dialup modem."<br /><br />LOL<br /><br />Even with the added 500 ms or so of latency that satellite adds, it is still far beyond dial-up.
by tektaktyks November 19, 2009 10:59 PM PST
pentest
by dbargen November 19, 2009 7:16 AM PST
In the area near my home, AT&#38;T used to be the provider until they were *forced* to give it and future development over to another local provider. We just moved and would have loved to have UVerse and I might have been able to justify getting an iPhone plan thanks to bundling price structure, but with AT&#38;T NOT ALLOWED to compete in the area, that deal is off. <br /><br />Competition is good, but not when it's forced on people. If the local provider had laid their own infrastructure, it might have actually been a competition. Thanks to breaking up one monopoly, there's still a monopoly here, just with a different provider. Most of the non-compete stuff was part of a settlement deal, so it wasn't exactly done by mandate. However, that doesn't make not having any DSL competition any better to live with.
Reply to this comment
by abcd9009 November 19, 2009 7:46 AM PST
I think I like about Cable as compared to DSL is I don't have to subscribe to phone service in order to get internet unlike DSL where they force you to subscribe to phone service as well.<br />Secondly, in the Bay Area now that AT&#38;T is heavily promoting it's U-Verse service (I hate AT&#38;T so I don't intend on switching from Comcast) every year I call Comcast just to threaten to leave and I get internet for the promotional rate of $29.99 for 3 month of the year (minimum). This year I was lucky and got it for 6 months. I don't know about other places but in the Bay Area I have noticed Comcast usually has this promotion of $29.99 for internet every year... at least for the past 3-4 years since I have been living here. Plus the good thing about cable is no commitment unlike DSL. As for cable I only have basic cable because first I am hardly home and secondly I have internet so everything I miss on TV can be viewed online. <br />I would be interested in subscribing to more channels provided it's offered individually. But until them I am sticking with viewing shows online.
Reply to this comment
by clamenza November 19, 2009 8:13 AM PST
Uh, there's been "dry loop" service for a long time. You can get DSL without phone service in most places.
by pentest November 19, 2009 9:39 AM PST
Cable is a shared connection, so your actual bandwidth varies depending on who is your neighborhood is online. You are also competing with real-time services like VOIP and On demand.<br /><br />No such issue with DSL. I get a bit over 12 Mbps 24/7 regardless of what my neighbors might be doing.
by Been_there_Saw_it_before November 19, 2009 12:28 PM PST
I asked Comcast if they wanted to keep me as a customer. Of course they said yes, so I told them I need the promotional rate for Internet access or it was good buy. The managed to drop my price, but said it was only good for six months. Then they jack it back up and I repeat the question and they repeat this "one time only" customer accomodation. I play this little game every six months. Currently I am on the third cycle of it. <br /> <br />Then I put DSL in at my mothers house for only an extra $20 per months with no contract committment. I am unable to see any difference in the performance. It is just a pipe to me, I do not care about all their special features.
by clamenza November 19, 2009 8:03 AM PST
America is so backwards. I just moved into a building in Center City Philadelphia and found out there's no DSL service, unlike at my old place a few blocks away. So I ordered a wireless adapter for my desktop, because people in the building say there's a "generous" neighbor.<br /><br />This is what greed gets you.
Reply to this comment
by metomjr November 19, 2009 8:08 AM PST
Sure...the promotional pricing is great...but after that ends, you pay through the roof. <br /> <br />Plus...Competition between 1 cable company and 1 phone company for internet service is not competition. <br /> <br />Oh...I can either get Qwest or Comcast. Qwest is unreliable (and just as expensive as Comcast because you need a paid ($30) phone line) for the cheaper DSL rate. <br /> <br />I think these companies are turning back into the monopolies that were once ordered to break up. <br /> <br />The internet should now be considered a basic service (like water, sewer, &#38; electricity) and should be subsidized at a much cheaper rate from our municipalities. And like water, sewer, &#38; electricity, you pay for the amount you use.
Reply to this comment
by IceN9ne November 19, 2009 9:24 AM PST
completely agreed with you. you cannot compare DSL with Cable. Until the day where multiple cable providers are allowed to compete with eachother in the same market this whole article is blech. DSL will never be as fast as Cable. Forget trying to get fios. it's not available half the time. it's still mind boggling to me how cable companies are allowed to have monopolies in this day and age.
by pentest November 19, 2009 9:43 AM PST
You don't need phone service for Qwest DSL. I have Qwest DSL, and used to have a line($12 a month, not $30) but since I don't use it, I dropped it, but still have DSL.<br /><br />I have had Qwest since 2003. The only downtime I have ever had is when my first modem died, it was replaced for free in 13 hours.
by pentest November 19, 2009 9:45 AM PST
Cable is limited to around 30 Mbps, but you usually get under 10. DSL has no such limits. Right now, if I needed it, I could get 40 Mbps on DSL. Try that with Comcast.
by pentest November 19, 2009 9:50 AM PST
DSL is faster than Cable. Cable has a limit of about 30 Mbps, and unless you hack the modem, you aren't getting much over 10 Mbps. Right now, I can get 40 Mbps on DSL if I actually needed it. That is actual bandwidth, not shared, and not "burst speeds".
by metomjr November 19, 2009 9:53 AM PST
Well, regarding qwest, I lived in two different areas and the light on the modem blinked and blinked and blinked........ <br /> <br />Qwest said it was my problem, not theirs. Which sounds funny...because my dad had a home office with DSL from AT&#38;T a few years earlier...and the DSL worked without a problem. <br /> <br />I waited 2 weeks at both places, willing to give Qwest a try. I went to best buy, picked up a Comcast Self Install Kit, and had a solid light within a few hours. <br /> <br />It certainly was $30 dollars after fees and taxes (I think it was $12 or something like you said for the most basic service).
by Jwdodson November 19, 2009 9:15 AM PST
I live in a rural community and our local government got a grant to provide broadband to a community that had been trying to get Embarq now Century something to provide access for years. The day after we activated the service Embarq now Century something started calling everyone in the community offering dsl. Rural areas are screwed unless someone, the government, makes them provide what is now a basic utility.
Reply to this comment
by pentest November 19, 2009 9:32 AM PST
$42 a month for 12 Mbps DSL.<br /><br />Once the fiber is laid and paid for, prices will drop. I expect my DSL price to drop at least $10 a month within 2 years, by then the equipment upgrades Qwest just went through will be recouped. After that, it is just maintenance, and it will be a long time before they need to upgrade again since their top bandwidth for DSL is 40 Mbps. <br /><br />In the area I live, a 1 Gbps MAN(with an Internet 2 connection) was put in for under $4 million(most of it was paid for via grants), including the fiber and the equipment was under $200,000(paid for by the MAN organization. That is 1 Gbps per connection, which most is wave division multiplexed. One organization has 5 colors(ie 5Gbps) for a couple hundred a month + Internet2 access fees. There will be no need to upgrade hardware until it get to a little over 800 Gbps across the entire network. When that happens, they won't be any need to upgrade fiber of course. Fees to operate the network are less than $500 a month.<br /><br />Of course a large ISP has much higher expenses, but bandwidth is not really that expensive.
Reply to this comment
by chris_d November 19, 2009 9:55 AM PST
Wow. $147. Throw in your average cell phone bill and you've got $250 a month in telecommunications costs, $3000 a year.
Reply to this comment
by Lerianis3 November 19, 2009 3:51 PM PST
And that's why a lot of people are REFUSING to buy cable and satellite service anymore.
by Maggie Reardon November 19, 2009 10:26 AM PST
What do people think about DirecTV's service? I live in an apartment building. And I am concerned that the satellite service will be difficult to set up and just plain annoying to deal with. Any thoughts on this?I'm also considering cutting the cord altogether, but I'm not sure if I am ready for that.
Reply to this comment
by keepntabs November 19, 2009 12:08 PM PST
You know I vote that you should at least try watching online streaming for a while to see if it will satisfy your viewing requirements. If you don't have a computer with a graphics card that can easily handle the online content. There are a couple of netbooks and a small form factor PC that are supposed to handle HD pretty well, the HP Mini 311, the Acer Aspire 1410, and the Dell Zino HD. They each cost $399 base price. If you want to watch and record local OTA digital channels, you can also get a USB TV tuner for $50 (and a regular TV antenna for $12-20 if you need one). This set up will pay for itself after about five months of being without cable. The only subscription that I do recommend is Netflix; either the $9 or $13 per month plan. I think you will like being cable-free so much that if you don't I will buy the hardware from you.
by paulimusmaximus November 19, 2009 3:32 PM PST
I cut the cord, it's not bad. Any good new shows that are on cable, I can see online, or rent from netflix. <br /><br />Aside from that, Directv is terrible in my opinion. The menu system is sooo slow, like so bad I don't even want to watch it. My parents just got it a few months ago, because like you they were looking for a better price. But they hate it. And they're stuck with it for two years. Plus, you can only get one HD DVR at the monthly price, and if you want another, you have to pay $100 for a standard def dvr, or $200 for a high def one, plus the monthly fees.<br /><br />I would take the lower price from Time Warner for now, and wait til Fios is available in your building. Once they laid the cable where I live, it was only a few months before it was widely available. Don't get stuck in a contract with something you may not like.
by Forked_Tongue November 20, 2009 3:11 PM PST
Cut the cord, buy an external hard drive, and use the following programs utorrent, peerguardian, and free Avast Home on your old XP PC all of which can be downloaded from Cnet. Then you can go to www.thepiratebay.org or any of the various torrent sites and record your programs thru torrents. Who needs cable or satellite when there are free options?
by molotov November 19, 2009 11:48 AM PST
Here is the deal; get cheapest DSL from Verizon for $18/month. You can still stream Hulu through it pretty nicely. ..Or alternatively pay upwards of $50/month for "speedier" service, which pretty much yields the same result. <br /> <br />Bottom line: if all you do is watch video then you will be more than happy with the cheap DSL. If you download gigabytes of data and have the itch to have the fastest and bestest then go ahea..!
Reply to this comment
by krosafcheg November 19, 2009 12:30 PM PST
No FIOS in the Bay Area, for the most part, OXYMORON. Birth of Silicon Valley. Fail.
Reply to this comment
by Scopip November 19, 2009 6:35 PM PST
the bay had @home / att. So yeah.. you'll just have to wait for super-wimax.
Showing 1 of 2 pages (59 Comments)
advertisement

Google's social side aims for some Buzz

Facebook and Twitter are the darlings of the social-media world, not Google--which hopes to change that with Buzz, betting it can organize your online social life.

Watching the birth of a gaming start-up

Stewart Butterfield and his friends are back at it with a new company. CNET's Daniel Terdiman was given exclusive, behind-the-scenes access as they built it from scratch.

About Signal Strength

Marguerite Reardon has been covering the telecom beat for more than a decade and knows more about wireless and IP networking than she cares to admit. She has been a senior writer for CNET News since 2003, covering all things wireless and broadband related from iPhone launches to major telephone company mergers to IPTV developments. She often appears as an expert on news networks, including CNBC, MSNBC, NPR, and the BBC. Maggie loves visiting CNET's headquarters in San Francisco, but she's an East Coaster at heart, living and working in Manhattan.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Signal Strength topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right