Comments on news posted 2010-05-05 11:55:04: We've repeatedly noted how both phone and cable companies have taken to running advertisements that try to conflate core network fiber with last mile fiber, given that pretending you offer fiber to the home is much cheaper than actually deploying it. ..
Thank god for this, Cablevision is the most misleading company out there !
... and at the same time, Verizon changing DSL to " HSI " High speed internet, kindve bit them in the ass regarding Fios... The cable companies constantly compare themselves to HSI and the average consumer doesnt realize the different between FioS and DSL.
The average consumer doesn't know the difference between fiber and coax either. In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter. Most consumers would be happy with carrier pigeons if they satisfy their communications requirements.
That's not what I wrote Karl. The average consumer doesn't care about, or won't realize a difference between coax and fiber as far as their communications capabilities go.
If that were the case, then why are all these cable co's trying to lead consumers to believe they are using nothing but fiber in their networks?
The reason behind this is almost everyone knows fiber is "Super Fast", so they want to market their product as "Fiber Optic Fast", when in reality no fiber is actually reaching the house. It's a marketing ploy, which makes most engineers bang their head against the wall due to utter stupidity from corporate HQ.
Almost like Qwest saying their 12 and 20mbps DSL service is "Fiber Optic Fast Internet". Bullsh*t. Fiber IS Fiber.. Fiber IS NOT Copper. If you can shove a beam of light through a copper wire, then I'd be really impressed.
That's not what I wrote Karl. The average consumer doesn't care about, or won't realize a difference between coax and fiber as far as their communications capabilities go.
Average consumers did not use to know either about lead paint, mercury poisoning or dangers of being electrocuted.
He would be correct, most people don't know or even care about these things. Heck, most people don't even know what a "browser" is (as Google found out by asking random people in Times Square).
You think any of these people would know (or even care) if their Internet comes over glass, copper, or carrier pigeons?
The average consumer doesn't care about, or won't realize a difference between coax and fiber as far as their communications capabilities go.
. . . and they never will, as long as ALL communications companies continue to blur the distinctions, neglect to fully inform, and out-and-out LIE about it.
But why does it matter if we distinguish between 2-wire, coax, fiber, or wireless if a majority of consumers don't know the difference? I don't believe that companies should be allowed to falsely advertise their products, I just don't believe fiber is the second coming of Christ.
That's not what I wrote Karl. The average consumer doesn't care about, or won't realize a difference between coax and fiber as far as their communications capabilities go.
In the eyes of the BBB, people are informed customers. In the eyes of the law, they are typically "Unsophisticated Consumers"...
In the end, "the BBB ruled on..."... and I say, "who cares".. the BBB is hardly an organization that will 1) Make a difference as most people don't even care about the BBB. 2) The BBB is largely paid off by it's members and they don't always 'rule' against their members anyway. 3) They don't set laws or make any rules that matter.. in other words, they're just loudmouths that keep a list and charge for it.
If a customer complains to them and the company they send their "hey, this person said this about you" letter, you're automatically a "bad company" in their eyes.. I guess you'd have to care about the BBB to matter.
I just find it funny about "the ruling" from the BBB.
And really, most people don't care about fiber to the home or fiber in the network. Seriously, Cable has been advertising "fiber" networks for a long time now. All the sudden, Verizon comes out with fiber, and not even the first player, and all the sudden the cable companies are mis-leading? There are other companies like Surewest/WinFirst that had fiber years ago.. where was the BBB then? The one place *I* won't give a pass (not that it matters) is Qwest.. they're calling it "fiber internet".. last I checked, cable doesn't They say their network is fiber, and it is. If Qwest were to say "fiber powered network" then I'd have to give them a pass.
So.. I wonder.. is the BBB trying to be the next FCC or something? When did the BBB become the catch-all authority for what's right and wrong? Personally, I can't stand them as a company - they've not always had a good record of resolving consumer complaints - see above.
I find it funny that Karl would even try to stand behind this article with so much effort in the first place.
The one place *I* won't give a pass (not that it matters) is Qwest.. they're calling it "fiber internet".. last I checked, cable doesn't They say their network is fiber, and it is. If Qwest were to say "fiber powered network" then I'd have to give them a pass.
Last I checked, my cable ISP (Mediacom) is running a HFC system for their traditional offerings. The fiber is actually blocks away from my location (node). This is typical. Given this, how is cable actually "fiber internet" as your post suggested?
I realize the fiber is within the network, but it's also within Qwest's network. I don't see how Qwest's network is any less "fiber internet" if you're going to consider cable as actually being "fiber internet" when they are both a mixed system. In my example, both Qwest and Mediacom don't have fiber all the way to the customer premise for their typical service offerings - it's within their network.
Lastly, I recall Qwest's slogan of "fiber optic fast" and not "fiber internet". I don't recall the latter, but I could be wrong on that. How long ago was this and is it still being said? I wouldn't put it past Qwest, but Qwest serves my internet and all I recall seeing is "fiber optic fast".
In the case of Qwest... you're a customer, I assume, being in Iowa, right? If so, do you remember when Qwest 'all the sudden' had "Fiber optic fast" internet and "digital telephone"...? This came about right around Comcast moving towards all VOIP services and away from their switched based digital phone which greatly expanded their reach.
Qwest is less of a "fiber" internet service when the entire connection between your home and them is all twisted pair. Cable modem service isn't possible with out the hybrid fiber/coax network. Between you and the company, there is far more fiber than there is coax. And, if you want to compare cable even to FTTH, until companies like Surewest and Verizon put a fiber connection right into your computer, it too still has some amount of copper in the mix as well.. albeit, just a few feet. I also know they just say "fiber all the way to your home".. which is fine. And, why do I bring this up? .. simple, people tried to, for month, discredit comcast's "digital phone service" becuase it was converting the all digital service to a twisted pair from the eMTA to the handset. (What's good for the goose, I say, and all points will be used against the masses here. )
Comcast has been advertising their advanced fiber network for years LONG before Verizon came to down, and for the last 10 years while companies like Surewest were already providing it as an exclusive product in it's expanded service area. I find this, to be honest, Verizon crying foul.
To be honest, the node where I live is part of the same pedestal where my tap is. I have about a foot of coax between my node and tap. I have about 50' of cable to the splitter on my home. Is that fiber to the curb? but, yes, cable uses a HFC system.. and technically, their system isn't possible WITHOUT the fiber in the system. It's the fiber that expanded the capability of the network to offer two-way services. I don't see cable stating that they are selling "fiber optic service" as it implied. Fiber IS in the system, and, like I said, the overwhelming majority of most customers traffic travels over fiber, not coax.
The big difference, like I said, between phone and cable, is cable has more fiber running the connection between the home and head end, while the connection of phone/dsl is pure copper. EVERY provider is "fiber connected" at their termination point - that's a given.
To be fair to Qwest, kinda, they ARE playing a little bit of a game on their "fiber fast" internet.. they're talking about their 20 meg internet services.. but that's even a long shot. That 20 meg service IS more of a fiber powered connection closer to the customer, but those speeds are hard to come by for qwest. In other words, this could be about the same as Verizon advertising their entire foot print as "fiber" when only parts of it is.. Qwest does have SOME service, but they imply that ALL of their internet is "fiber fast".. bla bla bla... Qwest is grasping at straws.
In my opinion, cable's network IS fiber to the neighborhood and then pushed out to coax with minimal amplification as it used to be.. it's not "fiber to the home".. There is a drive out there to push the definitions and redefine marketing on the part of the BBB - a self appointed agency that, like I said, really has no business doing so.
However, even with all this said, its just my opinion that these providers really ALL need to get away with marketing terms like "fiber" and fiber powered... etc. EVEN the fiber companies. My stance is that people don't care about the connection to the home by an overwhelming majority when compared. They shop on price, value for the money, and what fits their needs as well as reliable service they're happy with, performance and the company reputation. I think most of those matter most of all to more people than what kind of cable is used in the process. If the cable used mattered that much, you'd hardly have any U-verse TV subscribers out there, now, wouldn't ya?
The truth is, like I said, a well built network is where it's at. How many of those twisted pair DSL connections are FAR more reliable than a poorly managed cable plant? So, really... speak of the product you're selling in the terms of services available and stop muddling up the public with all the extra crap that means nothing.. that's like Gatorade trying to convince an average consumer that their product is better becuase it now has "more electrolytes"... most people don't care about that if they're not an athlete.. they just want a drink that tastes good. (And PLEASE, guys, don't pick apart the freakin' G example.. it's weak, but it's stands to my point)
I see some of your points but have a few minor issues.
First, picking on Qwest is like picking on the defenseless geek in school. Not much of a contest to be proud of. They're one of the worst off telco companies of the bells and service many of the areas that are spread apart and difficult to serve. Of course they have big towns that aren't exactly included, but Qwest has an overall difficult area to serve. I would imagine RoI is difficult. Verizon would probably dump the areas that Qwest has. I'm not suggesting they get a free pass here because of this fact.
I think their "fiber optic fast" is hard to scrutinize when they aren't claiming it's actual fiber optics to the home or neighborhood as cable isn't either.
The bigger issue that caused me to reply to your post was your statement that cable's network is fiber - which somewhat implied that Qwest's, or any other phone company, wasn't. Both cable and the phone company use fiber in their network as we both agree on.
I do feel, in my opinion, to state that because the cable node is in your area, and because the connection between a telco customer and their dslam is usually copper, that Cable's is more of a "fiber network" is slightly drawing straws. In the end, I don't think it matters because I recall a time when Mediacom was offering a mere 1500/128 service on that fiber node in my area.
I can kinda see your point that cable, with the node being in the neighborhood, could be considered fiber to the neighborhood. Many of Qwest's DSLAMs aren't fiber fed. But I think it's drawing straws as both the phone company and the cable company have some sort of hybrid system. It depends on varies things as to how much percentage that is. I'm going to say you probably win on the argument that, overall, cable has more fiber in their network.
However, one thing I strongly agree with you on is your point that it doesn't exactly matter the delivery method so much it does the quality of the product and service via the company. It's for that reason, despite Mediacom offers 12/1 (though many in my town have been seeing only 1/4 of this during prime time) while Qwest only offers 1.5/896, is why I feel that selecting between the two is picking the lesser of two evils. Mediacom, on paper, may be able to deliver more speeds but I find their speeds to be a lot less stable, as is their overall service. It seems they have a lot of issues with noise in their plant. In my opinion, as a customer of both companies for over 10 years, is that both companies, and their history, have been less than stellar.
Yea well, they have been specific in the past that their UPLOAD speeds are faster than cable... and THIS IS TRUE. Then in response, the cable companies respond with commercials comparing themselves to DSL. Cmon now.
Verizon tries to lead on that 100Mb over fiber is faster than 100Mb over copper.
They do? I hadn't seen that. Are you referring to a specific ad?
Doesn't matter...
"Fiber is better" "lightening fast speeds" "more reliable"
..all are used by verizon to say that fiber is better - which is a matter of opinion in the end.
I live in a fiber/coax system that delivers 50mb speeds over coax last mile and the results are the same as what verizon delivers.. reliable, fast internet. I've had Surewest "super" fiber service as well.. and to be honest, found it laggy for "fast fiber connection"..
And Yes, verizon does try to make out that 100mb over fiber is better than copper... see ANY Xfinity commercial. They advertise their "FIBER" server as "better" just becuase it's fiber... while fiber is a more advanced delivery medium, in the end, they're currently doing the same thing.
Karl, you know better.. they ALL advertise and they ALL work to find that fine line.
Verizon tries to lead on that 100Mb over fiber is faster than 100Mb over copper.
Okay, Battleop here is the Average Person that doesn't understand Bandwidth. There is a big difference between Fiber and Copper. The Bandwidth in Copper is limited just like in Fiber, but the Fiber Pipe is much bigger!
It's not the fiber that makes it better.. it's the equipment that drives it and the power put behind it that matters. I can point you to a development in Iowa, Huxcomm, that offers 2 meg internet over Fiber. In that area, MediaCom is kicking their butt left and right.
In this case, is fiber or coax "better"....
They need to get off the wire and talk about themselves. In the end, as others have said, it doesn't matter if the fiber goes all the way to the home or not. It doesn't matter if they're using twisted pair or not. People say DSL is better and it's using older twisted pair over cable's much thicker coax cable. So, in this example, coax is a newer, larger pipe that CAN deliver more.. does this mean that cable should claim victory over DSL? NO! It all matters, in the end, HOW WELL you deliver the service.. not WHAT you deliver it over.
It all matters, in the end, HOW WELL you deliver the service.. not WHAT you deliver it over.
I don't normally agree with you as I consider it selecting the lesser of two evils when considering between the cable and phone companies, but I do completely agree with the above statement. It's the company and their ability to deliver a stable, price competitive, service that matters most.
It's not the fiber that makes it better.. it's the equipment that drives it and the power put behind it that matters. I can point you to a development in Iowa, Huxcomm, that offers 2 meg internet over Fiber. In that area, MediaCom is kicking their butt left and right.
In this case, is fiber or coax "better"....
They need to get off the wire and talk about themselves. In the end, as others have said, it doesn't matter if the fiber goes all the way to the home or not. It doesn't matter if they're using twisted pair or not. People say DSL is better and it's using older twisted pair over cable's much thicker coax cable. So, in this example, coax is a newer, larger pipe that CAN deliver more.. does this mean that cable should claim victory over DSL? NO! It all matters, in the end, HOW WELL you deliver the service.. not WHAT you deliver it over.
So what are you trying to say, that people hang on Words or Perceptions? Of course it takes the electronics behind the infrastructure to make it work better than the other. You talk about twisted pair Copper, yes it's still being used and very efficient, AT&T U-Verse is an example. Is this better than Fiber, no, and AT&T uses some pretty good electronics behind this. The other thing that no one mentions is durability, Fiber the way it is manufactured and in-cased, will last longer than Coax or twisted pair Copper.
They sort of have a point. Upstream is faster, it's a dedicated line (at least to the CO), and the phone and video have their own systems. The TV has an 860mhz system dedicated to broadcast video signals, while the cable company has to smush broadcast video, VOD, DOCSIS for internet and phone on the same line. In reality, if cable wanted to upgrade, they could out-build Fios's current capacity with no FTTH, and both systems could provide more bandwidth than anyone actually could use.
In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter.
Accuracy in advertising a product doesn't matter?
Not really. Almost every ad in existence is misleading in some way. That is the whole purpose of ads.
"Buyer Beware" should be a concept that should be taught starting in grade school and hammered in to their little pointy heads until they graduate from high school.
In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter.
Accuracy in advertising a product doesn't matter?
Not really. Almost every ad in existence is misleading in some way. That is the whole purpose of ads.
"Buyer Beware" should be a concept that should be taught starting in grade school and hammered in to their little pointy heads until they graduate from high school.
I believe the law actually points to what a resonable person would believe. IE you can lie and say your drink gives a person wings because a resonable person would know that isn't true.
Tell them you have a fiber network a reasonable person believes your entire network is fiber, not just fiber to the node and copper to the premises.
The average consumer doesn't know the difference between fiber and coax either. In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter. Most consumers would be happy with carrier pigeons if they satisfy their communications requirements.
They do know that fiber is better, which is why these liars do this stuff. Other than that I agree they are clueless.
The average consumer doesn't know the difference between fiber and coax either. In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter. Most consumers would be happy with carrier pigeons if they satisfy their communications requirements.
You're right... the average consumer probably doesn't know the difference between Grade-A Beef and glue-factory horse meat either if it's heavily seasoned... so it's fine if McDonald's advertises 100% Beef in their commercials but actually provides the horse meat, as long as nutritionally it meets minimum standards what does it matter in the grand scheme of things?
You're right... the average consumer probably doesn't know the difference between Grade-A Beef and glue-factory horse meat either if it's heavily seasoned... so it's fine if McDonald's advertises 100% Beef in their commercials but actually provides the horse meat, as long as nutritionally it meets minimum standards what does it matter in the grand scheme of things?
Beef is not graded using a lettering system. There is no such thing as Grade-A beef.
Fios isnt offered everywhere in the cablevision foot print. HEck verizon doesnt even offer fios in the areas where they are allowed to deploy tv . So yes cablevision can still compair themselves to dsl because in a lot of cablevisions foot print thats all people can get.
They might be misleading coming to that point but as far as no contracts and everything else they are very truthful. Never had any problems with them over 5 years. Constantly get speeds of 34/5 when I am paying for 30/5
They will chg ad to say "Core Fiber Optic Network" and they will be FTC legal. But the average consumer will never really understand that the CORE modifier doesn't make it FTTH.
Time Warner's latest TV ads insist that DSL speeds are slow because they are on "old copper wire". Of course, Time Warner also has its share of old copper wire in the mix too.
Then there's U-verse FTTN, which AT&T's door-to-door sales drones push as a new "fiberoptic service". Of course, there's some fiber involved, but there was fiber involved in my previous ADSL service too (served by an RT). At least AT&T seems smart enough not to run that on their TV ads.
I don't think FTTP is required to get competitive service to the home, but the misleading advertising should stop.
Remember, this is only for broadcast TV. There is no telling what Comcast, TW, or Cox say about Verizon (or AT&T) on their own systems and own ads. It's uncharted territory. Comcast really likes to bash FiOS, but only Comcast customers get to see it. Once the monitoring of this media gets better, a lot of false advertising will be uncovered.
The BBB doesn't have shit anymore on anyone. They'll just lower the company's ratings and then when they toss some more $$$ to them as a "member" they'll raise it back up again. They're nothing but a modern day mob.
Is it just me, or is the posting time of this story changing by the minute? I just refreshed the page and it changed from something like 10:47 A.M. to 11:11 A.M. I thought I was just seeing things before...
The misleading fiber commercials were always good for a chuckle or two at least. I always have wondered why they don't just deploy ftth if they think so highly of it rather than just lying about having it when they really don't.
I mean they will have to upgrade their networks at some point right?
I have a problem with the following statement from one of these reports.
"In the case of Verizon FiOS, fiber optic cables run from Verizon’s central offices to the “Optical Networking Terminal” (ONT ) affixed to the side of a consumer’s home. For this reason, Verizon’s network is often referred to as Fiber To The Home (FTTH) or Fiber To The Premises (FTTP)."
Only a portion of Verizon's network is fiber, while much of it is still using copper. Only Verizon's FiOS product offers true FTTP. Unless a clear standard is set to determine when a claim of a fiber network can be used in marketing and advertising, Verizon's argument has no real merit.
What is the percentage of copper to fiber throughout all of Verizon's footprint when compared to these cable companies? If we measure by total distance run, I wouldn't be surprised if the cable infrastructure uses a greater percentage of fiber within their own network when compared against all of Verizon's network.
I have a problem with the following statement from one of these reports.
"In the case of Verizon FiOS, fiber optic cables run from Verizon’s central offices to the “Optical Networking Terminal” (ONT ) affixed to the side of a consumer’s home. For this reason, Verizon’s network is often referred to as Fiber To The Home (FTTH) or Fiber To The Premises (FTTP)."
Only a portion of Verizon's network is fiber, while much of it is still using copper. Only Verizon's FiOS product offers true FTTP. Unless a clear standard is set to determine when a claim of a fiber network can be used in marketing and advertising, Verizon's argument has no real merit.
What is the percentage of copper to fiber throughout all of Verizon's footprint when compared to these cable companies? If we measure by total distance run, I wouldn't be surprised if the cable infrastructure uses a greater percentage of fiber within their own network when compared against all of Verizon's network.
You shouldnt have a problem when the product referenced in your quote is FIOS and not speaking of Verizon internet in general.
The way I'm reading it, the quote is suggesting that because the product FiOS is FTTH/FTTP, Verizon's entire network is often referred to as FTTH/FTTP. Is their network as advanced as the cable competition, or is it simply the last mile within a select few markets using a niche product few customers can actually get?
This is all about semantics, so if Verizon is going to try and enforce this on their competition, they had better abide by their own rules.
Since you're all so willing boldly lie and exaggerate to our faces, even going to far as to deny and disagree when called on your dishonest practices, I think I'll just assume you're lying all the time when dealing with you--or not dealing with you.
At least the VDSL guys might be able to make a case for the fact that the VDSL link between the CTE and fiber node is not shared, but that's not true with cable... you're sharing that coax with 10, 15, 20, 30 houses... so if all users on that node were to generate high levels of traffic you'd bottleneck the link to the fiberY
Cable guys...you know what? Do a Search-Replace for "Fiber" with "Hybrid Fiber Coax" in all your ads, frankly the average Joe who is fooled by your fiber ads will probably see the add'l technical terms and get even more excited about your services, it might be win-win for you.
Let's move past the terminology for a minute and look at who can really deliver what to consumers.
Verizon has taken the word fiber and made it synonymous with the latest in the fastest speeds that are out there.
Verizon however..has a huge part of their network that is still copper based dsl technology that Alexander Graham Bell could be proud of. And Verizon, based on news reports here at BBR..has all but even halted their Fios rollout.
The cable Co's use huge amounts of fiber as well in their networks. And have for years. Companies like Comcast have now completed apparently upwards of close to 90% of the nation with Docsis 3.0 technology..giving consumers 50 Mb speeds. Companies like Cablevision and their OOL service has long been noted on this website to be a real leader and innovator when it comes to the same and delivering the latest in speeds.
Moving past the buzz word for a minute..who REALLY deserves to be recognized for what they are giving consumers on the large scale across their service area?
I'm not going to say that Verizon doesn't. They did step up to the plate and make a big investment in their network. But a lot of their network isn't that either. Whereas a lot of the cable companies IS much better for consumers..in terms of speeds.
I just don't think that it's quite fair that Verizon gets to present it as they do..with the remainder of their network in the condition it's in..while the companies like Comcast who have taken 50Mb speeds across this entire country..but yet somehow have to justify their actions when it comes to talking about the fiber in THEIR network.
And lest anyone say I'm just a cable "fanboy"..I can also be critical of Time Warner...and say that they do need to step up to the plate and deliver a LOT more D3 to really justify THEIR actions.
But..I think that fair..is fair too. And certainly Cablevision has been a leader for many years in the speed race..and continues to be. And comcast has made a huge commitment to their subscribers in this country and deserve every bit as much as Verizon does to talk about their network in the latest and greatest terms as well.
Once it gets in the house it converts to cable! The cable connects to the switch, from there out to the computers. My Internet access does go through the coax cable, and I have FIOS.
very few (residential) customers actually have true fiber, but the closest is the Verizon Fios build-- albeit at generation 1.5 speeds (which is to say under 50 megabits for the most part). 90% of cable companies don't offer fiber optics to customer premesis for residential accounts. for commercial accounts, there are DIVISIONS of the commercial cable-company that do offer fiber QOS based accounts which are FIBER terminals simllar to FIOS but with commercial grade cisco fiber termination/ONTs & is often called "Metro Ethernet" because you're bound to be in a metro area in order to "qualify" for service since the major fiber optics hubs are in major metro areas.
All I can say is the companies doing all the false advertisement should be exposed for being the "snake oil salesmen" that they are. There is nothing more disgraceful than deceiving countless elderly and unknowledgable consumers purely out of greed. If the merits of your product can't sell it, then you should improve your product or play in a different league.
All I can say is the companies doing all the false advertisement should be exposed for being the "snake oil salesmen" that they are. There is nothing more disgraceful than deceiving countless elderly and unknowledgable consumers purely out of greed. If the merits of your product can't sell it, then you should improve your product or play in a different league.
Yeah, because we all know that Verizon never misled customers ever. They were lying to customers all over the place when they were the only phone option in town years ago. They used to play right into the fiber terminology before FIOS. I happen to remember them countering cable's advertisement years ago with the same claim when they compared their DSL service to cable's HFC plant. They had no problem playing the "We have fiber too!" card back then did they?
They also didn't have a problem taking PA taxpayers' money to build a fiber system which they pocketed without making good on their promise. It wasn't until they started drowning in their antique POTS system that they figured it was build or die.
But yeah, good ol' VZ never plays the "snake oil salesman", as you say. They are way too honest for that.
I will be the first one to admit that there have been FAR TOO MANY instances in which Verizon has been guilty of the same. I am a firm believer in FULL DISCLOSURE and TRUTH IN ADVERTISEMENT. Every individual person within any company can only be make sure that there isn't any deception that they can prevent or influence, but remember that the crash of the housing market was caused by no-less than this exact thing.
why's no mention made of the FIOS service stringing copper for phone service because "fiber phone service isn't available in th(is) market..." - of course, this tidbit of information coming AFTER signing up for a 2yr triple fios (fiber being the only real selling point) pkg, and, of course, also after cancelling the existing phone *which was a fiber/copper triple bundle, but at least they were honest about it)
So, they are out of money and are not gobbling up customers like they thought they would. Why not blame it on the advertising of their competition?
Comcast does have the largest fiber optic network in the country and they should have the right to advertise it.
It's one thing for a cable company to advertise that they are bringing fiber right to the home when they aren't, but they all should be able to include the fiber selling point if they utilize a HFC system. Funny how they want to crack down only when Verizon complains. HFC cable companies had been advertising like this years before FTTH competition.
This is all just another spoiled Ma Bell child throwing a fit because things aren't going its way. I can't say I blame them. I wouldn't want to take an ass-kicking and just lie there either.
That's what they should call it: what it is. Of course they're legally bound to call it what it is, not something else. What they're trying to get away with is lying, i.e., false advertising. Verizon is right, here, and again Verizon is right about something. Yeah they're (all) sacks of crap, but the sack of crap that Verizon is is less a sack of crap than the others.
That's what they should call it: what it is. Of course they're legally bound to call it what it is, not something else. What they're trying to get away with is lying, i.e., false advertising. Verizon is right, here, and again Verizon is right about something. Yeah they're (all) sacks of crap, but the sack of crap that Verizon is is less a sack of crap than the others.
But when Comcast says "We have the largest fiber network in the country." They ARE telling the truth. All of their channels, internet traffic, and voice switching passes through the huge Comcast-owned fiber infrastructure that connects all of their systems in the country. In fact, other cable companies, including Verizon, pull channels off of that network. Any Comcast-owned cable network comes straight off of that infrastructure. Of course, Verizon would advertise that, would they?
I don't see other cable co's ads since I live in a Comcast system, so I can't comment on their ads' content.
Time-Warner's current ad campaign, obviously aimed at AT&T, is also another blatant lie. They state that "those other guys" (meaning AT&T U-verse) CHARGE you $10 a month for HD TV programming. OK, that's true, but the implication is that Time-Warner cable doesn't. They don't charge you for the HD programming per se, but you can't watch said HD programming without renting (for the same $10/month) a HD-capable DVR from Time-Warner. So the end result is the same...you want to watch HD? Pay more!
·
)
but, yes, cable uses a HFC system.. and technically, their system isn't possible WITHOUT the fiber in the system. It's the fiber that expanded the capability of the network to offer two-way services. I don't see cable stating that they are selling "fiber optic service" as it implied. Fiber IS in the system, and, like I said, the overwhelming majority of most customers traffic travels over fiber, not coax.
·
