Comments on news posted 2012-06-18 10:45:27: Verizon recently confirmed our exclusive insider information from early May that the company would not only be bumping several FiOS service tiers (25/25 becomes 50/25, 35/35 becomes 75/35) -- in addition to launching a new 300 Mbps tier. ..
The same tradeoff can be made with Cablevision's 50/8 vs 50/25... for $44.90 vs $70+ with Verizon. Of course when the 50/8 is $65.. it's within the ballpark of Verizon cutting a deal to gain subscribers. Verizon officially killed off symmetrical speeds for residential customers. Right now, internet is all I'm buying from a cable or telco so I'll gravitate to the best deal I can get. ATM, that is cablevision. One day, the entire tier list will see futher speed bumps but probably not for another two years. Look forward to writing about this in June 2014.
2012-Jun-18 7:01 pm: ·
NormanS I gave her time to steal my mind away Premium,MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA kudos:11
Not quite what you're asking for, but it looks like an improvement over what Comcast had before, albeit only being rolled out (for the moment) in FiOS areas.
Comcast is now allowing eight downstream channels to be bonded in some areas, plus three upstreams (though generally one of those upstreams is a half-width, DOCSIS 1.1 channel so it adds only 10 Mbps of capacity). Total available capacity at that point is around 300 mbps down, 70 Mbps up. Funny how Comcast would have to use its entire capacity to match Verizon's 300M tier...my guess is that Verizon sped up its highest-end tier just so that Comcast couldn't exactly match it.
What *can* Comcast do? As mentioned above, increase Blast speeds to match 50M FiOS, and increase Extreme 50 speeds to 105M down to, at least somewhat, be comparable to the 150M FiOS tier. This leaves somewhat of a gap at the high end ($200/mo) so they could put a 200-250M tier there in areas where they have eight channels to bond, with more upload speed as well. I'll bet there will be a 250M down, 35M up tier for $200 coming within the next three or four months to areas with FIOS competition. Not sure what speeds will end up being on the new 50M and 105M tiers though; my hope would be that they would just inherit the 15/20M upload speeds from the current 50/105 tiers, but that's such a huge upgrade for Blast customers (4 Mbps up now) that I'm not sure if I see that actually happening.
I never said it wasn't. In fact, off the top of my head I know that the capacity of one PON is 2.488 Gbps down, 1.244 Gbps up (OC-48 down, OC-24 up). This is how Chattanooga EPB is able to deliver symmetric gigabit service over GPON...it's a little bit of a squeeze to do that, but nothing nearly as shaky as Cablevision's habit of shoving 101/15 onto 3x1 bonded DOCSIS 3 channels, or 30/5 onto a single channel up and down a few years back.
I merely suggested that Verizon's 300M tier was placed just out of reach of Comcast's current network capacity at the last mile, so VZ won't have to upgrade its tier speeds until Comcast starts handing out 24-channel-bonded modems to its highest-end subscribers. Those modems are out now, but in order to use them Comcast would have to dedicate 144MHz of their cable network to downstream DOCSIS channels, out of maybe 800MHz available for downstream communications overall (860MHz total, minus below-the-split return path channels). At that point Comcast will be able to hit 300 Mbps without an issue, but that level of plant upgrades would take a year or so to complete across any significant portion of their network, leaving Verizon with a bunch of well-paying, friend-recommending power users once again.
it always amazed me how some of these incumbents were bringing fiber to home and then offering such lackluster speed. Qwest brought fiber to my home 5years ago, and the top speed was 6/2. WTF? The pipe was loaded with video nobody subscribed to, and while the connection was rock solid, the performance was not fiber-tastic. I guess since the monthly fee was built in to my HOA dues, they didn't have to care.
Let's inflate our prices under the guise of speed increase. Rather than giving more speed at same price tiers, or cheaper pricing for previous tier, they rape us.
And the feds just nod like bobble-heads...throw more (tax $$$) at the incumbent duopolies to bump out national broadband (cough).
Hey, don't get me wrong, I love my FioS. But I'm on the lower end of the pole (pun)...I went for a cheaper tier because I don't need 35Mbps or faster...now why am I liable for Verizon's loss? Why are any of us liable for this? Meanwhile, they aren't ripping out old copper plant for new! They are still raping DSL users (and not giving them the option of ftth). And still raping landline users.
I wonder if West Virginia will put those routers on ebay...at a loss -- Splat
2012-Jun-18 9:09 am: ·
HarleyYac Lee Premium join:2001-10-13 Allendale, NJ kudos:2
Re: Rapacious ...
Just called to down grade... As I had errors with the website. .I'll try tonight or tomorrow, didn't have time ti wait. .. -- My opinion on religion and science? Science builds airplanes. Religion flies them into buildings.
Hmm...the only tier that they actually raised the price on while giving the same speeds was their lowest-end one. If you don't have a need for speed, Comcast maybe?
In other cases, they may have raised a tier's price, but they raised its speed so much that you could downgrade, keep your previous speed (or get more speed) and may the same or less money. The shining example of this is the 150Mbps tier. It's now roughly $100 per month; the $200 price point got replaced by a $205 300/65 tier.
Your NET price went up, even if you downgraded your tier.. Verizon raised prices across the board.. so, it's pay up or LEAVE. Maybe if they lose more customers they might blink on cutting deals in retention or new customer aquisitions but not today.. I think the people who fell in love with the faster speeds aren't as quick to pay the higher prices these days the way the economy and personal budgets are today. The killer apps that work today at 20 megabits will still work fine at the lowest tiers.. there aren't enough killer apps to justify 300mbit connections or 150mbit connections. 95% will be on the lowest 50/25 tier and 4% on the 75mbit tier.. much less on 150 & 300... and all this caveats to the customer being convinced a higher price is worth the service. With the best cable deals you can save $30+ in comparison and that's too wide a gap for many.
Cable speeds fluctuate less than DSL speeds in my area. The idea that it's a cable-only problem is a myth started by DSL providers, not reality. If a provider's bandwidth demand exceeds their capacity, speeds will drop. Doesn't matter one iota if it's cable or DSL.
Seeing these price points and speed offerings, I'm not really sure this is an attempt to enhance FiOS, but an attempt to kill it.
Hear me out. To most people buying services, this kind of speed is not that important, if they even understand how broadband speed is calculated. 95% of the potential customers who are buying the 300/65 service are regular posters here.
But making their service less price competitive, I don't know how they can increase the take rate. That's the catch-22 for VZ here.
If they're not going to be promotional anymore in trying to lure customers away from the incumbent cable companies, then offering increased speed levels is not something that's mainstream enough to do it, IMO. And if that's the case, and they turn to a model similar to the other companies in not providing retention rates, then what's to stop people from turning back to Comcast/TWC/Cablevision/Cox?
It seems like a potentially divine set-up to say that nobody wants higher speeds (not because they don't, but because of the higher prices), to then claim that the market clearly wants 4G LTE and that we're not going to offer FiOS anymore.
I've always wanted to be able to get FiOS (I never will living here, even in a VZ ILEC area), but if there really is a premium price to have it, I'm not even sure I would prefer it to the cable company.
1) They're looking for the "premium" customer, or one who buys based more on features and less on price. This is the same dynamic with DirecTV versus DISH Network. DirecTV prices itself higher and, in return, has to deal less with customers who do things like don't pay on time. Verizon, I imagine has decided to stop competing on price and instead say "our stuff is AWESOME and those who know better will fork out for it." As long as FiOS has rock-solid reliability and sustained speeds, a (potentially) profitable minority will pay the extra bucks.
2) They've decided to really go after recouping the costs of the build-out. I mean, pedal-to-the-floor, paid-off-by-2016 fast. Shoveling more bits faster has a minimal incremental cost to a wired company, so if this can help them claim the need for higher rates, why not go for it? Verizon-the-landline company has been a break-even proposition at best for the past few years because of all the money they've spent on FiOS.
Plus, remember that the rates quoted above are outside of a regular bundle agreement, which Verizon really wants customers to take. Extreme HD + 50/20 is quoted at $104.99 for me, which is only $5 more than Time Warner Cable in the same market, with TWC offering half the transfer rate and fewer channels.
There's only one problem out there. How many premium customers are there really? I think in the age of biennial rate increases, there's far more people looking to penny-pinch, question what services they need, and whether they need any of them all (cutting the "cord", going all wireless).
If Verizon is going to ignore these people, then they're going to struggle to find new customers and keep old ones.
Yes, DirecTV has a premium product. But they also send me a promo every week for $29.95/month service. If you want Sunday Ticket, Extra Innings, that's there for you. But they're still trying to compete, and be all things to all people. While you can question their commitment to mainstream HD channels (the same way you can with FiOS), DirecTV is not just saying "We're better, pay for it". A request that simple would easily fall on deaf ears.
DirecTV does offer cheap rates, but now they're only to two types of customers: Existing customers who are off contract, and new customers who pass a credit check. That $29.95 is usually only good for 6 or 12 months, but you've just agreed to a 24 month contract; that's where DirecTV gets sneaky.
To answer your other question, I guess Verizon thinks there are enough premium customers in its footprint to make the gamble worthwhile. My uneducated guess is that they're probably right, or that this is how they'll position themselves for people who do TV cord cutting ("run 12 Roku boxes at the same time!").
The thought occurs to me that it's funny how the most profitable FiOS systems for Verizon are the ones it no longer owns. The ones it sold to Frontier and FairPoint (along with copper assets it no longer wanted) recouped most of Verizon's capital expense outlay, tax-free no less.
I never understood why VZ unloaded those. Could they not sell the copper and keep the fiber?
Frontier seemed to be trying to run those people off to Comcast.
EDIT: I should add that the previous residents of my house were DirecTV customers, so they probably think that because the dish is there, that I'll magically want their service. When they don't force me to buy Sunday Ticket to see the games I can here on basic cable, maybe we'll talk.
Your guess is as good as mine, especially for the Pacific Northwest and Indiana, the markets Frontier got. It's my understanding that Frontier actively argued against taking the fiber systems, but Verizon said "take them or no deal," so Frontier acquiesced because they wanted to expand their footprint. I suppose that Verizon didn't want to operate islands of fiber with no other Verizon facilities for hundreds of miles.
Frontier stopped trying to run people (and by "people," I mean "potential television subscribers") off by mid-last year. Now they've even gotten into the full swing of things by offering double play bundles and promotional rates. Of course, this could be trying to get people back on the fiber systems because there's a rumor going around that Frontier wants to buy Verizon's copper lines in Texas and California. If they do that and they can make the fiber systems Verizon foisted on them look good enough, maybe they can hand them back to Verizon... (Nah, it's probably something silly like not wasting all this money on an expensive fiber network and figuring they should actually try to turn a profit or something. )
In many markets, Verizon's competition is Comcast. $65 gets...wait for it...15 Mbps down, 3 Mbps up on Comcast, when you include modem rental. And I guarantee that latency and jitter are better on VZ.
Prices...and service speeds...go up quickly from there. But speeds go up more quickly than prices, because shoving more Mbps over a GPON network isn't nearly as big of a deal as it is on a more capacity-constrained HFC network (GPON has nearly 2.5 Gbps of downstream capacity and around 1.25 Gbps of upstream...an 8x3 channel typical DOCSIS network serves more subscribers with 300 Mbps down, 70 mbps up).
Verizon is playing to its strengths more than ever before; their network costs more money to build than cable, but it can run circles around cable performance-wise. Verizon could offer a gigabit down and 500 Mbps up with lower contention than cable could offer 150 Mbps down, 35 Mbps up. But that gigabit will likely cost more because...surprise...Verizon paid a lot to lay iber and wants to get its investment back.
Verizon invested over $30 BILLION dollars in FTTP/FIOS.. I doubt they'd want to kill it.. what's more likely is they are positioning themselves for a fight when the DOJ comes a-callin to see why the 1996 and 2005 telecom & cablecom reform acts haven't brought competition to the whole country.. and they have the big 3 telecom & cablecom companies to blame (some more than others, of course).
Verizon, AT&T and Comcast are responsible for some of the most incidious STATE LAWS to block 3rd party ISP's and municipal governments from deploying networks in places where they've refused, delayed and outright let obsolete technologies wither on the vine while they keep running to the bank with customers who have no other choice! These companies will eventually have to answer to one of three government check's on their franchise monopoly & duopolies... the DOJ, FCC and congress will weigh in on how to fix the issue of lack of competition. Don't think that the 6-strikes copyright violation plan will be the Texas style side-step to keep blocking real reforms!
Website crashes and Phone wait times are 20 min plus long!
Guess I am not the only one trying to downgrade or eliminate services .. Net Talk here I come »www.nettalk.com/en :/ -- My opinion on religion and science? Science builds airplanes. Religion flies them into buildings.
id pay for 150mbps im paying the same for 20/2 from mediacom but i live in AT&T land and Uverus is a joke
wtb national fiber network thats based on how UT set up Utopia imo the US govt should just buy out all the last mile lines and transfer them to the USPS upgrade every thing to FTTP GPON let any one that wants to sell phone/data/tv over them have at it
2012-Jun-18 10:48 am: ·
NY Tel Premium join:2004-04-09 Smithtown, NY kudos:3
Speeds not necessary
Just my two cents but I feel these speeds are totally overkill for the average user. I just upgraded from 15/5 to the 25X25 and really don't notice a big difference except for the upload. I get 30X30 already because of the overhead fluff built in and If VZ wants 10 dollars more from me a month - I'll keep what I have. It is plenty.
Anyone notice that it would be much cheaper(and faster upload) to get two of the 150mbps lines and then load balance them? the price increase makes no damn sense, other than to drive people away from it(so Verizon can say "we offered and people didnt want it).
My parents have FIOS and just recently got an offer for the 25/25 for a lower price for 2 years. Will they automatically get bumped up to 50/25 or will they stay 25/25 until their contract expires? -- The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired.
I just called to upgrade my service from the 25/25 to the 50/25. I asked the rep if the 50/25 was an automatic upgrade for the people already using the 25/25 service. The Verizon rep told me that you will not be upgraded unless you call and ask them. So I'd assume you will continue with your contract price and package until you decide to change it.
Changing it required me to renew my contract which wasn't an issue as I just renewed it the other month when I dropped my bundle package.
2012-Jun-18 10:39 am: ·
SqueeksDad I Miss Her Premium join:2002-09-14 Hyattsville, MD
Price goes up?
Just checked and keeping my exact same plan with the only change being the new 50/25 instead of my existing 25/25 the price goes up $10 a month? I thought the press release said that the price would stay the same. Keep in mind that I currently get 35/25 consistently on the 25/25. Not worth $10 a month for that little bit of bump. -- Ways to Relieve Stress #10. Make up a language and ask people for directions.
Hi, A:) Do we have to call and get the speed increase or is it automatic.
B:) if its not automatic does the price stay the same.. I got through to billing/Upgrades and they do not seem that knowledgeable on this point. -- My opinion on religion and science? Science builds airplanes. Religion flies them into buildings.
I love Fios, but it's gotten to the point where the price doesn't justify it anymore. And Verizon wonders why they haven't seen a massive amount of people switching from cable to Fios...look at those prices!
I've been a 15/5 customer @ $55/mo for a year now. I thought the original contract was just month-to-month (I couldn't find anything about contract term in my online account). So am I forced to pay another $10/mo for no change in service when I get next month's bill?
2012-Jun-18 1:05 pm: ·
Noah Vail Son made my Avatar Premium join:2004-12-10 Lorton, VA kudos:3