how-to block ads
|
Comments on news posted 2008-06-17 11:33:15: Last week I noted that for the first time ever, Verizon would be competing directly with AT&T by deploying FiOS into a portion of Texas already wired with U-Verse. The Dallas Morning News has more detail. ..
| |
 patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Verizon isn't a charity What happened here is very easy to explain and has nothing to do with Verizon being nice and wanting to bring FIOS or FTTP to all. I bet the video franchise agreement for that town/city/county requires 100% coverage accross the full territory (density limits apply of course). So if Verizon wants to offer TV in that town, they have to wire the whole town, not CO boundaries, the law doesn't see/care that they are a telco, they are a cable co by law.
I'm sure they checked in with ATT to make sure that ATT won't be Uversing the area in the next decade. Now the question will be, what about POTS/Landline service? will FIOS Phone/POTS exist? or will the service be FIOS Internet and FIOS TV only? or instead of FIOS Phone Verizon will advertize their rebranded VOIP offering? I don't see Verizon and ATT sharing a LEC switch in the ATT CO, or ATT delivering ISDN protocoled circuits to Verizon for transport to the FIOS ONTs for voice service? (this also means you get a Verizon bill, and an ATT bill, possibly a Verizon bill with an ATT section lol) | |
| | 
toolazytologin
@verizon.net
| Re: Verizon isn't a charity Verizon does not need to share a LEC switch with att to offer phone service in the areas it is expanding to. Customer's who sign up for Verizon phone service would be assigned a telephone number out of the CO that is serving the fiber. The only possible disadvantages would be that 1)The customer's local calling area will change to whatever the local calling area of the VZ CO is (however since its in the same town it shouldn't vary too much from the att CO) and 2)they may have to change their telephone number to an exchange from the VZ CO if LNP=local number portability is not possible between the att and VZ central offices. But the point is they don't have to play around with different POTS solutions. They would offer phone service exactly the same way they do today. Central offices were built to cover an area up to where the copper lines could reasonably reach and still provide good dialtone, with fiber you extend the reach much further. It is just like areas in North America that are unpopulated and then a town is started. A new CO usually isn't built, but rather the closest CO will serve that area, and if it is pretty far out, they usually will run fiber to a RT then feed copper from there. Same concept, the existing CO will serve a larger area, that is all. | |
| 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ | How about. . . A major attack in qwest areas? | |
| | jesseb_66
join:2002-12-06
Tucson, AZ | Re: How about. . . said by dvd536  :A major attack in qwest areas? I couldn't agree more! | |
|
vmanu2
@rr.com
| It's coming! Verizon has approached the City of Frisco about providing FiOS TV here, and the Company recently received approval from the Texas Public Utility Commission to do so.
Verizon will need to place fiber-optic lines past residences and businesses before it can offer FiOS Internet or TV service, and it will notify residents before its contractors begin construction in your neighborhoods.
Verizon has Web sites that provide more information on the FiOS services.Residents also can register to be notified when FiOS services are available.
Frisco is excited that residents will soon have another choice for broadband and TV services. Competition brings out the best in choice, in innovation, and in price.
Amy Gill
Assistant to the City Manager
From the City of Frisco Question & Answer Board | |
|
GoTribe08
@bankone.com
|  U-Verse Does FTTP
So while Verizon runs billions worth of fiber to get to 5 million homes, U-Verse will be in 20 million homes already and provide capital for AT&T to run fiber into older neighborhoods. | |
| |
toolazytologin
@verizon.net
| Re: U-Verse Does FTTP Verizon already does IPTV with their video on demand, and they have publically and officially stated that pure IPTV is not ready yet, but when it is they will migrate over to it. Their current solution far exceeds that of att. I have 5 HD TVs with Verizon all work fine no problems at all. Why can't att do that if their solution is as you say "superior". They max out at what? Two HD streams. Also I believe a town in CT showed how long it took to load a PEG channel. With VZ I just switch to a channel, and its on within 2 seconds. With Verizon I also get uncompressed HD. Does att compress their HD? I really don't know the answer but I imagine they have to in areas where the customer doesn't sync at 100 mbps with the gateway. I believe the areas furthest from the Vrad sync at around 25 mbps. That's not enough for two uncompressed HD feeds and 10 mbps internet. Also you say that att could just as easily run FTTP into Verizon territory. Really? Then why don't they start within their own territory like Verizon did. Verizon expanded its reach after already serving their own customers with FTTP in the town, and simply decided to serve the rest of the town (perhaps due to a franchise agreement). I will believe your argument that att's solution is better than VZ's when I see att be able to offer hd to all tvs in a home, when they can match VZ's internet speeds and not just current speeds up to 50 mbps, but VZ has already stated its only a flip of a switch for 100 mbps. | |
| | |
GoTribe08
@bankone.com
| Re: U-Verse Does FTTP Look, I'm not saying that the fiber network isn't cool if you can get it. What I am saying is that it will take 20 years for Verizon to even run fiber to most homes in their own service area. You cannot wait 20 years to rollout your service while you completely rewire the country with fiber.
U-Verse on fiber can provide even more HD channels than FIOS because it only needs to send you the channels that your TVs are currently watching (not all channels all of the time), this exponentially reduces the amount of bandwidth needed and therefore opens the bandwidth to be used for other channels/services/faster-broadband. IPTV may not be ready for Verizon, but others including AT&T use it now.
The network U-Verse runs on is not superior to the fiber FIOS runs on, however the technology must be better just to get the service to work today on copper.
The real proof that AT&T has the more sustainable strategy is that Verizon is adopting it:
»Verizon Considers 'Fiber to the Node' FiOS | |
| | | |
Vols89
@ONTARGETPARTNERS.com
| Re: U-Verse Does FTTP I live in Frisco and currently have UVerse and actually like it a lot. I am definately going to look at the FIOS option because my sister in Southlake has it and it seems to be a better service. You do need to reread the article that you linked because it is saying that Verizon is looking at the Fiber to the Node option in RURAL AREAS ONLY. It states it several times. No offense to rural areas but it is simply because it would not make financial sense to put pump so much money into a FTTH network in these areas. So what the article actually prooves is that Verizon has put a superior network in areas where it is profitable while AT&T took the cheap way out with a inferior network to expand faster and make a higher profit. LOL Now that is the AT&T I have known for a while now.  Companies are in the business to make money, I get that but in the end, you get what you pay for usually holds true. | |
|
Vols89
@ONTARGETPARTNERS.com
| Just Read the Article Just to let you know, I currently have UVerse, live in Frisco, and I love it but would prefer to look at Fios options because my sister has it in Southlake and it seems to be a much better. My main reason for replying is to address your "The real proof that AT&T has the more sustainable strategy is that Verizon is adopting it:" comment. Did you read the article? It mentions several time that Verizon is considering Fiber to the Node in RURAL AREAS because it would cost to much to build out a FTTH network in less populated areas which makes sense. So they are ONLY considering the less "superior" FTTN option where, no offense to rural areas, there would be less of a return on their investment so they are taking the cheaper way like AT&T has done in densely populated areas. LOL The article is actually in conflict with your arguement. | |
| | | |
|
