 Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·Bright House
| Sooooo now what? ... now what do you AT&T U-verse haters have to say about FTTN/P??? Are you going to just argue "Fios' lowest speed is faster than AT&T's highest" again? That ones played out. You have no idea what U-verse is capable of, and you have no idea what FTTN/P Fios' limitations can/will be. | |
|
 |  PoloDudePremium,VIP
join:2006-03-29
Northport, NY
kudos:2 | Re: Sooooo now what? This is stated as a potential option, not a plan. Unlike AT&T. | |
|
|  DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | I still say it sucks, but unlike AT&T who half-asses it everywhere, it's a last ditch effort for Verizon to service the otherwise unservable. | |
|
| | | | Re: Sooooo now what? the lesson: if rural areas want fttp, they are going to have to do it themselves | |
|
|  TzaleProud Libertarian ConservativePremium
join:2004-01-06
NYC Metro | said by weaseled386:... now what do you AT&T U-verse haters have to say about FTTN/P??? Are you going to just argue "Fios' lowest speed is faster than AT&T's highest" again? That ones played out. You have no idea what U-verse is capable of, and you have no idea what FTTN/P Fios' limitations can/will be. Difference is that I HAVE FIOS (FTTH) right now.... This is a viable option for RURAL customers who would otherwise never see fiber optics at all. Since when has it been new for a company to try to turn a profit? 
FTTN is a flawed approach IMHO for the majority of suburban / urban locations... But for rural customers, it is much better than any options they have available today.
-Tzale | |
|
| |  GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:16 | Re: Sooooo now what? It depends how you're defining a node. FTTN without remotes is useless in rural environments, because domiciles will be far enough away from the CO that the bottleneck will be on the last mile, not the node's upstream link.
If you're spewing remotes everywhere (Bell Canada is taking this approach with their FTTN network), then it has a chance of success. But you need to build out an awfully huge number of remotes to make it work so that most people can get close enough to the DSLAM to get any decent speed.
In fact, with pair bonding, you can only push 30mbit downstream speed out to 2.5km at MOST. VSL2, which mimics ADSL2+ performance on the downstream at such distances, may provide higher upstream rates (ADSL2+ will only give up to 7mbit for two bonded lines under any conditiosn).
I'm currently in the Montreal downtown core. I'm 2.4km from the CO. Other nearby friends have longer loop distances. I could theoretically get FIOS-like speeds, others can't, and we're all in a densely populated area.
So, I'm repeating myself and rambling, but my overall point is that FTTN can provide the speeds they need, but would require remote DSLAM installations even in densely populated areas. | |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | USF causes this How much simpler can you get than
»www.corningcablesystems.com/web/···7-EN.pdf
which is what Verizon already is starting to use in new deployment?
The only reason Verizon is looking at FTTN (AKA Uverse) for rural areas is since USF doesn't pay for fiber maintenence. Rural areas are screwed forever. | |
|
|  halfbandPremium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL
·Comcast
| Re: USF causes this Fiber maintenance is supposed to be cheap, far cheaper than copper. They are trying to reduce build out costs. Fiber builds while far cheaper than 2 years ago are still very expensive. In very rural areas it does not make any kind of economic sense yet, they are looking for alternatives.
--
Registered Bandwidth Offender #40812 | |
|
| | | | Re: USF causes this My father in-law works for a rural telcom that you have never heard of in a county in nevada you have never heard of. Total number of residents in the county is probably about 5000 spread over 100's of square miles, most residents are concentrated in 3 towns of approximately 300, 600 and 1500 people respectively with the remaining residents in farmsteads. They are building out a FTTP network because it does make economic sense. Fiber has many many benefits over copper, resistance to water infiltration and EM interferance are just a couple that are huge maintenance issues with copper. According to what he has told me the installed cost per resident is around $1200 right now and costs are falling dramatically year on year. Conduit has all been purchased and is currently being installed using in-house crews. In a year or two they will buy the fiber and pull and splice and probably in about 5 the entire county will be FTTP.
You don't get more rural than the telecom in question and they are confident that fiber makes sense. As someone else said, Wall street and their short sided vision of quarterly profits, not long term viability are the difficult sell. Any CEO worth his money will take the short 5 year hit to the stock to build out the fiber and realize the long term benefits of a fully fiber network. | |
|
| | | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
3 edits | Re: USF causes this In this era of investor activism I wouldn't be surprised if it was argued that a CEO is in breach of fiduciary duty if they take actions that negatively affect the stock price like building a a very expensive network, even if there is a ROI later on. A lot of investors, even institutional investors are extremely short-sighted and don't give a crap about long term viability. They want their profits yesterday, the future be damned. That's why companies like Cox are in a great position. | |
|
| | |  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5 | Scale also has a major deciding factor. What makes sense for your F-i-L in one county doesn't necessarily equate to making sense for Verizon for hundreds of counties. | |
|
| | | Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
| said by rahvin112:My father in-law works for a rural telcom that you have never heard of in a county in nevada you have never heard of. ... You don't get more rural than the telecom in question and they are confident that fiber makes sense. As someone else said, Wall street and their short sided vision of quarterly profits, not long term viability are the difficult sell. Any CEO worth his money will take the short 5 year hit to the stock to build out the fiber and realize the long term benefits of a fully fiber network. Of course this is true.
I think Verizon is trying to placate some of the heavy-handed anti-FTTP crowd that's attacking them while at the same time placate the "cherry-picking" extremists who insist everyone must use the lowest common denominator. I hope they actually fail to achieve that threatened placation, though. It'd be better if they don't build anything at all, and leave it to some other rural provider that is willing to invest in it properly. | |
|
| | | TzaleProud Libertarian ConservativePremium
join:2004-01-06
NYC Metro | said by rahvin112:My father in-law works for a rural telcom that you have never heard of in a county in nevada you have never heard of. Total number of residents in the county is probably about 5000 spread over 100's of square miles, most residents are concentrated in 3 towns of approximately 300, 600 and 1500 people respectively with the remaining residents in farmsteads. They are building out a FTTP network because it does make economic sense. Fiber has many many benefits over copper, resistance to water infiltration and EM interferance are just a couple that are huge maintenance issues with copper. According to what he has told me the installed cost per resident is around $1200 right now and costs are falling dramatically year on year. Conduit has all been purchased and is currently being installed using in-house crews. In a year or two they will buy the fiber and pull and splice and probably in about 5 the entire county will be FTTP. You don't get more rural than the telecom in question and they are confident that fiber makes sense. As someone else said, Wall street and their short sided vision of quarterly profits, not long term viability are the difficult sell. Any CEO worth his money will take the short 5 year hit to the stock to build out the fiber and realize the long term benefits of a fully fiber network. As I sit here typing this from a building on Wall Street, I have to respectively disagree....
Companies only exist to turn a profit and make their employees richer... They don't exist as a charity... FTTH in a rural area is a waste. In a town of 300, 600 or 1500 people it WILL work... Hell, we have had people on this site provide fiber to the home service to one or two block areas (10 - 20 customers)... But it simply isn't worth running fiber to one customer every five miles... Think about what you're saying... Wherever there is relatively close locations that need to be linked, it will work.. But you also have to consider the profit ratio to cost.. Companies are not charities and aren't going to spend thousands of man hours and millions of dollars to make a couple thousand dollars per year from a small town in the middle of no where... This is where LOCAL telecoms (like the one you mentioned) shine compared to the conglomerate telecoms.
-Tzale | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·World Lynx
| Re: USF causes this said by Tzale:said by rahvin112:My father in-law works for a rural telcom that you have never heard of in a county in nevada you have never heard of. Total number of residents in the county is probably about 5000 spread over 100's of square miles, most residents are concentrated in 3 towns of approximately 300, 600 and 1500 people respectively with the remaining residents in farmsteads. They are building out a FTTP network because it does make economic sense. Fiber has many many benefits over copper, resistance to water infiltration and EM interferance are just a couple that are huge maintenance issues with copper. According to what he has told me the installed cost per resident is around $1200 right now and costs are falling dramatically year on year. Conduit has all been purchased and is currently being installed using in-house crews. In a year or two they will buy the fiber and pull and splice and probably in about 5 the entire county will be FTTP. You don't get more rural than the telecom in question and they are confident that fiber makes sense. As someone else said, Wall street and their short sided vision of quarterly profits, not long term viability are the difficult sell. Any CEO worth his money will take the short 5 year hit to the stock to build out the fiber and realize the long term benefits of a fully fiber network. As I sit here typing this from a building on Wall Street, I have to respectively disagree.... Publicly traded Companies only exist to turn a profit and make their shareholders and CEOs employees richer... They don't exist as a charity... FTTH in a rural area is a waste. In a town of 300, 600 or 1500 people it WILL work... Hell, we have had people on this site provide fiber to the home service to one or two block areas (10 - 20 customers)... But it simply isn't worth running fiber to one customer every five miles... Think about what you're saying... Wherever there is relatively close locations that need to be linked, it will work.. But you also have to consider the profit ratio to cost.. Companies are not charities and aren't going to spend thousands of man hours and millions of dollars to make a couple thousand dollars per year from a small town in the middle of no where... This is where LOCAL telecoms (like the one you mentioned) shine compared to the conglomerate telecoms. -Tzale Fixed it for ya!  | |
|
| | | | | TzaleProud Libertarian ConservativePremium
join:2004-01-06
NYC Metro | Re: USF causes this said by N10Cities:said by Tzale:said by rahvin112:My father in-law works for a rural telcom that you have never heard of in a county in nevada you have never heard of. Total number of residents in the county is probably about 5000 spread over 100's of square miles, most residents are concentrated in 3 towns of approximately 300, 600 and 1500 people respectively with the remaining residents in farmsteads. They are building out a FTTP network because it does make economic sense. Fiber has many many benefits over copper, resistance to water infiltration and EM interferance are just a couple that are huge maintenance issues with copper. According to what he has told me the installed cost per resident is around $1200 right now and costs are falling dramatically year on year. Conduit has all been purchased and is currently being installed using in-house crews. In a year or two they will buy the fiber and pull and splice and probably in about 5 the entire county will be FTTP. You don't get more rural than the telecom in question and they are confident that fiber makes sense. As someone else said, Wall street and their short sided vision of quarterly profits, not long term viability are the difficult sell. Any CEO worth his money will take the short 5 year hit to the stock to build out the fiber and realize the long term benefits of a fully fiber network. As I sit here typing this from a building on Wall Street, I have to respectively disagree.... Publicly traded Companies only exist to turn a profit and make their shareholders and CEOs employees richer... They don't exist as a charity... FTTH in a rural area is a waste. In a town of 300, 600 or 1500 people it WILL work... Hell, we have had people on this site provide fiber to the home service to one or two block areas (10 - 20 customers)... But it simply isn't worth running fiber to one customer every five miles... Think about what you're saying... Wherever there is relatively close locations that need to be linked, it will work.. But you also have to consider the profit ratio to cost.. Companies are not charities and aren't going to spend thousands of man hours and millions of dollars to make a couple thousand dollars per year from a small town in the middle of no where... This is where LOCAL telecoms (like the one you mentioned) shine compared to the conglomerate telecoms. -Tzale Fixed it for ya! Wrong.
How many companies exist that aren't interested in making a profit? The only reason people get up in the morning and go to work is because they want to make money to enjoy in their spare time... Think about it...
-Tzale
--
Neoconservatives (G.W.B) are not true conservatives. A conservative believes in defending the Constitution. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - RON PAUL 2008 | |
|
|  ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
 ·VOIPo
| said by patcat88:How much simpler can you get than » www.corningcablesystems.com/web/···7-EN.pdfwhich is what Verizon already is starting to use in new deployment? The only reason Verizon is looking at FTTN (AKA Uverse) for rural areas is since USF doesn't pay for fiber maintenence. Rural areas are screwed forever. Bingo..... | |
|
| dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | said by patcat88:How much simpler can you get than » www.corningcablesystems.com/web/···7-EN.pdfwhich is what Verizon already is starting to use in new deployment? The only reason Verizon is looking at FTTN (AKA Uverse) for rural areas is since USF doesn't pay for fiber maintenence. Rural areas are screwed forever. Did you think about your post at all before making it?
The maintaince costs for fiber are very low compared to copper. The deployment costs, however, are very high. It's really that simple. | |
|
| | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: USF causes this So far it looks like 25 Mbps is the max you can get with VDSL. At least, AT&T's version. After that you have to bond. And please, please don't start putting VRADs everywhere Verizon...
And really, I'd love fiber everywhere. Would probably allow for cheaper business and carrier class fiber installations as well. However I can see why it'd be uneconomical at this point to lay it all the way out to very rural areas. In which case, I'd be happy with FTTP\FTTN VDSL or ADSL2+ at 20 Mbps down and 2 up. Sure beats the current options, that top out at $100 for 2 Mbps down and highly variable (512k ish) up if you want something that isn't limited to 5GB a month or have satellite-class latency.
Oh wait, lots of town can't even get DSL. The lines are all screwy. Back to square one. | |
|
| | | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
3 edits | Re: USF causes this Bonded DSL can be a good alternative for Verizon to offer all the services they do to FTTH except their biggest HSI tiers.
And current DSL offerings don't really matter since VZ would in effect be gutting "first mile" stuff. | |
|
| | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: USF causes this Right. Bonded DSL, as in DSL2+ or VDSL, could get you 50 Mbps or maybe 30 a ways from the CO. The end result being as much as 20-30 Mbps internet and the TV stuff. Sounds fine to me, though without the cool factor of light running to your house. | |
|
| | | | | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: USF causes this What I think they (and AT&T) should do is keep the DBS partnership and reserve that throughput for HSI instead of half-assing video and HSI. | |
|
| | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: USF causes this Good idea, but then cable has one up on 'em for offering all three services (TV, voice, internet) over one line. Of course, I'd love to be able to get a 25 Mbps VDSL line from AT&T (though I'm not in their area so moot point) because I could care less about TV. Of course, I could have both TV and internet with no problem on FiOS as fiber can support those extreme types of speeds, but I'd rather not be capped on my internet speeds in less capacity friendly situations (xDSL) just because I *might* get TV. | |
|
| | | | | | | Nuts
join:2006-04-27
Forest, OH | Re: USF causes this Your assuming that cable reaches everyone that verizon will be able to with fttn. If cable doesn't go down a road like the one I live on and verizon will extend dsl service to my house, then they have two services and cable none. | |
|
| | | | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: USF causes this True dat. Also, about the VDSL2 etc. and bonding, I didn't know that VDSL2 could get that much extra bandwidth, but I also didn't know it was that short-range. Looks like if VDSL were to be the upgrade path for my area i still wouldn't be able to get access. Houses are spaced too far apart here and I'm only about two miles out of town... | |
|
| | | | | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | said by Nuts:Your assuming that cable reaches everyone that verizon will be able to with fttn. If cable doesn't go down a road like the one I live on and verizon will extend dsl service to my house, then they have two services and cable none. If an area doesn't have cable, its too rural and not profitable enough for anything more than USF funded POTS. | |
|
| | | Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by iansltx:So far it looks like 25 Mbps is the max you can get with VDSL. At least, AT&T's version. After that you have to bond. Nope -- they have lots of room to increase bahdwidth to the home even with their FTTN rollout.
The AT&T VRAD boxes are already VDSL2 capable, which when turned on will double speeds to 50 megabits even up to 3000 feet.
The current VDSL is synching to my house at 56 megabits. However I am less than 1000 feet away. AT&T caps the available service at 25 megabits total (10 for Internet access) right now.
Pair bonding will be used to extend the reach of a VRAD out to over a mile -- not so much to increase speed. | |
|
 Fubar
join:2001-02-20
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:2 | Woohoo This means I have FTTH with my cable co, Since they do fiber to the node... Right??????
| |
|
|  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | Re: Woohoo said by Fubar:This means I have FTTH with my cable co, Since they do fiber to the node... Right?????? yeah and look for the same lackluster offerings you get on cables FTTN crap. I cant believe verizon wants to give up the edge they have over cable to save a few pennies.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|
| | | | Re: Woohoo said by dvd536:said by Fubar:This means I have FTTH with my cable co, Since they do fiber to the node... Right?????? yeah and look for the same lackluster offerings you get on cables FTTN crap. I cant believe verizon wants to give up the edge they have over cable to save a few pennies. I agree with you on that point. While investors may be interested in quick profits, this isn't even that long term of profit expectation.
When verizon runs FTTH and then offers FIOSTV, you end up not only snagging a few people who prefer the fiber, but you can also snag the true base from cable, the TV market.
This isn't just internet that Verizon is selling here. | |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | The only way 'cause it's simply too expensive (at this point) to deploy to very remote homes.
At least those users would have something in the near(er) term. Advanced DSL is good for better than 25Mb and AT&T is talking bonded DSL for even better speeds. Of course it will never be as good as true FTTP but they would finally have an option other than cable. | |
|
|  danclan
join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA | Re: The only way said by Dogfather:'cause it's simply too expensive (at this point) to deploy to very remote homes. At least those users would have something in the near(er) term. Advanced DSL is good for better than 25Mb and AT&T is talking bonded DSL for even better speeds. Of course it will never be as good as true FTTP but they would finally have an option other than cable. today yes...in three years who knows...I am betting they want to hedge their bets and even today it would be cheaper to decom the copper and install all fiber just in the electrical costs alone if only they would be allowed to scrap the copper and recycle it.... | |
|
| patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | said by Dogfather:'cause it's simply too expensive (at this point) to deploy to very remote homes. Then why do they have copper POTS? If someone can afford to maintain copper POTS for decades and replace it every 2-3 decades, they can afford fiber. | |
|
| | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
1 edit | Re: The only way I didn't know they replace copper every 2-3 decades. I don't know anyone who had ever had their copper replaced and have never seen Verizon do it. | |
|
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: The only way said by Dogfather:I didn't know they replace copper every 2-3 decades. I don't know anyone who had ever had their copper replaced and have never seen Verizon do it. Trunk lines do get replaced every couple decades. At former bed and breakfast, until the 1960s there was a party line for the property shared with the rest of the road, when my friend bought the property and ordered phone service, personal lines were now available and the party lines were grandfathered around that time. The trunk line there today looks less than 20 years old, shiny plastic trunk line, and 3M branded plastic splice cases. In NYC in my neighborhood, some areas have new looking plastic trunk lines, and older white fabric trunk lines, and also there are ancient western electric metal splice cases, and plastic splice cases. Pairs die inside trunk lines over time, at a certain point, you'll have to replace the trunk line or you'll have to deny lines or install simple pair gain devices to have lines, and even pair gains will stop working if you run out of pairs. | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Offer An Option I wonder if Verizon would be willing to allow for subscribers to simply pay them to run fiber to their homes? If anything, that would solve the profitability question and there probably are more than a few people who would take Verizon up on such an offer.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
| | $$$ Looks like Verizon ran out of things to sell to fund the rollout.
FTTN is the best solution to me. More people getting next gen technology quicker. FTTH is way to costly.
Run wireless from node to homes is what they should aim at. Too bad the technology is not there yet. | |
|
|
See 12 replies to this post |
|
| | Rural America, actual talk about upgrading its services Unlike AT&T's FTTN, here is Verizon actually talking about upgrading services to rural America as apposed to just ignoring it completely. FTTN is better than copper alone and nothing at all. | |
|
| PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | Re: Rural America, actual talk about upgrading its services I'll believe it when I see it. As far as I can see, Verizon has little interest in deployment of broadband to rural neighborhoods where they don't face competition from an MSO.
Our neighborhood already has "fiber to the node": the neighborhood is served by a fiber run from the CO, that serves the Remote cabinet that drives the copper loops. VZ could easily support DSL from it, according to VZ techs I've talked to (in fact, the same cabinet design is used in much of the ex-GTE territory). But Verizon has decided they won't (also from the same VZ techs). | |
|
| | I gladly welcome FTTN or anything for rural customers Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have FTTH, but I know that it's not going to happen anytime soon where I live. We are lucky to have stable power, and most people are still using dialup over poor quality lines. However, if Verizon can start rolling out FTTN and forcing wireless, sat, cable or other telcos to compete on price and service then we are better off. | |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Fairpoint Note that Verizon stated that the Fairpoint deal was more complicated than they would have liked, and so they aren't planning on outright selling off certain divisions- I suppose this is the answer? I've heard Verizon was interested in getting rid of GTE North next, so I suppose that would be in the region to get this?
Actually, this is a random comment from Verizon's Chief Technology Officer, who also says that this would be past 2010, and that he has no idea what the turning point would be away from FTTP?
And, Verizon's stock has been falling lately, they were recently downgraded from "Buy" to "Neutral" - it's nice to look like you're interested in cost savings to try to reassure nervous investors. | |
|
|
| dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | Re: Sparse and FTTN don't mix, though. You have it backwards. The copper and facilities to support it are already in place; fiber is very expensive to deploy. It's a lot more economical to run one fiber connection to a dslam and use existing copper to the home than to run hundreds of fiber connections over many miles to individual homes in a rural area. | |
|
 TechnogeezAgape in amazement.Premium
join:2007-01-20 | From where did you pull FTTN? A better headline would be "Karl Believes Verizon Will Have To Consider FTTN."
--
Read your contract and TOS before signing anything. | |
|
| | You have to love capitalism. Fiber to the home in rural areas is profitable, just not profitable enough. The government clearly needs to step in and require a fiber optic upgrade of phone networks. I bet that will allow verizon to be happy with the profits. | |
|
| EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Re: You have to love capitalism. Government subsidies make everything better! | |
|
| |  a333A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
 ·Cingular Wireless
| Re: You have to love capitalism. No... the gov't should roll out fiber, then turn it over to the ILEC, but under strict, ENFORCED conditions that require equal sharing of the last mile resources with CLEC's, and give the ILEC a slap in the face should they try to screw around with CLEC customer orders. | |
|
| | | | | Re: You have to love capitalism. No point, the government would just contract the work out to the phone companies since they have all the resources. It would be best just to tell the companies to make fiber to the home. And it has to be fiber to the home because fiber to the node make it difficult for competition to lease the lines. | |
|
 ztmikeMark for moderationPremium
join:2001-08-02
Michigan City, IN | Rural? What does Verizon think of a "rural town" the town over 10 miles from me has Verizon DSL ..but only has a population of around 39,000 or so
--
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdYueIC1pjM | |
|
| EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Re: Rural? Since when is 39,000 "rural"? My town of 20,000 has FiOS deployed. | |
|
| a333A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY Reviews:
·Cingular Wireless
| I have the feeling that Verizon's deployment policy has little to do with population, and a lot to do with local competition. If the only alternative to DSL in your town is 1 M/128K cable service from some unheard-of cable company, I highly doubt Verizon is interested in rolling out FiOS. However, if your town is getting DOCSIS 3.0 in the near future, then I'd say Verizon probably has you in their roll-out to-do list. | |
|
| | fttN They will call it CABLE TV INSTEAD OF FIOS. | |
|
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| fttn/c You know where this is going to be built... right?
Think areas currently trying to be offered DSL such as western MA, parts of WV, VT, and rural areas not already sold under Fairpoint deal.
I'm not convinced that $50 for tier that was 15/2 - 10/2 - 5/2 depending upon where you lived in the VZ footprint going to 20/20 footprint wide for $65 will sell very well unless what the cable company offers is horrible or nonexistent. Bring the price back down to $50 | |
|
jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 Reviews:
·ELECTRONICBOX
| Isn't Fibre better for longer distances ? Something I don't quite understand. Fibre cab offer great speeds over long distances. Heck, they could offer 100mbps to everyone with fibre going from home to the distance CO (as long as the CO is within say 40km range).
No need for remotes/pedestals.
So why don't they just string long fibre runs in rural areas to reach individual customers ? Do they really need to invest in remotes for such areas ? | |
|
| a333A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY Reviews:
·Cingular Wireless
| Re: Isn't Fibre better for longer distances ? They COULD, in theory, do that. However, the logistics involved in trenching and laying the fiber, and the sheer amount of new equipment required, makes it financially not feasible for deployment in sparsely populated rural areas. (IE the ROI just doesn't justify deployment in said areas for VZ).
By at least FTTN, it may be a stepping stone for future FTTH, although it'll be more expensive/complicated in the end, as big V will be locked into an active fiber network in rural areas, instead of the cheaply-maintained PON (passive network) that they're deploying today. | |
|
|
trish2
join:2008-03-24
Laurens, SC | Verizon considers 'Fiber to the Node' FiOS If this is what Verizon plans to bring FTTN to areas such as Upstate South Carolina where I live, DON'T BOTHER TO COME TO OUR STATE!! We demand full FTTH FiOS only!! | |
|
| | I am one of those 'rural Americans' and I would LOVE to have some other option to Charter. I hate Charter. If I can't get full FTTH FiOS, I'm certain that FTTN is better than Charter. Verizon I'm certain has no plans to ad FTTN FiOS to my place and I'm too far away from their CO to get DSL. Do it! Please!
--
Time... beckoning me. | |
|
| | FiOS verizon has informed me that they have fiber optic at a switching station in st regis falls, ny, but they will NEVER install an isdn or dsl service to ANY of its customers in this town. St regis falls is so rural that wireless communications is impossible. An analog signal is possible but only if it connects to Rogers Communications in Canada, a mere 25 miles north of St Regis Falls, then you are playing around with high cost air time over international borders.
Will verizon ever have high speed internet? Representative was quoted as saying not for another 50 years to this town. | |
|
|
|
Wireless is the way to go
