| just curious i wonder if how the speeds and prices compare to the speed and prices of cable internet access in U-verse deployed areas. all hail duopolies?
i could see wanting a uniform experience when there is very very few FTTH customers, but they must be smoking something strong if they really think it is a 'good' idea to keep up that practice for long (increased FTTH deployment). looking at the U-verse situation from just as a lowly consumer with knowledge, it seems like there is a lot of untapped potential in the U-verse network.
i don't really care if they first do FTTN then FTTH as long as speeds and pings improve, along with quality of service. some people hate the idea, but to me, it seems like getting a town wired up (and 'live') for FTTN happens faster and cheaper than FTTH, which the 1/3 of Verizon's 23 million number seems to back up. it is sort hard to compare Verizon's number to ATT's numbers because there maybe different equipment used, but more importantly is how aggressive the deployment is. |
| They just upgraded my area to Uverse, and two of my next door neighbors have it. One has been very complimentary about it, but he has very little tech experience. I haven't talked to the other, but I had considered ordering it and trying it out. I'd suffer a reduction to 6 down from 7 (Time Warner) for a $10/mo price drop. But I've been told by one of their reps, that I either get the WHOLE package (including video) or nothing. I want naked internet, not video, not phone... just internet- but according to their rep (who referred to it as "cable") I can't get the bare line. How stupid is that?!? |
