cacoPremium
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK | Verizon chiefs not thinking it through. If you have a weapon( 100Mbps FiOS)that you only have to fire once then you fire it and get the speed marketing war over before it even begins.
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil |
|
 maartenaElmoPremium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:1
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·DIRECTV
| said by caco:If you have a weapon( 100Mbps FiOS)that you only have to fire once then you fire it and get the speed marketing war over before it even begins. Problem is that you can market 100 Mbps all you want, but it isn't going to get you anywhere if FIOS only has a very limited area of where it is actually available.
The are advertising FIOS here on local TV, and the Los Angeles area is about 60% Verizon, 40% AT&T.... besides the fact that at least 40% will never see FIOS, only about a quarter of the remaining 60% is FIOS ready, and they are mostly suburbia-areas right outside of Los Angeles.
FIOS is nice as a product from a technical point of view, but Verizon promising to wire up all of New York before 2012 and Philidelphia before 2011 does give you some insight in how long it will take to wire up a city.
In contrast, DOCSIS 3.0 deployment (which can also deliver 100 Mbps) can be done on existing cables, and just needs equipment on the head-ends replaced, and anyone wishing a subscription with DOCSIS 3.0 speed, need to replace their modem.
The deployment of a 100 Mbps speed, is probably going to be easier for cable companies. And less costly. |
|
JPLPremium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:1 | said by maartena:said by caco:If you have a weapon( 100Mbps FiOS)that you only have to fire once then you fire it and get the speed marketing war over before it even begins. Problem is that you can market 100 Mbps all you want, but it isn't going to get you anywhere if FIOS only has a very limited area of where it is actually available. The are advertising FIOS here on local TV, and the Los Angeles area is about 60% Verizon, 40% AT&T.... besides the fact that at least 40% will never see FIOS, only about a quarter of the remaining 60% is FIOS ready, and they are mostly suburbia-areas right outside of Los Angeles. FIOS is nice as a product from a technical point of view, but Verizon promising to wire up all of New York before 2012 and Philidelphia before 2011 does give you some insight in how long it will take to wire up a city. In contrast, DOCSIS 3.0 deployment (which can also deliver 100 Mbps) can be done on existing cables, and just needs equipment on the head-ends replaced, and anyone wishing a subscription with DOCSIS 3.0 speed, need to replace their modem. The deployment of a 100 Mbps speed, is probably going to be easier for cable companies. And less costly. You're kinda missing the point here. So what if FiOS isn't available everywhere yet? This move will push cable providers to migrate to DOCSIS 3.0. For example, it really doesn't matter that FiOS isn't currently available in all of NYC yet - their roll-out in that market has lit a fire under the butts of companies like CV - all of a sudden DOCSIS 3.0 in that market has become essential, which will help everyone within their footprint as well, whether FiOS is there yet or not. |
|
|
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| reply to caco
They have to do testing first, I'm sure...
But if they offer 100/20 or (God forbid) 100/50 at the same price as 50/20 ow (entirely possible) Comcast has to go back to the drawing board; 3-channel DOCSIS 3 can only reach those speeds if nobody else is using the system, and only on multithreaded downloads. Since Comcast only has singlechannel upstream on their current DOCSIS 3 rolout, 20 Mbps is impossible to give 100% of the time.
Basically, when Verizon releases 100 Mbps FiOS, Comcast and all other providers transitioning to a 3/1 (D/U channel) D3 system are pwnd like n00bs. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | said by iansltx:Basically, when Verizon releases 100 Mbps FiOS, Comcast and all other providers transitioning to a 3/1 (D/U channel) D3 system are pwnd like n00bs. Yep, 10 channel DOCSIS 3 (max the standard can do) is 380mbit per node. FIOS is 622 or 2500 mbit per node, with max 32 customers on 1 node. Uncomparable to DOCSIS 3. |
|
Gogo1
join:2004-05-27
Brooklyn, NY | reply to maartena
said by maartena:
Problem is that you can market 100 Mbps all you want, but it isn't going to get you anywhere if FIOS only has a very limited area of where it is actually available.
But Verizon are fine with it or they would roll it out more and faster. If you have a problem with the speed they are rolling out at, then go to another company. Oh wait, there isnt one. Why is that?
quote:
The are advertising FIOS here on local TV, and the Los Angeles area is about 60% Verizon, 40% AT&T.... besides the fact that at least 40% will never see FIOS,
Why will 40% never see FIOS? Are Verizon legally restricted from offering service in AT&T territory? It was implied to me (»Re: Unfair comparsion..) that the broadband industry in America is a free market. If Verizon are legally restricted from offering people service then you need to make your voice heard in the voting booth. Unfortunately for you the recent election gave you a choice between socialism (Bush/McCain) and socialism (Obama). So sorry, but there is going to continue to be low competition and ever more market intervention and distortion for you. (That's less competition, so less innovation, and higher prices in layman's terms.)
quote:
only about a quarter of the remaining 60% is FIOS ready, and they are mostly suburbia-areas right outside of Los Angeles.
Are AT&T allowed to build in these areas? Are TWC, Comcast, Cablevision allowed? No? Then why would Verizon work any faster?
I no longer live in the US, but when I was there I had the choice between Verizon and TWC. (And Verizon couldnt give me DSL because there was fiber on my line. So I had the choice of TWC or a TWC reseller like Earthlink.) Can someone explain to me why I couldnt get Optimum or AT&T or Comcast? Do these companies just choose not to serve certain areas? Or are there restrictions? (ie the market is not free.)
quote:
FIOS is nice as a product from a technical point of view, but Verizon promising to wire up all of New York before 2012 and Philidelphia before 2011 does give you some insight in how long it will take to wire up a city.
In contrast, DOCSIS 3.0 deployment (which can also deliver 100 Mbps) can be done on existing cables, and just needs equipment on the head-ends replaced, and anyone wishing a subscription with DOCSIS 3.0 speed, need to replace their modem.
Good. This will encourage Verizon to get their ass in gear or lose market share. This is a good thing. If they literally cant beat the timeline of the cable companies and they still dont want to lose market share to a superior product, they will have to reduce the price of their existing products. This is what happens when there is competition in a free market. Just imagine how good it would be if the market were actually free.
You seem to be all for competition in your post. Clearly you see the benefits. Yet you have an under title of "Obama 2008." I dont get it. You want competition yet you voted for a socialist/market interventionist. Dont you people in the US realize things are never going to change for you when your election system is rigged so that non-socialists, ie free marketeers are not even allowed to be heard in debates or on the ballot? Yes, McCain is a socialist too. Can you people see that you dont even have a choice? Its socialism or socialism for you. The most amazing thing is how so many of you think Bush/McCain represents capitalism or the free market. Then you hate them for that. But then come here and talk about how you wish you had a free market!! (Whilst hating anyone who you think represents it! You want a free market, then vote for the person that promises you they will rescue you from the "evil free market!") Why do you contradict yourselves so much? Do you even realize you are doing it?
You are wrong anyway. Bush/McCain are not free marketeers. Cant you guys actually think for yourselves? Do you just read the label "republican" and make a whole load of assumptions based on that? Does billions in bailout/subsidy for banks sound like free market? Is your broadband industry free market? Why not? Bush and the republicans have had plenty of time to ensure it is. Just the existence of the scummy FCC ensures the market is not free.
Look where the market intervention of Clinton and Bush has got you now with the housing market. Clinton forcing banks to lend to risky borrowers, and Bush's fed setting an artificially low price of money (interest rate) to encourage reckless borrowing/lending (to ward off recession in 2001-2) for fake growth (demand) driven by money people didnt really have.
So many on this site seem to be confused. They seem to desire competition, then they are vehemently in favor of the left in politics. The left believe in market intervention, you know that right? Ah but wait, in certain markets you actually want intervention and artificially high prices dont you? Yes. The market in which you are the supplier. The labor market. You want that market distorted so that your employer has to pay a higher price for your work than its worth. This is why you vote for socialism. And this is the whole problem. The greed and corruption and hypocrisy of socialism. You want artificially high prices for what you are selling, but then you are enraged at the thought that you have to pay the unfair high prices of others' like in the broadband market. You cant have it both ways.
I bet you would be enraged if a law was introduced stipulating that the price of cable could not fall below a certain figure wouldnt you? Yet in the labor market you are enraged if this ISNT the case. All that does is ensure less people can find a job. It reduces competition. Yeah, that really helps the poor. Yeah, socialism is really for the people. Who do you think are going to be paying the most for the socialist policies designed to keep these awful, inefficient car companies in business? The people that can barely even afford a car, thats who. The working class. And those that are comfortable, but not rich. Thats who. The middle class.
Socialism only benefits those in a position to influence what laws and regulations are created. The ruling class. These interventionist create the artificial market environment that enables them and their friends and those companies that pay a tribute (campaign contribution) to make the maximum amount of profit possible. Everyone else loses out. The middle and working class get fleeced and the most incredible thing is these sheep are actually out campaigning for the people that are going to rip them off. The politicians have convinced these (you) poor naive souls into thinking socialism is for the many. Greatest fraud ever.
If politicians pledged to not intervene in the market they would not have the power to create a juicy environment for companies like Verizon or TWC to squeeze you. But then McCain would probably have to say goodbye to his free mobile cell towers on his ranch.
Personally, I think ill buy some GM shares soon. When Obama takes over Bush's socialism he is going to be handing out the free money. (Your taxes.) Please accept my thanks for your gift, socialists of DSLR. Amazing how you socialists hate shareholders so much but cant wait to hand over your hard earned cash to them. Look how citigroup jumped on news of the bailout last month. »uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=C&t=3m
Again, thanks for the gift guys. Keep that socialism working for the poor. Their stock portfolios are low right now so they need your help.
quote:
The deployment of a 100 Mbps speed, is probably going to be easier for cable companies. And less costly.
Good. Verizon/phone companies will have to work harder to stay in the game. Its not that great though since cable companies dont actually compete against each other. They mostly serve different markets. And if Verizon cant compete for a few years then thats higher prices in the mean time. |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | reply to patcat88
8 channel is 340 down but only 123 up(per node). |
|
 kontosxyzzy
join:2001-10-04
West Henrietta, NY | reply to Gogo1
said by Gogo1: Are AT&T allowed to build in these areas? Are TWC, Comcast, Cablevision allowed? No? Then why would Verizon work any faster? I no longer live in the US, but when I was there I had the choice between Verizon and TWC. (And Verizon couldnt give me DSL because there was fiber on my line. So I had the choice of TWC or a TWC reseller like Earthlink.) Can someone explain to me why I couldnt get Optimum or AT&T or Comcast? Do these companies just choose not to serve certain areas? Or are there restrictions? (ie the market is not free.) No legal restrictions. the Communications Act of 1996 pretty much opened things up to make competition possible. It didn't really work though. CableCos weren't required to provide wholesale access to their lines, and the TelCos pretty well crushed the CLECS. There was one company that tried to overlay and compete with CableCos, but I can't come up with their name right now, so I don't think they've been too successful.
You need a lot of capital to build a network in a given area, and nobody's dared to try. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to Lazlow
said by Lazlow:8 channel is 340 down but only 123 up(per node). Its better to talk in marketing speak (download only) since thats all cable companies will advertise. |
|
1 edit | reply to maartena
said by maartena:The are advertising FIOS here on local TV, and the Los Angeles area is about 60% Verizon, 40% AT&T.... besides the fact that at least 40% will never see FIOS True, I'd expect that 40% of AT&T area won't see FiOS anytime soon, just as the Qwest area (most of Portland, Oregon) near me won't either.
But once all of Verizon's traditional areas are FiOS'd up, they may then extend installation into those "foreign" areas. It's already been reported that they've done that already in Northern Texas somewhere, adjacent to where Verizon-area acceptance rates were very high -- such that extending into that other area looked inviting even in the short term. |
|
| reply to patcat88
said by patcat88:said by Lazlow:8 channel is 340 down but only 123 up(per node). Its better to talk in marketing speak (download only) since thats all cable companies will advertise. May be all that's advertised (by cable companies) but it's something that affects people's choices. |
|
| reply to patcat88
said by patcat88:Yep, 10 channel DOCSIS 3 (max the standard can do) is 380mbit per node. FIOS is 622 or 2500 mbit per node, with max 32 customers on 1 node. Uncomparable to DOCSIS 3. Yes, if Verizon chose to use statistical multiplexing on their GPON systems (like DSL typically does), they could assign every home 2.4Gbps down and 1.2Gbps up (every home gets the full 2.4Gbps download datastream, and the updirection gets dynamically allocated slots). Even if statistical multiplexing had less aggressive multiplexing assumptions (probably a lot less agressive), the practical speeds would still be incredibly higher than current 50Mbps offerings. The "problem" probably would be what to do with all that bandwidth once it gets to the central office from it's entire area using this "insane" bandwidth. The backbones wouldn't be large enough for everybody going at once using a significant portion of their available last mile bandwidth.  |
|
