Qwest: $1 Billion Would Provide 95% DSL Coverage > Don't Give Qwest One Red Cent...

Don't Give Qwest One Red Cent...

and then maybe we should do the same with ATT? And don't forget about about VZ as who doesn't need the money since they're able to roll out their own FiOS services and they won't use the money except in "overserved" areas anway.

Also you take that risk with DSL. Either its available or its not. If you don't like the speeds sign up with someone else. At least you can get service. And if you want FTTH BUILD IT YOURSELF!

Actually, don't give any money to anyone unless they upgrade infrastructure by one generation (POTS to ADSL, ADSL to ADSL2+ or VDSL, VDSL or ADSL2+ to FTTH, FTTH to 2x-speed FTTH for the same price, GSM/CDMA 1x to HSPA/EvDO Rev. A, 3G to LTE/WiMAX).

Or subsidize FTTH networks. Better that than paying companies to do nothing.

so instead of helping customers actually just deploy you want to give the money to VZ to deploy faster FiOS? WTF! you don't need faster FiOS they just need to get off their asses like ATT and actually build something for once.

Verizon is rolling out FiOS.

What about helping customers? By doing what? Nothing? What do you propose the carriers do?

Also, it's no t"you" getting faster FiOS; FiOS isn't in my area, and won't be until Qwest gets bought by Verizon :/. But I'm asbolutely fine with helping VZ upgrade their infrastructure to support 100/50 fiber for the price of curent 50/20. If it's cheap to give people Japan-class speeds where fiber is already deployed, wh not?

You don't get it.

You'd be giving a company money that is taking from one to give to another and in "hopes" you'll get it. Well 1- you'll never see VZ unless you move to their area. 2- the Fed's won't allow ATT or VZ to buy Qwest (kinda goes with #1). and 2 VZ has their own money they can spend. They don't need $$$ to increase the speed. They just need to offer that speed.

The $$ goes to EXPANDING coverage! The states that do NOT have FiOS now will never see it. Especially the mid-west states. IN is the only one and thats Ft. Wayne. Nobody else will see it.

Bitter a bit?

Personally, I'd rather the broadband bailout never existed. It exists.

The LEC back home in Texas is Verizon. No DSL. Period. Even if they had DSL, my house would be out of range of an in-town DSLAM. I live on the corner of a widely-spaced but high-income subdivision. If a DSLAM was strategically placed, Verizon could probably service the whole thing, including my house, with 7 Mbit DSL. If a fiber node were to be placed, they could probably bring FiOS to everyone.

But again, if it costs $50 per customer to double FiOS speed, that money is probably better spent than $1000 to give a single customer FTTH, when the cost is actually $2000. Hate to say it but it's true.

no i'm not bitter.

By your idea/plan above you'd take money and give it to a company that doesn't need it. Why do that? We can give the money to Qwest and expand. We can give the money to a small mom and pop ISP and let them expand maybe hell even build out FTTH in their own town. Maybe even put a few new players out in the public and let them expand.

You don't take money from the rich and give it back to them. Like you want to do with VZ to expand their FiOS which won't be in anymore states/areas than what they are working on now.

I don't care what company I give my money to, even NSAT&T, if they put it to good use. Heck, I'll even let Comcast have part of the bill if they expand service.

FiOS will expand. Giving it money will make it expand faster/better. Just like what'd happen with pretyt much any other ISP, Qwest etc. included.

Also, what's the problem with taking money from the rich and giving it to the rich? Do they not deserve money if they earn it and create a good product in the process?

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have LUS, GVTC (www.gvtc.com) and Powell, WY's fiber operation than FiOS as far as money doling goes, but I certainly don't want to sit by and watch Qwest spend $1000 per customer rolling out 7 Mbps DSL, non-overprovisioned so it's more like 6/700 than 7/896.

well VZ has stated before they don't care about many of their services areas all of the midwest is only on DSL except Ft. Wayne and thats only because the city basically begged them to offer service there and started to roll out their own wireles system.

Otherwise any VZ area (MI, OH, WI, IN) and the others will never see FiOS if its not there now.

Also Qwest is the most rural of the Bells and their service is very spread out. I don't blame them for using DSL where it would make sense.

DSL doesn't make sense at this point, even ADSL2_, for next-gen broadband. Think of ADSL2+ as the wireline equivalent of 3.5G...good but not next-gen. DOCSIS 3 is good, VDSL is good. Fiber is much, much better. It's also more expensive, which means that it may need subsidies for rollout.

Believe it or not, most telcos are rolling out fiber in new developments. It ends up being cheaper in the long run, despite higher deployment costs. Qwest on the other hand wants to pull every last ounce from their copper infrastructure (AT&T almost as much) and thus they'll keep behind the curve.

Again, give money to whoever will build out next-gen broadband. I don't care who they are or what their current plans are, as long as they make effective use of the money.

Also, Verizon 7 Mbit DSL is faster than Qwest ADSL 99.999% of the time. Qwest ADSL2+ is faster than Verizon DSL, true, but I can't get ADSL2+ here and I would likely be able to get Verizon 7 Mbit at a decent price if they were the LEC Plus, they'd use FastPath and a network that didn't route all out-of-net traffic down to Dallas before going out to the internet, despit the fact that Denver actually is a relatively big city backbone-wise. Heck, their corporate HQ is up here!

Telco's running Fiber to new developments? Yah only if they pay ATT. ATT is only doing DSL still and fiber is very very limited, even in new developments. there are several developments around Toledo, and Monroe MI (which has FTTH via SBC) and what do the new areas get STILL? DSL!

So yah again you want to give money to VZ who clearly does not need the money so why give it to them? So they can use it to deploy in only the areas where they want to and forget about the rest of their service area. Totally messed up.

It should be set up this way:

IF you deploy more stuff THEN you get money.

Not

You get money SO you deploy infrastructure.

Unless the ISP has 30,000 customers, then something else can be worked out.

None of the big guys should get any money until they've built out.