dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2151
share rss forum feed

dak70

join:2007-05-01
Warminster, PA

1 recommendation

Can FiOS compete?

Does this indicate that FiOS is failing? I have FiOS and love it but let's face it at the end of the day FiOS is just cable TV. FiOS was supposed to revolutionize the industry due to its bandwidth and speed. The reality of FiOS has been small incremental improvements coupled with excruciatingly long roll out times. VZ is determined not to compete on pricing but hasn't differentiated FiOS from cable TV. In my opinion, the handful of poorly executed widgets are not a differentiator. If Verizon is no longer installing new FiOS, I wonder if software and widget improvements will be slowed or canceled?
In the Philadelphia area people literally curse the name of Comcast but FiOS still has low penetration because Comcast has been offering prices that VZ simply cannot match. VZ's costs to build and maintain the FiOS network are too high to compete on price. When customer can get $100 triple play from Comcast, they don't care about the incremental video improvement that FiOS offers.


iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast

I hear that FiOS video quality beats cable/sat to a pulp actually, and people will switch for that. FiOS internet speeds beat what cable has to offer, particularly in the upload department. Only cable can't

The nice thing about cable though is all the infrastructure on the last mile has been paid for, so cable companies can compete on price when they see a need to (e.g. when FiOS comes to town). Verizon doesn't really have that luxury.



N3OGH
Yo Soy Col. "Bat" Guano
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:2
reply to dak70

I think you fail to see the long view of Verizon's strategy here.

The investment in the Fios physical plant is akin to installing a new CO to serve an entire area. The ROI of such an undertaking is measured over decades, and not years.

Sure the fiber optic plant costs money to maintain, but it is much less expensive to maintain than the copper plant. I believe that once Verizon reaches a certain penetration level in a given area, they will either migrate all remaining customers to the fiber plant, and sell the existing copper plant to a CLEC. Leaving them only one plant to maintain.

Verizon is not obligated to open their fiber plant to the CLEC's, so in areas where they divest themselves of the copper, they lose that form of competition.

Fiber is infinitely upgradeable. By replacing the equipment on either end of communication, bandwidth can be increased. This means for all intents and purposes, fiber is future proof.

By concentrating on uptake, they can reach the level of penetration they need to make it feasible to convert a CO to fiber only, and divest themselves of the old copper plant.

IMHO, this is the long term goal. Verizon has NO INTEREST in staying in the copper business. Just ask the good folks of the State of Vermont. Verizon plans on being an all fiber optic company some day.....
--
Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power


Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

said by N3OGH:

IMHO, this is the long term goal. Verizon has NO INTEREST in staying in the copper business. Just ask the good folks of the State of Vermont. Verizon plans on being an all fiber optic company some day.....
If that's the case then Verizon should speed up rather than slow down its FiOS deployments. The uptake of FiOS will remain 0% in the areas where it's not deployed. Verizon's statements seem more like a lack of long term commitment to FiOS than a long term strategy to replace copper. Maybe Verizon is planning to just be a wireless company.


N3OGH
Yo Soy Col. "Bat" Guano
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:2

Well of course it will be zero in areas of non deployment.

Keep in mind the cost of marketing these services. IF, they can concentrate their advertising dollars in areas of existing deployment, they can increase the uptake in that particular area, getting the most bang for the marketing buck.

They can't put it everywhere overnight. They would go out of business. They need to see SOME ROI on the existing build out, or they could run the company right into the ground.

I waited for years to get Fios where I live. Half the town had it, the other did not. It sucked waiting, but I understand the strategy, and I believe it to be sound from a business standpoint.

Just my opinion...
--
Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power


dak70

join:2007-05-01
Warminster, PA
reply to iansltx

I have FiOS and I had Comcast. The FiOS video is superior especially on non-HD content. The HD content is only marginally better. But the average non-tech customers will not pay more for video quality that is arguably better. In my area, Comcast is offering data speeds that are close to FiOS low to mid level speed. Again the average non-techy customer does not care about 15Mb or 12Mb. If the price is 10 bucks a month cheaper, 12Mb will do just fine. And the only paying customers who care about upload speed are tech users, possibly gamers, and work at home users. I have worked at home with Comcast and FiOS. There is no difference.


Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
reply to N3OGH

said by N3OGH:

Well of course it will be zero in areas of non deployment.

Keep in mind the cost of marketing these services. IF, they can concentrate their advertising dollars in areas of existing deployment, they can increase the uptake in that particular area, getting the most bang for the marketing buck.
As has already been pointed out by other posters, Verizon won't get 40% FiOS uptake (especially in areas where they have competition from cable companies rolling oust DOCSIS 3) if they keep increasing prices. Verizon's best advertising in areas of existing deployment is satisfied customers. If all the advertising dollars that Verizon has spent in those areas already hasn't convinced consumers that FiOS is different from cable and worth it then more is just a waste.

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
reply to dak70

said by dak70:

Does this indicate that FiOS is failing? I have FiOS and love it but let's face it at the end of the day FiOS is just cable TV. FiOS was supposed to revolutionize the industry due to its bandwidth and speed. The reality of FiOS has been small incremental improvements coupled with excruciatingly long roll out times. VZ is determined not to compete on pricing but hasn't differentiated FiOS from cable TV.
If it wasn't for FIOS, you'd be counting your cable download speed in increments of 1mbitps, and your upstream in increments of 128kbitps. DOCSIS 3 would have NEVER HAPPENED if it weren't for FIOS.

said by dak70:

In the Philadelphia area people literally curse the name of Comcast but FiOS still has low penetration because Comcast has been offering prices that VZ simply cannot match. VZ's costs to build and maintain the FiOS network are too high to compete on price. When customer can get $100 triple play from Comcast, they don't care about the incremental video improvement that FiOS offers.
Thats the point, the all mighty dollar. You can sell crap, but aslong as its 60% off, people will buy it, not seeing the long term repercussions from their lack of buying a quality product.

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
reply to Sammer

said by Sammer:

As has already been pointed out by other posters, Verizon won't get 40% FiOS uptake (especially in areas where they have competition from cable companies rolling oust DOCSIS 3) if they keep increasing prices.
Not necessarily. Fear tactics by VZ can make cable look bad. An aura of luxury can make FIOS be a "must have" keeping up with the Joneses product.

dak70

join:2007-05-01
Warminster, PA
reply to patcat88

I agree FiOS fueled competition but to suggest Comcast is not offering quality service is inaccurate.
You write, "You can sell crap, but aslong as its 60% off, people will buy it, not seeing the long term repercussions from their lack of buying a quality product."
There are a lot of Comcast fans out there and the service is arguable equal to FiOS but at a deep discount. In time like these cost is a huge factor. Plus the thought of losing a day of work to have FiOS installed.


vzguy71

join:2006-02-11
Albany, NY
kudos:1
reply to Sammer

I agree. Especially in this economy, most people will stick with cable if it's cheaper and works 'most' of the time. Fios users who frequent this site (myself included) like their 25-50 meg sym speeds and 4ms last mile latency...but as was mentioned before, most people could care less about that. If the price is cheap and the service lets them online long enough to post meaningless twitter updates, they're happy.

For the average user, how about a lower speed tier that can compete with cable on price? Suck people in with a 2 year contract with a competitive price, and 40% might be on the horizon.


sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to N3OGH

said by N3OGH:

Well of course it will be zero in areas of non deployment.

Keep in mind the cost of marketing these services. IF, they can concentrate their advertising dollars in areas of existing deployment, they can increase the uptake in that particular area, getting the most bang for the marketing buck.

They can't put it everywhere overnight. They would go out of business. They need to see SOME ROI on the existing build out, or they could run the company right into the ground.

I waited for years to get Fios where I live. Half the town had it, the other did not. It sucked waiting, but I understand the strategy, and I believe it to be sound from a business standpoint.

Just my opinion...
Actually considering the massive amounts of profit they make every year they probably could install it overnight.

ashworth

join:2001-10-06
Pittsburgh, PA

1 edit

You are a Communist ? Or just a nimrod ?