Cable Gets Its Wrist Slapped For Pretending To Offer Fiber > Good...

reply to Karl Bode

Re: Good...

If that were the case, then why are all these cable co's trying to lead consumers to believe they are using nothing but fiber in their networks?

reply to openbox9

reply to openbox9

reply to openbox9

reply to digitalfreak

reply to sonicmerlin
He would be correct, most people don't know or even care about these things. Heck, most people don't even know what a "browser" is (as Google found out by asking random people in Times Square).

You think any of these people would know (or even care) if their Internet comes over glass, copper, or carrier pigeons?

Many consumers are 'sheep', and use what is cheap or popular.

reply to kpfx
Wow, I hate ignorant people. It's no wonder the rest of the world is sailing past the US in just about everything these days.

reply to digitalfreak
Because Verizon started the advertising war of "fiber is better".

reply to WernerSchutz
So copper is hazardous to our health?

reply to newview
But why does it matter if we distinguish between 2-wire, coax, fiber, or wireless if a majority of consumers don't know the difference? I don't believe that companies should be allowed to falsely advertise their products, I just don't believe fiber is the second coming of Christ.

reply to openbox9

In the case of Qwest... you're a customer, I assume, being in Iowa, right? If so, do you remember when Qwest 'all the sudden' had "Fiber optic fast" internet and "digital telephone"...? This came about right around Comcast moving towards all VOIP services and away from their switched based digital phone which greatly expanded their reach.

Qwest is less of a "fiber" internet service when the entire connection between your home and them is all twisted pair. Cable modem service isn't possible with out the hybrid fiber/coax network. Between you and the company, there is far more fiber than there is coax. And, if you want to compare cable even to FTTH, until companies like Surewest and Verizon put a fiber connection right into your computer, it too still has some amount of copper in the mix as well.. albeit, just a few feet. I also know they just say "fiber all the way to your home".. which is fine. And, why do I bring this up? .. simple, people tried to, for month, discredit comcast's "digital phone service" becuase it was converting the all digital service to a twisted pair from the eMTA to the handset. (What's good for the goose, I say, and all points will be used against the masses here. )

Comcast has been advertising their advanced fiber network for years LONG before Verizon came to down, and for the last 10 years while companies like Surewest were already providing it as an exclusive product in it's expanded service area. I find this, to be honest, Verizon crying foul.

To be honest, the node where I live is part of the same pedestal where my tap is. I have about a foot of coax between my node and tap. I have about 50' of cable to the splitter on my home. Is that fiber to the curb? but, yes, cable uses a HFC system.. and technically, their system isn't possible WITHOUT the fiber in the system. It's the fiber that expanded the capability of the network to offer two-way services. I don't see cable stating that they are selling "fiber optic service" as it implied. Fiber IS in the system, and, like I said, the overwhelming majority of most customers traffic travels over fiber, not coax.

The big difference, like I said, between phone and cable, is cable has more fiber running the connection between the home and head end, while the connection of phone/dsl is pure copper. EVERY provider is "fiber connected" at their termination point - that's a given.

To be fair to Qwest, kinda, they ARE playing a little bit of a game on their "fiber fast" internet.. they're talking about their 20 meg internet services.. but that's even a long shot. That 20 meg service IS more of a fiber powered connection closer to the customer, but those speeds are hard to come by for qwest. In other words, this could be about the same as Verizon advertising their entire foot print as "fiber" when only parts of it is.. Qwest does have SOME service, but they imply that ALL of their internet is "fiber fast".. bla bla bla... Qwest is grasping at straws.

In my opinion, cable's network IS fiber to the neighborhood and then pushed out to coax with minimal amplification as it used to be.. it's not "fiber to the home".. There is a drive out there to push the definitions and redefine marketing on the part of the BBB - a self appointed agency that, like I said, really has no business doing so.

However, even with all this said, its just my opinion that these providers really ALL need to get away with marketing terms like "fiber" and fiber powered... etc. EVEN the fiber companies. My stance is that people don't care about the connection to the home by an overwhelming majority when compared. They shop on price, value for the money, and what fits their needs as well as reliable service they're happy with, performance and the company reputation. I think most of those matter most of all to more people than what kind of cable is used in the process. If the cable used mattered that much, you'd hardly have any U-verse TV subscribers out there, now, wouldn't ya?

The truth is, like I said, a well built network is where it's at. How many of those twisted pair DSL connections are FAR more reliable than a poorly managed cable plant? So, really... speak of the product you're selling in the terms of services available and stop muddling up the public with all the extra crap that means nothing.. that's like Gatorade trying to convince an average consumer that their product is better becuase it now has "more electrolytes"... most people don't care about that if they're not an athlete.. they just want a drink that tastes good. (And PLEASE, guys, don't pick apart the freakin' G example.. it's weak, but it's stands to my point)

reply to Turbocpe
I see some of your points but have a few minor issues.

First, picking on Qwest is like picking on the defenseless geek in school. Not much of a contest to be proud of. They're one of the worst off telco companies of the bells and service many of the areas that are spread apart and difficult to serve. Of course they have big towns that aren't exactly included, but Qwest has an overall difficult area to serve. I would imagine RoI is difficult. Verizon would probably dump the areas that Qwest has. I'm not suggesting they get a free pass here because of this fact.

I think their "fiber optic fast" is hard to scrutinize when they aren't claiming it's actual fiber optics to the home or neighborhood as cable isn't either.

The bigger issue that caused me to reply to your post was your statement that cable's network is fiber - which somewhat implied that Qwest's, or any other phone company, wasn't. Both cable and the phone company use fiber in their network as we both agree on.

I do feel, in my opinion, to state that because the cable node is in your area, and because the connection between a telco customer and their dslam is usually copper, that Cable's is more of a "fiber network" is slightly drawing straws. In the end, I don't think it matters because I recall a time when Mediacom was offering a mere 1500/128 service on that fiber node in my area.

I can kinda see your point that cable, with the node being in the neighborhood, could be considered fiber to the neighborhood. Many of Qwest's DSLAMs aren't fiber fed. But I think it's drawing straws as both the phone company and the cable company have some sort of hybrid system. It depends on varies things as to how much percentage that is. I'm going to say you probably win on the argument that, overall, cable has more fiber in their network.

However, one thing I strongly agree with you on is your point that it doesn't exactly matter the delivery method so much it does the quality of the product and service via the company. It's for that reason, despite Mediacom offers 12/1 (though many in my town have been seeing only 1/4 of this during prime time) while Qwest only offers 1.5/896, is why I feel that selecting between the two is picking the lesser of two evils. Mediacom, on paper, may be able to deliver more speeds but I find their speeds to be a lot less stable, as is their overall service. It seems they have a lot of issues with noise in their plant. In my opinion, as a customer of both companies for over 10 years, is that both companies, and their history, have been less than stellar.