100Mbps FiOS Will Arrive Next Year

We can do it!

FiOS will only be in 15% of the footprint that cable and dsl currently have. It would be nice to have a truly competitive market.

ROME WASNT BUILT IN A DAY....BESIDES, whatcha need that for kid??? 100 meg haha i can wait

I would be shocked if FIOS is available in 15% of the markets DSL and cable are in now. That seems high in my opinion.

I'd be happy with just 10 Mbps FiOS; STILL not available in my area!

I am more interesting in MSNBC than 100 MB speed

I'm MORE than happy with my 12/2 connection from Comcast!

I am happy for my 20/5 FIOS, FIOS TV and phone for $119. Plus, we reduced our cell plan minutes because all our calls to home or cell to cell from verizon cell are free!
The TV is crystal clear. Better than dish. WAY better than comcast. They don't shove internet on lower channels. Wonder why your lower channels are crappy? I had comcast several years ago (yes - digital version) and the tech told me how they crammed it all into a little copper pipe.

I be happy if I can get at least UNLIMITED 3mbps in my area with xbox live.

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.

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/b ··· 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I had Verizon 50Mbps tier and had a hard time finding use for it. Giganews was about the only servers I could find that could serve me at 50Mb, otherwise I still saw a typical 20-30Mb on the high end.

And believe it or not my 300baud modem used to be more than fast enough...100mb is for the future and bragging rights..

Far future.

Define "far" ...

2 or 3 years ago you would have had a hard time finding a pipe to fill a 15Mbps connection. Now that's extremely easy. So in 5 years I doubt you'll have trouble filling a 100Mbps pipe.

That is all moot however. The problem is (like when multi-core processors were introduced) you're thinking about the uses for a 100Mbps pipe wrong. It's not about a single high-speed download, it's about MULTIPLE high-speed downloads/streams with no little to no delay.

5 years is an eternity in technology. And this is a 'light-switch' upgrade for Verizon. Current fiber deployment would support 100Mb service in shared topology and with GPON which isn't hugely expensive upgrade it is even easier.

Unlike cable, this isn't a 'need to plan for' type problem for Verizon. Their current fiber deployment supports 100Mb in shared topology and with GPON upgrades, which isn't a 'major' investment it is even easier.

And sure, I can think of a future of where we could conceivably use 100Mb service...a couple of 1080P IPTV streams could do it alone. But that kind of offering will be a long time coming, thus 100Mb won't be of any use for a long time coming.

I'm not sure what relevance the rest of your post had so I'll address the issue I thought we were originally discussing.

If there weren't any use for it, I doubt they'd be offering it. I could think of several uses for it right now outside of IPTV streaming but again, you're still thinking one-dimensionally. With 100Mbps, you can start doing all kinds of things, like video conferencing, sharing videos real-time to OTHER friends XBox/Wii/PS3 consoles, video streaming to your home (as you mentioned) ... there are a multitude of things that 100Mbps opens up.

The most important aspect is the application we CAN'T think of. Just like when broadband was introduced and people wondered (and some still do) why anyone needed more than 1.5Mbps, 100Mbps opens the door to a lot of interactivity you simply can't do now.

And server bandwidth is cheap so capacity will catch up with home connections very quickly. We get 100GB of premium bandwidth from our datacenter on a 100Mbps port for a little less than a dollar a GB. That price will not do anything but go down.

They're offering it just for what Karl said, marketing. They can flash "up to 100Mb" ads all over the place.

Not really, it's not just a "light switch" upgrade for Verizon. It gets to a point where it goes deeper into the house system as well with equipment, etc.

Not all of that pipe to your home is for internet.. The MOST common mistake around BBR by the "experts" is that the speed equals "internet use".. far from it.

This same service also carries Television, wide area networking to other incumbent services, better phone handling, improved network update pushes, etc. A lot of last mile only services would benefit.

I hate to burst your bubble, but 100MB can surely be useful in the near future for sure!

The 100mb = internet speed, not bandwidth to the home. TV and voice are in addition to that.

Their 50/20 tier is internet speed - not shared with TV or voice. Verizon quotes internet speeds in their marketing, not pipe to the home.

Hundred shmundred I want gig

In Japan, China (Hong Kong), Singapore and Korea they have been offering 100 Mbps for years now.

In Europe, 24 Mbps cable and DSL2 connections are very common, and they too are now deploying both fiber and DOCSIS 3.0 to the masses, with 100 Mbps or almost similar speeds.

We all know that the U.S. is majorly lagging behind on providing speedy internet at a good price to it's citizens, but I would not really call it "far future".

Hell, I made remarks 5 years ago that we wouldn't see 10 Mbps connections going into houses before 2010. With my 15/2 connection now, uVerse going with 12 and 18 Mbps, I am happy to admit I was dead wrong.

We'll see 100 Mbps going into houses sooner then you think. And in many cities. I would actually be willing to make another prediction that says that 100 Mbps will be available in some sort to all major metroplitan areas by 2012, which from my perspective being 34 is not the FAR future....

Doesn't matter what they offer. I'm just saying I had 50Mb and I'm a download WHORE and couldn't find much use for it outside giganews. The problem isn't Verizon, it's servers. There just aren't than many content providers serving up goodies to individuals at 50+Mb.

True, the only benefit besides bragging rights I can see to this is transferring files to another Fios customer with the 100 MB service....

Those kind of speeds are more useful when you have a family with teenagers, that are ALL on the computer at the same time youtubing, playing online games, webcamming with bff-whomever, using vonage to chat, watching the latest sport highlights, AND downloading from usenet, torrents, etc....

Most people don't see beyond what speeds could do with one computer and one person operating.

It's just me and my wife, but I am happy to have 15/2, because we are both internet junkies.

I max out my 50mbs FIOS connection on a regular basis. I'm hoping they have a free speed upgrade to 60mbs or 70mbs now that Comcast is offering 50mbs service.

I pay $90 a month for my 50/20 tier which is an excellent price for that speed. But even 50mbs seems slow after awhile. I want to go faster!

At home I've been running a gigabit network since 2001.

The "him" in my post was referring to patcat88, not you.

Damn right its overkill and overpriced lmao. Only thing I can think of that may use close to 50mbps is Cisco live conference that I've seen at a NexusIS.com location in California. That was just way too cool to look at lol!

Some of us could really use the bandwidth. Hell I could use 1 gig actually. Here is what the bandwidth usage my server does (while I limit it to only 5 megabits during peak hours):



It sure would be nice if I could do that from home.

I'd love to have the 50/20 but won't get it. It all comes down to the pricing. If it was 50/10 and bundled with the other two services I would signup for it presuming the price was reasonable. By Verizon coming out with the 100Mbps they have effectivly killed the competition. No other provider unless they had FTTP would be able to match this. Verizon has set themselves up to be a leader unchecked until soemeone else can beat them.

now i have an Extra reason to Envy u all





for over a YEAR i have been stuck with this ****ty Connection.

Note: each 1,500L.L(LEBANESE lira)=1$

that summer to approach is taking longer than i thought



Note: each 3zt(POLISH zloty)=1$

Thanks for the reality check

Atleast the EU is beating us. But it sounds like Lebanon ILEC is backhauling traffic over T1s from the central offices to core routers, or they need connections to be extra slow to not crash the Islamic Republic web filtering server.

This is interesting for the other side of the market... the server end. Those of you who actually have a hand in web hosting.... When is the last major change in speed / cost per mbit you can remember to hook in a colo or feed a dedi.

Eesh, might as well start hosting from home with things like this, TOS abiding or not...

if they came to San Jose, CA and the SF Bay area and priced their services appropriately, they could effectively knock Comcast out and we would appreciate it. They are cordially invited to try

Comcast in California? Good! Keep it there! WAY too many people have no need for FiOS, or even cable Internet, even today. I'm an Internet junkie -- Comcast, plus two, three other web devices is fine for me. Sure, 100Mbps is nice, but when you can rarely _get_ that high of a download, there won't be much point. Not to mention that I've only needed more then 1.5 megabytes per second for my whole network very few times, and I'm an Internet/torrent addict! Hell, I was talking to a friend a couple days ago, and he said he switched to Comcast Cable 'net from DSL, and barely noticed the difference! Will he -really- need to pay $200p/mo for FiOS when he was perfectly happy with DSL? Uh, I don't think so. FiOS is for the future, and rich idiots who want to brag about their small penis and huge download speed.

Hopefully this will embarass telco & cable co alike (you know who you are) into upgrading those legacy 1mbit dsl circuits and cablemodem nodes.

"Currently their fastest tier, 50Mbps/20Mbps, costs $139.95 bundled with Verizon phone service, or $144.95 without."

That may be the "list" price, but it's still available for $90 (where there's "competition"), which you won't see till you actually try to purchase it.

"Currently their fastest tier, 50Mbps/20Mbps, costs $139.95 bundled with Verizon phone service, or $144.95 without."

I currently pay $94.95/month with no bundled savings and a month-to-month contract for my FiOS 50/20 service. It would be great if they simply increased the speeds for existing 50/20 FiOS customers. I guess we will find out soon enough.

I have access to 100/100 speeds at work and trust me it is not used much at all. HEck my 38/5 cablevision connection at home only gets fully used on microsoft technets downloads.

Who cares. It's not available in places where it matters and it wont be for years. Why is this news?

It matters because 100 mbps is something my good friends in the nordic country of sweden have enjoyed for a while.

- A

P2P just became as fast as your HD can copy?

No, 100mbps is only 12.5 MB/s(in reality more like 9.5 with overhead, etc) most drives today are 70MB/s with newer ones in 100MB/s range. Even GigE is 125MB/s(again in theory) which is easily accomplished with a Raid0 array with two modern drives.

if Fios were ever going to lay down fiber in Montana, it'd most likely be near where i live but that won't happen for a long time.

Right now though im stuck with either 3/640 dsl, 5/384 cable or fixed-wireless, i have cable but i rarely see my full 5 megs during peak hours (5-12pm).

This is something they're proud of? I hear 1gbps is common in Japan, and also present in South Korea and Iceland...

100/100 please!! or at least 50Mbps up

As more online services come available that 100Mbps gets less like overkill. I remember a day when a 1GB HDD was thought to be overkill. Personally I hate being dead last in speed out of the developed countries.

I predict you will find a use for all that bandwidth when Verizon finally delivers. It's great fun to be virtually unlimited when it comes to internet bandwidth -- I highly recommend it. I seed a few torrents 24/7, run a website, and keep my personal files available (behind a firewall) for use when I'm away from home. It's quite liberating.

That's what I want!!

my 50/20 tier is too slow, but at only $90 a month it's pretty cheap per mbs considering in 1997 I had 5mbs down/1mbs up for $16 which was extremely expensive per mbs.