Re: Google's intention And we're giving credit to Google, why? The real Pioneers of FTTP in this country is Verizon, a telco who you believe needs to learn from ? Google? . Thats a joke. FiOS is actually deployed on a very large scale for almost a decade. They have much more fiber run than Google , muni's and startups combined.
Re: Google's intention Remember for most of its life Verizon offered only marginally better speeds than cable at slightly more expensive prices.
Offering 1 Gbit/s by 1 Gbit/s for 70 dollars a month and starting a chain reaction is pioneering
Re: Google's intention Youre right, passing like 20 million homes with fiber isnt pioneering, sigh. Gbps? Does it really matter? When there are real applications/demand, and its actually profitable, Verizon will release a new PON, and it IS that simple when the architecture is in place.
"Hardly pioneering" , and if Google ran FTTP ten years ago, would it have been Gbps?? Let me answer for you. NO. Funny how Google waited ten years to start running FTTP, even though the technology was available.
Google hasnt Pioneered ANYTHING when it comes to their flavor of FTTP.
Re: Google's intention The initial rollout wasn't bad, the alleged competition and subsequent focus on wireless, and bad upgrade pathways have made FIOS more of a punchline than a joke. For YEARS, cablevision and time warner were hocking triple play for $90 a month and along comes FIOS at higher prices.. sure, the broadband was attractive to those who were getting severely throttled at the pleasure of managers who thought it was funny to see how many customers they can squeeze on a node before they lost customers to the higher priced service. Finally, the FCC restored sanity by naming and shaming them for the practice after getting caught "BYTE deficient handed" .
You will not impress those in the corner of the incumbents, whether they are brainwashed, drank the cooaid for far too long or have some vested interest in supporting them (ie works for the company) who's to say... Many of us were hopeful Verizon would turn out to be a good company.. but since the focus on wireless (and other credibility destroying actions), they have spent their last $ of credibility with many customers and former customers. Therefore, ANY new competition that does right by the customer is welcome.
AND, if incumbents do virtually nothing in 2014 (when new technologies and standards to increase speeds are set to drop)to offer faster speeds/better value, I say let the 3rd party carriers eat cake.. come to the NORTHEAST and take away high ROI customers away from the incumbents here too! Because if you don't build and upgrade, you sure as hell better get out of the way for those who do!!
| |said by ITALIAN926:FiOS is slower and FAR more expensive than Google Fiber. When deploying fiber why not try to beat the cable companies? Verizon is just doing enough to compete. Google is upsetting the market.
And we're giving credit to Google, why? The real Pioneers of FTTP in this country is Verizon, a telco who you believe needs to learn from ? Google? . Thats a joke. FiOS is actually deployed on a very large scale for almost a decade. They have much more fiber run than Google , muni's and startups combined.
Google deserves the credit.
Re: Google's intention Read the front page news here. ATT is talking about deploying 1 Gig service because of Google.
Centrylink is about to deploy 1 Gig service because of Google.
Time Warner upgraded infrastructure here and offered 100 megs because of Google.
Re: Google's intention Yea, Earth shattering effects.
"talking about" , "about to" , Time Warner upgraded to 100Mbps? Wow. Thank God for Google.
Re: Google's intention what is wrong with a hybrid network? Cable has one and it works just fine.
Re: Google's intention you are wrong. Do you know how many Cities built their own FTTH network BEFORE Google? Do you realize how many Co-op and small mom and pop telcos that have FTTH? They've had it well before Google ever thought about getting into the business. They also cover RURAL areas and now the heart of KC or Austin either.
Re: Google's intention Show me where an official 4TB CAP is mentioned, you can even magnify the tiny writing at the bottom of every advertisement. You are referencing a CONVERSATION between Houkanouchi (sp?) and a Verizon rep. where he was using 40-80TB a month ! lol.
You want your cake and eat it too? Because if you believe Verizon has a 4TB CAP, and only 40 users out of 5,000,000 reach that, your entire argument that Gbps is essential for the broadband users of this country.. GOES RIGHT OUT THE WINDOW.
There is no official 4TB CAP, Id Love to read your comments about Comcast when they had an official 0.25 TB CAP.
Bottom line, Google offers $70 Gbps, great. There have been many other providers offering that speed for some time, and Verizon passing hundreds of towns/cities is far more impressive than Google offering Gbps to a handful of people.
I would find it amusing when Google looks at their usage stats, and they see their Gbps subscribers averaging like 20Mbps, WHEN its being used ! lol.
Putting onus on communities to give favorable terms C Spire is using the same strategy as Google - get the communities to beg for service and waive all the franchise rules that used to be applied to the cable companies. Cable companies used to have to bribe communities and their political leaders with free this and free that and with jobs for pols relatives and also pay big franchise fees. Now, with the 1 gbps carrot, the providers are demanding that communities waive franchise fees or accept very reduced fees, provide access, take on lawsuit risks, etc in order to get fiber.
This new attitude may last for awhile, but comapnies should strike while the iron is hot. Sooner or later, the pols and the voters will no longer accept these sweetheart deals to get faster access.
The Nobama Clock
Re: Putting onus on communities to give favorable terms Its easy to get into a city when the state manages the franchise rules. That's what AT&T did. And the cable companies are having their cake with that as well.