dslreports logo
 story category
SpectrumCo Deal Could Spell Trouble for DSL
Verizon Could Target Other Telcos With LTE

We've been noting for years that DSL is essentially dead to Verizon, even though more than 50% of their footprint still resides on the technology. Verizon's been offloading aging DSL and landline networks to companies like Fairpoint and Frontier, with plans to come back in later and offer both mobile and fixed LTE services capable of offering faster speeds than DSL.

Bernie Arnason at Telecompetitor correctly points out that not only is Verizon's own DSL service an aging dinosaur in the face of FiOS and LTE, but other telcos relying on aging DSL as their anchor product probably need to watch out now that Verizon has struck a deal with cable operators for spectrum and joint product launches:

quote:
The Verizon-Cable duo can now go head up with other DSL offers from AT&T, CenturyLink, Frontier, FairPoint, on and on. Cable broadband is already crushing DSL offers in many metro/urban markets. Adding a Verizon Wireless mobile broadband component to their bundle will only help, especially if the announced “technology joint venture” develops tightly integrated services between cable broadband and video, and Verizon’s 4G LTE platform. One can only imagine the possibilities.
Verizon's taken some heat for their deals with Fairpoint and Frontier. Verizon has been accused of running a massive, legal con by saddling those companies with aging networks and debt -- then coming back in later and even stealing back customers with faster LTE. We've noted that's been the plan all along, and that could pose problems for telcos like Frontier, Fairpoint, Windstream or CenturyLink that think they can nurse aging DSL for the next decade without serious repercussions.

We were the first to report on Verizon's plans to offer fixed LTE service in cooperation with DirecTV. This is likely the service Verizon plans to aim at these less competitive rural telcos. As such, it will be important for Verizon to have enough spectrum and backhaul to offer a residential service that doesn't suffer from the same low caps as their mobile LTE offering. When you consider many rural DSL users are paying $50-$60 for 1.5 Mbps, many lighter users might respond well to a $30, 15 Mbps fixed LTE offer with oh -- a 10GB to 20 GB cap. Satellite users stuck paying $75-$100 for 1.5 Mbps service daily caps as low as 200MB wouldn't think twice.

Whatever the case, when you also consider Verizon's new Netflix conquering ambitions, it's fairly clear Verizon is jumping over traditional telco fences and planning a national brand assault.
view:
topics flat nest 

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

1 recommendation

pnh102

Premium Member

LTE is not a Competitor to Wired Broadband

Who is going to switch from DSL, which tends to have either fairly high caps or is uncapped, to a connection which is capped at 2GB to 5GB?

I can see LTE as being a less crappy substitute for satellite-based Internet connections but not anything wired.

Beyond this though, the fact remains though that LTE has no practical use... a high speed connection with a low cap? What's the point?
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina

Member

Re: LTE is not a Competitor to Wired Broadband

I'm guessing a fixed version would be offered that is competitive with DSL for either a cheaper price or higher price but faster speeds. I agree, they cannot go in with 2GB or 4GB caps but my guess is that they wouldn't when creating a "fixed wireless" plan.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

Karl Bode

News Guy

Re: LTE is not a Competitor to Wired Broadband

Well right...Verizon had enough spectrum for their mobile LTE build. This new spectrum gives them a lot of flexibility, and yeah -- any fixed LTE offering would probably come with caps that wouldn't be crossed by the majority of rural, light DSL users. Also, Verizon likely wants to target satellite companies with this service -- and they're the epitome of ridiculously low caps...
ShellMMG
join:2009-04-16
Grass Lake, MI

ShellMMG

Member

Re: LTE is not a Competitor to Wired Broadband

We just got DSL the end of October after many years of having just three choices -- dialup, satellite or VZW. I was lucky in that I snagged a dry loop connection before Frontier stopped offering them, and BOY did they push me to get a landline phone. No way, no how!

Frontier's CS computer system is beyond deplorable but the service is terrific. We actually watched an episode of "Once Upon A Time" we'd missed last month on our living room TV by streaming it...and were awed. I know a lot of readers are laughing at the idea of DSL being fantastic, but when you're bandwidth starved for YEARS it's a dream!

VZW also MUST realize that we rural to middle-mile dwellers have experience with caps on our home service. We. Hate. Caps. Period. If they want to charge satellite prices for LTE fine, but any caps will kill the deal. And having a strong, stable, CONSISTENT signal with DSL has been wonderful, too.
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR

PDXPLT

Member

Re: LTE is not a Competitor to Wired Broadband

Yup. I had satellite until Verizon left town and thankfully we got Frontier. Big city folks may poo-poo Frontier DSL, but when you get twice the speed of satellite at half the price, with no caps and miniscule latency, it's a wonderful improvement. If I was still on satellite I'd probably jump at fixed LTE in a heartbeat, but capped LTE instead of DSL? No way.

ITALIAN926
join:2003-08-16

ITALIAN926 to Karl Bode

Member

to Karl Bode
Partnering with DirecTV which theyll want to use for on-demand? Good luck with those caps.
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT

BiggA

Premium Member

Re: LTE is not a Competitor to Wired Broadband

That brings up net neutrality. What happens when they exempt DirecTV from the caps, but subject Netflix, Hulu Plus, and Amazon to them?

ITALIAN926
join:2003-08-16

ITALIAN926

Member

Re: LTE is not a Competitor to Wired Broadband

CAPS are in place because it'll bring their network to a crawl. Caps arent going anywhere, even for DirecTV, at least not yet.
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT

BiggA

Premium Member

Re: LTE is not a Competitor to Wired Broadband

Not if they're rocking 30mhz of spectrum in east middle of nowhere.

ITALIAN926
join:2003-08-16

ITALIAN926

Member

Re: LTE is not a Competitor to Wired Broadband

East Middle of Nowhere has an awful lot of DirecTV subscribers

no_one
@cox.net

no_one to ITALIAN926

Anon

to ITALIAN926
said by ITALIAN926:

Partnering with DirecTV which theyll want to use for on-demand? Good luck with those caps.

Sounds good to me. Caps equals better bits and better bits mean more profit for the poor ceo etc.
Caps are good in today's world. It is not about quantity but the quality of you bit bucket. We do not want any shoddy cheap bits floating around the net may get contaminated.
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT
·Frontier FiberOp..
Asus RT-AC68

BiggA to Karl Bode

Premium Member

to Karl Bode
I think they could offer pretty generous caps, say 50-100GB, as there aren't many users out there, the antennas are much more spectrally efficient than mobile ones, and having more channels of LTE up would only complement mobile LTE, not hurt it, while leaving all that spectrum freed up in urban areas that won't have fixed LTE for mobile users.

What I don't get through is why, if Verizon wants to do this, they didn't go it five years ago with Wifi. LTE really isn't that much more capable than good wifi gear.
Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Crookshanks to Karl Bode

Member

to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:

any fixed LTE offering would probably come with caps that wouldn't be crossed by the majority of rural, light DSL users.

So what's the problem? The rural users get better service and the only losers are the telcos that refuse to invest in their infrastructure.

Of course I'm not entirely convinced that those light DSL users would switch. I suspect most of them purchase on price rather than speed. Will Verizon be willing to price fixed LTE at a point that matches or beats what these people are currently paying for DSL? The cheapest Verizon data card plan is currently $50. What's Frontier charging these days for residential DSL?
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina

Member

Re: LTE is not a Competitor to Wired Broadband

Rural parents currently pay $50/month for really crappy fixed-wireless solution. I believe it's in the 900mhz band based on the "UHF-style" antenna mounted under their gutter. Maximum speed is on the order of 500Kbps with 256Kbps upload. Lots of packet loss and the provider is oversold during peak periods. Peak period throughput really stinks. High pings, 128Kbps throughput. However, they don't have any caps. (With that kind of performance, they couldn't use enough data to "shake a stick at" anyway!)

Verizon 3G and AT&T 3G are present but they probably would cross those low caps.

I don't think cost is a problem for everyone. I think they would gladly pay $50/month for something with multi-megabit performance, 100GB cap, low latency and better packet loss. It would make their browsing experience much better and they might be able to watch streaming video. As it is, the connection is painful for even short YouTube videos. They wait and wait and wait for it to buffer enough to play. They just have no idea what the Internet could be like.

I think Verizon's idea is fanstatic. I cannot wait for them to gain experience with LTE and possibly even consider it for more dense urban deployments.

We need MORE competition for our broadband dollars and my hope is that this solution can start to chip away at the current lack or duopoly-at-best competition we have today.
chgo_man99
join:2010-01-01
Sunnyvale, CA

chgo_man99

Member

Re: LTE is not a Competitor to Wired Broadband

UHF screems analog to me and a lot of interference. But Motorola canopy is not like that. It's way more reliable and faster and works on 2.5ghz frequency. It require direct in line sight though and professional installation.
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina

Member

Re: LTE is not a Competitor to Wired Broadband

Help me understand what you mean by analog.

The POP is on top of the town's water tower about 2.5 miles away. It's farm country and the water tower is visible with no obstructions.

I'm guessing about the frequency. Given the size of the antenna, I assumed a UHF frequency. They've had this for about five years.

Regarding oversold, it isn't the wireless link that's oversold. The pings to the ISP's core router are decent (except for packet loss). During peak periods, the pings get horrible on the first hop to AT&T after their core router.
jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI

jcremin

Member

Re: LTE is not a Competitor to Wired Broadband

This WISP is probably stuck in the same situation as most other WISPs. They are trying to offer service to an area that previously had nothing (or very limited options from the telcos) using unlicensed frequencies (since that is the only thing available to a small WISP and having to pay a TON of money for their incoming bandwidth. Keep in mind that many WISP's with very small resources do much more than the giant companies...
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina

Member

Re: LTE is not a Competitor to Wired Broadband

But what do you mean by "analog"? Is this some kind of wireless link that uses the frequency in a certain way?
jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI

jcremin

Member

Re: LTE is not a Competitor to Wired Broadband

I don't know what blguy07 means when he says analog. I didn't say it. I can only assume he is saying that the low frequencies are historically used by analog applications and he doesn't suspect they would work very well.
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina

Member

Re: LTE is not a Competitor to Wired Broadband

Oh sorry. I thought you said analog. Hopefully he'll reply and clarify.
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR

PDXPLT to Karl Bode

Member

to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:

Also, Verizon likely wants to target satellite companies with this service -- and they're the epitome of ridiculously low caps...

Not really. My month cap while on Wildblue was about 20 GB. That's alot more than the 5 GB cap most of the wireless providers have, including VZW, have. It's they who have the "ridiculously low" caps.
mogamer
join:2011-04-20
Royal Oak, MI

mogamer to pnh102

Member

to pnh102
said by pnh102:

Who is going to switch from DSL, which tends to have either fairly high caps or is uncapped, to a connection which is capped at 2GB to 5GB?

I can see LTE as being a less crappy substitute for satellite-based Internet connections but not anything wired.

Beyond this though, the fact remains though that LTE has no practical use... a high speed connection with a low cap? What's the point?

Even something like 8/1 with a 100gb cap @ $80 - $100 would absolutely crush satellite service. That would grab a lot of 1.5/.384 dsl customers too, but most wouldn't drop anything like 7/.512 dsl for that kind of plan because of pricing. But let's be honest though, most rural dsl customers don't use up a lot of data because their connections aren't good enough to be able to do it. So a 100gb cap would be fine for the vast majority of them. It would be pricing that would be the stumbling block.

Now, if Verizion came in with something like 8/1 with phone service and a 150gb - 200gb cap for $80, then they'll steal a lot of business from the telecos. The secret would be a consistant service. that is something these old phone lines can't often do with dsl.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

Re: LTE is not a Competitor to Wired Broadband

I agree with everything you say... it just sucks that wireless providers are all going in the opposite direction.
en103
join:2011-05-02

en103 to mogamer

Member

to mogamer
Yup.
I suspect that fixed LTE could easily replace a POTS/DSL line in most rural areas, and be cheaper.

VZ has taken lessons from many 3rd world countries, where its typically cheaper to deploy a cell site that can cover many square miles vs. copper ($$$) + poles and having to maintain the line to the demark point.

VZ could offer something 'simple' for rural access (6Mbps/1Mbps / 5GB + voice for $75/month) - this could entice many to switch. Rural POTS lines aren't cheap. Being that its a 'rural/fixed' service (i.e. don't expect to have tons of users/cell), capacity shouldn't be a big issue.
chgo_man99
join:2010-01-01
Sunnyvale, CA

chgo_man99

Member

Re: LTE is not a Competitor to Wired Broadband

Don't forget there are in some parts of this country regional wisps that use Motorola canopy and simply charge price similar to cable companies with 2 year contract. On average they offer 5-10 mb/s.

The only requirement is you have access to roof and clear sight for antenna positioning.
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT
·Frontier FiberOp..
Asus RT-AC68

BiggA to en103

Premium Member

to en103
Exactly! Land lines are worthless if they are beyond the reach of DSL, since they are an outdated form of communication. They are rapidly becoming a relic.

What I don't understand is why Verizon waited to have licensed spectrum, when high-powered Wifi gear can do the same thing in an unlicensed band. I know of a wifi-based WiSP that can do 10+ miles with endpoint gear, and is able to shoot about 3 miles directly to the internal card in a laptop. 700mhz would be a big advantage though, if you don't have DLOS.

This could be a good option, although ultimately, I think every American deserves wired access that is good. Like a fast D3 cable plant or fiber. Unfortunately, our politicians don't have the backbone to make that the cases, even in more populated areas.
jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI

jcremin

Member

Re: LTE is not a Competitor to Wired Broadband

said by BiggA:

What I don't understand is why Verizon waited to have licensed spectrum, when high-powered Wifi gear can do the same thing in an unlicensed band.

As the owner of a small WISP, it is clear why they don't want to use unlicensed spectrum. It's like the wild-west, and you are constantly battling interference from everyone else trying to use a very limited number of frequencies. A major cell provider is not about to offer service on something that needs constant attention. The small guys can do it because they are local to the area, but it is a LOT of work.
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT

BiggA

Premium Member

Re: LTE is not a Competitor to Wired Broadband

They have the big bucks to set it up. And the licenses save a lot.
jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI

jcremin

Member

Re: LTE is not a Competitor to Wired Broadband

said by BiggA:

They have the big bucks to set it up. And the licenses save a lot.

It doesn't matter how much money you throw at unlicensed spectrum, it still sucks compared to having your own dedicated frequencies. It's obviously possible to make something work with unlicensed frequencies as myself and a lot of other WISPs are doing it, but it is a totally different game than having your own licensed system.
beltts05
join:2011-07-06
Lisbon, IA

beltts05 to pnh102

Member

to pnh102
I do not have the option of DSL in my area as of yet. Windstream is my would be provider.

Right now we use a Verizon USB LTE modem ($80.00/10 gb cap per month) and a Wilson external antenna to pull in a weak LTE signal. We still get 4-5 mbps which is a huge improvement over the 3g speeds we got before.

At this point if Verizon came in and offered a fixed LTE solution at a decent price and a reasonable cap (100 gb - 150 gb) it would be hard to pry me away from them.

Plus, I will probably be locked into a new 2 year contract for the fixed lte anyway!
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina

Member

Business plan...

Perhaps the executive business plan of these DSL companies is to milk it for as long as they can, make millions, build lots of houses in Florida and when the end comes, retire in style.

Is this a shining example of ethical behavior? No but if we can accuse Verizon of off-loading something that can still make money in the short term and someone was stupid enough to buy it, perhaps they never intended to be viable for the long term and aren't so stupid after all.

Perhaps the only stupidity is expressed by the investors/banks that believed those that bought Verizon's trash on the hope that they could sift through it and find a few nuggets of gold.
elefante72
join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

elefante72

Member

A few issues

To be more succinct, voice is the anchor product for these companies, the DSL is the ride-along. Just try to buy dry loop and they jack the price...The largest issue these folks are going to have is actually making DSL the anchor product and blowing up the voice and converting it to VOIP, like the cable-cos and Verizon did.

When FIOS first came to town they didn't have the digital voice (humorous tho it still ran over fibre), which when you add taxes was like $15 in NY. Verizon saw uptake low, then mysteriously "digital voice" appeared and the triple play was rummaging through my neighborhood, and taxes for my entire TP are $6 as they should be.

So if these guys continue to charge $30 for dial tone, they will be out of business because MVNOs are shaking the stick at voice to--this multi-modal competition. I mean who wouldn't want cellular prepaid for less than a landline? I bought a bluetooth phone (landline), and my cell just rings on my normal phone.

I have said in the past that these DSL yoyos need to come up w/ a hybrid model so that when a cable is too far or quality sucks (being the copper is 100 years old), then replace it w/ a wireless connection, just like verizon is going to do. Now this could be whitespace or 2.4ghz, they dont even need to purchase spectrum. This does mean there will be interference issues, however since Verizon saddled them w/ billions of their debt this is the only option.

You see this LTD pretty much means that infrastructure upgrades are out, and everyone blames them as lazy--they are not. They need to get LTD to a reasonable ratio, and that means cutting opex and capex (opex cuts means poor customer satisfaction and high pressure sales tactics). I think their bean counters didn't count on low cost wireless killing their voice business so fast. Second mistake (and I saw my company make this mistake on a few acquisitions) was that they didn't vet existing contracts well enough. Verizon knew they were dumping DSL so they pumped up the numbers by offering the "lock me in forever" under DSL $30, which pumps up the numbers of course, but now these yoyos who bought the copper are seeing this effect, and squatting is a hard nut to crack. So now Frontier comes up w/ this $7 fee which gets this closer to real market pricing, and pisses everyone off. But the folks on the not forever pricing take a hit (the legacy Frontier) and satisfaction continues to goes down.

It's a vicious cycle, but lets face it copper will die if Verizon gets LTE in the northeast, then once they are dead, jack up the prices. Typical stuff. Once the kill off the competition and saturate LTE, then they can go back to building FIOS is 2-3 years--because they know the LTE cantennas will have video issues for a few years, so they will have to be keen on bandwidth shaping. Also someone will think, hey I get 70GB for $50 on my cantenna, why are you chargin me $30 for 2GB on my phone.
Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Crookshanks

Member

Re: A few issues

said by elefante72:

To be more succinct, voice is the anchor product for these companies, the DSL is the ride-along. Just try to buy dry loop and they jack the price...

Verizon charges me an extra $5/mo for dry loop service. Hardly price jacking.
said by elefante72:

So if these guys continue to charge $30 for dial tone

I pay $13/mo for dial tone plus $0.09 for each local call. What kills POTS are fees and taxes. FCC line charge, USF fee, 911 fee, blah, blah, blah. My $13/mo bill comes to $29 when all of these fees are added on.

What needs to happen is these fees go away entirely or get applied equally to VoIP and mobiles. I would prefer the former of course...
said by elefante72:

I mean who wouldn't want cellular prepaid for less than a landline?

Someone who cares about reliability? My Verizon wireless non-MVNO post-paid phone was useless during the flooding from Tropical Storm Lee. Combine the extra load from a disaster with the loss of low lying cell sites and the end result was I couldn't make or receive calls at reasonable hours for three days. There were periods where I couldn't even send texts. Our local government had to ask people to stop using their cell phones so the first responders had access to them.

I ordered my first POTS line in seven years right after this disaster. Nobody I know with POTS service lost it.
said by elefante72:

Also someone will think, hey I get 70GB for $50 on my cantenna, why are you chargin me $30 for 2GB on my phone.

I'd wager this is where bucket o' bytes plans will come into play. Just a hunch though.

linicx
Caveat Emptor
Premium Member
join:2002-12-03
United State

linicx

Premium Member

Well...

I live in rural America. I'm 50-miles from an AT&T copper or Comcast. AT&T, US Cellular, Sprint & Verizon wireless all suck generally in rural America. So does VoIP. The city gets their FIOS from the college. There is no hope of FTTH from cable. The City will not allow competition to the local cable company or the local phone company even though a wireless connection is available, fast and local - meaning the owner company is within 10 miles.

We live in a world where the love of money IS the root of all evil.

psychic99
@verizon.net

psychic99

Anon

Re: Well...

You cannot blame the phone companies for this, they are private companies that are driven for profit. If it costs $20k to wire your house, it's not gonna happen by free market competition. They are not going to throw up a DSLAM for 4 people. It makes sense in rural America to move to FTTH.

But people need to understand mandates and how that impacts the rest of the people. So say your house costs $20k to wire (not unreasonable), and the government mandates it to telco xyz without supporting funds. Now telco xyz has to take a capex loss of $19k on you and every other of the millions in rural America (they can run fibre in a metro $1k). Well now, they are public and need to make a profit, so everyone else takes a hit because they need to cover this capex hit. Even if the government supports it, is it worth the funds to wire your house for $20k just so you can have high speed? I personally don't want my tax money going to such a project, because the return to the economy on that is surely negative, and that is how the market runs in America.

The only way you are going to get reasonable service is by government mandate, plain and simple because wiring your house is not economically feasible. The billions they are siphoning off Americans for USF could have wired your house w/ fibre a few times already. They did it 70 years ago w/ copper, they can do it again today.

America is concentrating on bombing people for oil and being an insurance company. Infrastructure went out the door 20 years ago, so talk to the politicians, not your phone company.

When we relocated out of the City, I made a series of choices for family, quality, schools, etc and HSI was on the list. I actually set that as a priority to my realtor, cable at a minimum (FIOS didn't exist at that point) I made the economic decision to do such, and you are free to as well.

There are instances where "public good" are needed for economically negative utility projects, this just happens to be one of them, if the government deems them a priority. Ask where all that USF money goes to your congressman.

cableties
Premium Member
join:2005-01-27

cableties

Premium Member

Could be a good thing...

considering I have friends/family in rural Franklin County, NY.
No DSL (too far from CO), no Cable (Cable Co stops 8 miles down the road), Satellite is too $$, and they only have dial-up.

Last visit, I noticed VZW signal is full bars from their house (300' from driveway-road) so, if they slap an LTE receiver on the DISH mount, run a feed in the house and put AP there, bingo, who cares if its 10Mbps or even 5Mbps...beats 50Kbps..
Ofcourse the REAL question here is, WHEN will LTE be full coverage of rural areas?

(seqway- tin foil pants because my sperm is sacred!) lol!

(and they won't answer that because they don't want the competition to know...which is silly because they use the same towers)

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: Could be a good thing...

said by cableties:

Ofcourse the REAL question here is, WHEN will LTE be full coverage of rural areas?

From your description it sounds like they are close to a tower, so for them LTE is very possible relatively soon.

But for many suburban, semi-rural areas, the signal strength is not nearly as strong. Unless those areas have a population density that is is at least somewhat respectable, I just don't see AT&T or Verizon putting up new towers in their areas. It is just not cost effective.
jeepwrang3
join:2011-02-24
North East, MD

jeepwrang3

Member

Re: Could be a good thing...

I'm relatively sure I'll be one of the folks still left in the dark with LTE. I live on a peninsula on the Chesapeake Bay, and our main cellphone tower comes across a river from Aberdeen MD. I believe 4g is being rolled out there soon, but we're so far away that i'm sure we'll miss out. Verizon has told me they have 0 intention of a Fios buildout or DSL, so it looks like i'm SOL

waitdooood
@kcweb.net

waitdooood

Anon

what if they make it like their ftth?

use dish/dtv for tv, their own VoIP for phone and LTE for internet, like 'FiOS-wireless' or something, normal FiOS has no caps, maybe this wont ether. jsut cause its wireless, wait dood and see
flashcore
join:2007-01-23
united state

flashcore

Member

Re: what if they make it like their ftth?

Just cause its wireless means there WILL be caps. There is no wait and see with it. FiOS is a glass wire run right into a home which has potential limits of over 100Gbps per wave length and there are lots of wave lengths that can be used with no licenses needed, wireless on the other hand is limited based on the spectrum licenses you own from the FCC, even with a 30Mhcz liense you will get nowhere near 100Gbps let alone 1Gbps and you then share that same 30Mhz of spectrum out to hundreds and hundreds of other people using the same towers.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray

Member

Re: what if they make it like their ftth?

said by flashcore:

Just cause its wireless means there WILL be caps.

Not true at all. Fixed LTE loading, especially with VZ entering a foreign territory where they will have less uptake, could be throttled or sold on speed tiers without the need for caps - no "Network Neutrality" nonsense to interfere with bandwidth management forcing caps.
gaforces (banned)
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA

gaforces (banned)

Member

Quick deployment

They will be able to deploy faster than other carriers with all that deal money and bandwidth. I read they are pushing MS to get the LTE phones on the market. Good strategys.
It would take a really good deal for me to leave sprint unlimited. If the caps are 50g + I could deal with that.
itguy05
join:2005-06-17
Carlisle, PA

itguy05

Member

Re: Quick deployment

said by gaforces:

They will be able to deploy faster than other carriers with all that deal money and bandwidth. I read they are pushing MS to get the LTE phones on the market. Good strategys.
It would take a really good deal for me to leave sprint unlimited. If the caps are 50g + I could deal with that.

MS, like Windows Phone 7 which lost marketshare last quarter? WP 7 that is one ugly OS? That has less than 2% marketshare ans declining?

I really don't think Verizon gives 2 $hits about Windows Phones. I know I certainly wouldn't given the fact that the public is largely ignoring them.
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY

tmc8080

Member

lead on...

If LTE is SO good, tell Verizon to go build it out in Century-Tel and AT&T land...

Then see if they will be as happy about it..

CaptainRR
Premium Member
join:2006-04-21
Blue Rock, OH

CaptainRR

Premium Member

Re: lead on...

I would like to see that to, the new cell site by me is in the middle of at&t rural land with Time Warner fiber running to it!