Verizon Just killed Your Dreams of Getting FiOS

Yeah fuck infrastructure upgrades amirite?!

Could be worse, ya'll could live down here in Australia :)
 
You know, with the way our current ISPs treat us, I''m dying to see the day Google and Amazon spread out, beat the living shit out of them then bury them.
Our current companies are doing everything in their power to not provide decent service while upping the price every month. As long as they keep screwing us over we're all going to jump ship the second we get a chance and leave them out of business.
 
SGA76 said:
You know, with the way our current ISPs treat us, I''m dying to see the day Google and Amazon spread out, beat the living shit out of them then bury them.
Our current companies are doing everything in their power to not provide decent service while upping the price every month. As long as they keep screwing us over we're all going to jump ship the second we get a chance and leave them out of business.
Click to expand...

Amazon I would like but fuck Google.
 
Not a surprise ... I think fios was a fraction of their wireless profits and wireless isn't going anywhere anytime soon with plenty of expansion left for them there
 
Kor said:
Yeah fuck infrastructure upgrades amirite?!
Click to expand...

Verizon and Comcast have beautiful business models.. the kind that only crooked capitalists could come up with:

1) Offer terrible services
2) Refuse to offer better services
3) Sue all newcomers into extinction so no other options exist
4) Pay off government officials in the form of campaign donations to fend off anti-trust lawsuits.
 
Skripka said:
Didn't they basically say this a long time ago?
Click to expand...

Yup.

The company I work for is a contractor for VZ that handles some of the remaining FiOS layout designs and I commented on this a ways back when news came down to us about it.

So, any areas that were "in progress" where they had signed contracts with the local city were marked for completion, anywhere else was scrapped. I'm honestly amazed they havent tried to weasel out of those signed contract areas as well.

Of course, in the current economy, not many people are willing to shell out for a FiOS package either, and if VZ isnt going to make back the millions it can cost to wire an area, they arent going to lay down the infrastructure either. Easier to just milk the wireless for all they can get.

Our original team of about 50 has been limping along with about 15 people for some time now, and I've been laid off twice due to the lack of work at times.

Sucks all around.
 
I have FiOS here in NYC...started out great but has gone down a bit in quality...starting to compress more of their HD signals...internet speeds are fast but pretty much every major provider has 50-100 Mbps speeds nowadays...FiOS is still better then every other cable provider except for Google Fiber
 
I am not surprised at all, the issue is cost. Everyone wants 1Gbps fiber to their home, but nobody wants to actually pay for it. So there is no reason for anyone to actually build it out. When hardware and fiber alone cost you $1500+ per person (assuming every single person in an area took it) and you are expected to give it away for almost free. There is no reason for anyone to actually offer it. If you were to tell people they could have it but only if they paid $400 per month nobody would want it and would bitch, moan and cry that you are not giving them a fairly priced service.
 
shade91 said:
Verizon and Comcast have beautiful business models.. the kind that only crooked capitalists could come up with:

1) Offer terrible services
2) Refuse to offer better services
3) Sue all newcomers into extinction so no other options exist
4) Pay off government officials in the form of campaign donations to fend off anti-trust lawsuits.
Click to expand...

3 doesn't matter as even when new comers do come into the field, which many still do. Everyone just says fuck them because their prices aren't dirt cheap and they don't start off with super speed service until they can make enough money to upgrade stuff. So people in general just run them out of business anyway.
 
Exavior said:
I am not surprised at all, the issue is cost. Everyone wants 1Gbps fiber to their home, but nobody wants to actually pay for it. So there is no reason for anyone to actually build it out. When hardware and fiber alone cost you $1500+ per person (assuming every single person in an area took it) and you are expected to give it away for almost free. There is no reason for anyone to actually offer it. If you were to tell people they could have it but only if they paid $400 per month nobody would want it and would bitch, moan and cry that you are not giving them a fairly priced service.
Click to expand...

400 per. Month? Seriously? There's one major flaw in that reasoning...

They don't need to make it all back in the first year or two. Infrastructure is an investment.
 
Exavior said:
Everyone wants 1Gbps fiber to their home, but nobody wants to actually pay for it.
Click to expand...
It'd be more correct to say no one wants to overpay for it. Other countries have fiber to the home for far less than it costs even in US metropolitan areas.

Stop defending shitty ISP's and their greed. Especially since much of the infrastructure they do own was paid for or indirectly subsidized with public money.
 
Exavior said:
I am not surprised at all, the issue is cost. Everyone wants 1Gbps fiber to their home, but nobody wants to actually pay for it. So there is no reason for anyone to actually build it out. When hardware and fiber alone cost you $1500+ per person (assuming every single person in an area took it) and you are expected to give it away for almost free. There is no reason for anyone to actually offer it. If you were to tell people they could have it but only if they paid $400 per month nobody would want it and would bitch, moan and cry that you are not giving them a fairly priced service.
Click to expand...

It's an investment for the company. They recoup the costs from service fees, and they're not anywhere near $400/mo unless you're getting all the premium channels. People didn't directly pay for any of the fiber that's already been laid.

Shouldn't some of our tax dollars go towards improving infrastructure by laying down fiber? It would create jobs, improve local economy, and advance technology.
 
w4ffles said:
Shouldn't some of our tax dollars go towards improving infrastructure by laying down fiber? It would create jobs, improve local economy, and advance technology.
Click to expand...

Fuck no our tax dollars should not go to building a private companies infrastructure.
 
mesyn191 said:
It'd be more correct to say no one wants to overpay for it. Other countries have fiber to the home for far less than it costs even in US metropolitan areas.

Stop defending shitty ISP's and their greed. Especially since much of the infrastructure they do own was paid for or indirectly subsidized with public money.
Click to expand...

Exactly the US pays some of the highest prices for mediocre speeds.
 
Explains alot, I better watch everything on the DVR in a hurry and move to ... oh.... Comcast is the only alternative, shit.

The increasing compression/quality drop is very real. Worse, their stupid HD DVR boxes are just mediocre Linux boxes and are not up to the task of doingthe decompressing on the fly without yielding noticeable problems. I have seen in the past few months serious artifacts and dropouts in On-Demand HD movies. This now makes a lot of sense. Cheap ass mthrfkrs.

I have a simple way to solve the issue of they make higher profits on the wireless end of the business .... Cell Phones are now Public Utilities and subject to price controls. Oops. :eek::cool:
 
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
I have a simple way to solve the issue of they make higher profits on the wireless end of the business .... Cell Phones are now Public Utilities and subject to price controls. Oops. :eek::cool:
Click to expand...

Not gonna happen ... We have fairly good competition on the wireless front (especially in big cities) and the wireless companies pay tens of billions to the government to lease wireless spectrum ... No way is the government going to bite that hand ;)
 
Exavior said:
I am not surprised at all, the issue is cost. Everyone wants 1Gbps fiber to their home, but nobody wants to actually pay for it. So there is no reason for anyone to actually build it out. When hardware and fiber alone cost you $1500+ per person (assuming every single person in an area took it) and you are expected to give it away for almost free. There is no reason for anyone to actually offer it. If you were to tell people they could have it but only if they paid $400 per month nobody would want it and would bitch, moan and cry that you are not giving them a fairly priced service.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Right now, it costs too much to build the infrastructure and provide service at a decent price. Gb is nice, but it's not cheap. Google is definitely losing money on their installs for a few years before they see any kind of profit. As much as I'd love to have it in my small town, it's just not feasible.
 
When I was was looking at buying a house earlier this year I specifically chose a neighborhood that had FiOS availability. No way could I ever go back to that TWC RoadRunner garbage. It is a shame they aren't expanding the infrastructure... $70 a month for FiOS 50/25 is worth every penny as I have no need for overpriced cable TV.
 
I wish VZ would take the FiOS back from Frontier, these guys won't upgrade their plans :( I think 50/20 is the fastest plan and they dumped their symmetric plans which pisses me off. I still have the 25/25 and can't upgrade without losing upload. My bill hasn't gone up in 3 years though, so there is that.
 
Now if only Google would get into the cell provider game. Fuck vz.
 
shade91 said:
Verizon and Comcast have beautiful business models.. the kind that only crooked capitalists could come up with:

1) Offer terrible services
2) Refuse to offer better services
3) Sue all newcomers into extinction so no other options exist
4) Pay off government officials in the form of campaign donations to fend off anti-trust lawsuits.
Click to expand...

3 and definitely 4 are not typical in capitalism. 1 and 2 work until someone else comes around to compete.
 
I love my comcast speed (no cap) and my verizon coverage, but man their prices suck and their backroom deals are hurting America.
 
SGA76 said:
You know, with the way our current ISPs treat us, I''m dying to see the day Google and Amazon spread out, beat the living shit out of them then bury them.
Our current companies are doing everything in their power to not provide decent service while upping the price every month. As long as they keep screwing us over we're all going to jump ship the second we get a chance and leave them out of business.
Click to expand...
Imagine if Google had local monopolies like Comcast; they'd not only charge an arm and a leg just like Comcast, but they'd most likely monitor every byte of information coming from and going to your house, catalog it, and both sell it to the highest bidder and offer it to the NSA.
 
w4ffles said:
It's an investment for the company. They recoup the costs from service fees, and they're not anywhere near $400/mo unless you're getting all the premium channels. People didn't directly pay for any of the fiber that's already been laid.

Shouldn't some of our tax dollars go towards improving infrastructure by laying down fiber? It would create jobs, improve local economy, and advance technology.
Click to expand...

Disposed said:
Fuck no our tax dollars should not go to building a private companies infrastructure.
Click to expand...

LOL

My electric utility built out fiber to all homes in my capitol city.

Guess what?

Time Warner turned around and bought legislation making it illegal for public utilities to "compete" in the same "market" as private corporations. All that beautiful high-speed fiber? Permanently and forever dark thanks to lobbying.
 
Disposed said:
400 per. Month? Seriously? There's one major flaw in that reasoning...

They don't need to make it all back in the first year or two. Infrastructure is an investment.
Click to expand...

No flaw, it is the logic that companies put into the decision of doing business. It is easy for us to say that they shouldn't expect to get all the money back in 1 or 2 years, but then how do they pay for it? They need billions to do the jobs somehow.

And your reply is exactly what I was talking about. Nobody wants to actually pay for the service at the cost that it takes for a company to actually make money from it. Lets forget about Verizon or anyone else. Some new company wants to come into your area and do fiber, they have nothing, they have to start from scratch on their own dime. They aren't going to want to wait 20 years to make money off their investment. Hell, the bank (or anyone else investing) isn't going to go to put up with that. If there was a cost of $2000 per install or the cost was a few hundred more for the first few years you would never pay for it. Everyone wants the service for a low price and don't care about anything else. When a company looks at it though from the returns side people get upset.

Yes Verizon has made money for years off of DSL and has wasted money given to them by the government. So they in theory should be able to afford to do this without much issue. And so my comment does goes somewhat weak when looking at only them. But if you expand it to others who aren't one of the big guys. Or look at it from them not having used the money of the past correctly. Then it is different. Looking at it solely as a company wanting to put fiber into the ground. It isn't cheap, and most are going to look at it as how quickly can I get a return on my investment, not how can I be nice and give people faster service. ISPs are in business to make money, not to be nice.

This is the problem that people seem to have. Nobody can figure out why there aren't 30 choices for fiber in their town, or why everyone isn't putting fiber in the ground as quickly as possible to get everyone super high speeds. I am just trying to bring some actual logic to the table to explain why. Because from a business standpoint it doesn't make sense to do so as nobody actually wants to pay rates that would give them fast return on investment. So they would be spending millions or billions with little to no return on that investment (when you look at too many others in an area). it is cheaper to upgrade from ADSL to ADSL2+ or VDSL2 and keep you on copper. Then they are just upgrading the main network backbone, maybe swapping out a few cards. Now, once they do that they are getting closer to having some of that cost taken care of as I know what equipment a lot of the guys out there use. And know that once their backbone is upgraded, it is just a mater of changing out xDSL cards with fiber based cards and you aren't having to replace as much equipment so that cost per customer goes down. Of course this doesn't help for new companies, but does help existing companies save cost once they at least upgrade their main backbone.

w4ffles said:
It's an investment for the company. They recoup the costs from service fees, and they're not anywhere near $400/mo unless you're getting all the premium channels. People didn't directly pay for any of the fiber that's already been laid.

Shouldn't some of our tax dollars go towards improving infrastructure by laying down fiber? It would create jobs, improve local economy, and advance technology.
Click to expand...

Pay who? The main provider of the area? (your ILEC such as AT&T, Verizon, Frontier, Centurylink...), every single company that wants to come to your area? They already do fund it to a small amount for the small guys. That is what part of your phone bill goes to. So if you still have a landline part of that universal service fund that is on there is set aside and paid back to smaller companies that are upgrading areas to at least get them up to 4mbps down and 1Mbps up which is the current set definition of high speed broadband. Money goes to the first company in an area that request it. However given the current definition, fixed wireless can get that speed and it cheaper so that is what is normally put in many areas. Companies rush in before people that would actually make good use of the money get it and toss up half assed solutions using fixed wireless.

As for my $400, that was just an example cost based on what it takes to get new service out to a customer at a few miles assuming that you cover an entire area with just your service. Before you actually offer any services or anything, equipment and labor alone can run you $2000+ per customer just to get them service when you start looking at an area a little bit out from your equipment. And that is just looking at the fiber from your house back to wherever it terminates, not anything existing before then. For somebody wanting to make that money back in a short amount of time. they either would have to charge you a few grand for install, or they would have to charge you a high rate for at least the first year or so in order to recover the cost if they didn't want to wait a decade or longer to get their return.
 
Ducman69 said:
Imagine if Google had local monopolies like Comcast; they'd not only charge an arm and a leg just like Comcast, but they'd most likely monitor every byte of information coming from and going to your house, catalog it, and both sell it to the highest bidder and offer it to the NSA.
Click to expand...

1. I have an Android, they already do. It'd be the same if I had an iPhone. If the government WANTS TO KNOW they WILL KNOW whether we like it or not. Hell, right now our own government is selling our info to foreign companies to make extra scratch off of us. Unless you're born in the woods, raised by wolves and completely off the grid YOU WILL BE TRACKED. The NSA threatens to make companies' existences a living hell and throw them into bankruptcy unless they're given what they demand already. No way in hell they're paying for it.
2. Pretty sure they wouldn't jack up prices, bringing people together (and selling their info) is their business model. Now a permanent add window, that wouldn't surprise me.
 
Skripka said:
LOL

My electric utility built out fiber to all homes in my capitol city.

Guess what?

Time Warner turned around and bought legislation making it illegal for public utilities to "compete" in the same "market" as private corporations. All that beautiful high-speed fiber? Permanently and forever dark thanks to lobbying.
Click to expand...

Spin off a private company to "buy" the fiber and run that service. Problem solved.
 
Exavior said:
Spin off a private company to "buy" the fiber and run that service. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

Do you really think the local Time Warner monopoly would allow that, or are you really that naive? My scenario has been repeated countless times across the country with municipal broadband/fiber efforts. It never ends with happily lit-up fiber and competition for ISP service.
 
I just got fios quantum (house was prewired for fios) for a amazing $39.99 a year. They are focusing on getting money out of existing work before doing anything else. Before this deal they wanted something like $80 a month for internet only, and $90 for triple play, with hidden equipment rental fees.

But I was asking for Verizon DSL before fios, they said sorry we wont provide you with DSL only fios (despite being wired for copper lines too) tried going through AT&T to get DSL, but it was like $60 a month as it required home phone and some sort of Verizon rental fee. When I asked about U-verse they said something like my area was divided between Verizon and AT&T a long time ago and I was in the Verizon section. (How is that legal?)
 
Skripka said:
Do you really think the local Time Warner monopoly would allow that, or are you really that naive? My scenario has been repeated countless times across the country with municipal broadband/fiber efforts. It never ends with happily lit-up fiber and competition for ISP service.
Click to expand...

I am aware that happens in areas. How many of those places actually tried though to get a private company to buy the fiber from them and get it going vs just giving up because they couldn't do it themselves?

Lord of Shadows said:
I just got fios quantum (house was prewired for fios) for a amazing $39.99 a year. They are focusing on getting money out of existing work before doing anything else. Before this deal they wanted something like $80 a month for internet only, and $90 for triple play, with hidden equipment rental fees.

But I was asking for Verizon DSL before fios, they said sorry we wont provide you with DSL only fios (despite being wired for copper lines too) tried going through AT&T to get DSL, but it was like $60 a month as it required home phone and some sort of Verizon rental fee. When I asked about U-verse they said something like my area was divided between Verizon and AT&T a long time ago and I was in the Verizon section. (How is that legal?)
Click to expand...

Telecommunication act of 1996. Basically set up a gentleman agreement in a way. Every area had some telephone company that serviced it. Everyone agreed that they were the ones that still would control the area, they are the ones that the government gives any type of government funds to based on fees collected on your phone bill (on the reverse side the are the only one that has to collect them also). And the other companies don't cross into their area. So AT&T has their area, they collect 911 charges, all the government fees and taxes for the one area and have the government tell them what the charge while turning over a set amount of what they collect from customers to the government. Verizon does the same for their area. And so that they don't fight about an area they stay out of each other's area. Comcast, Time warner... they aren't part of this agreement as they are what came about as the result of the act so they can go wherever, not have to collect any government taxes or fee and don't turn over anything that they make from customers to the government.

That said it does sound like in your area those that AT&T is able to lease Verizon lines for DSL so they at least have an agreement for that. And then they do have to charge you all the other fees because of the great work by the FCC that mandates that you have to pay for phone service to have DSL regardless if you want phone service or not.

As for your house being wired for copper lines. that doesn't mean they connect to anything any more they might have the other end going to nothing. If they do still have it going to something, it doesn't mean that they can push xDSL over them anymore. Don't know the area to know for sure. I know that my work (small Telco/ISP) is moving everyone to fiber in an area and cutting out as much of the existing copper then as we can. So there might still be lines going up to a house, but any part of that above ground or in a conduit that we could get to has been cut off and removed so it doesn't actually connect to anything.
 
w4ffles said:
It's an investment for the company. They recoup the costs from service fees, and they're not anywhere near $400/mo unless you're getting all the premium channels. People didn't directly pay for any of the fiber that's already been laid.

Shouldn't some of our tax dollars go towards improving infrastructure by laying down fiber? It would create jobs, improve local economy, and advance technology.
Click to expand...

I just think the only way we going to get fiber is people demand it or tax dollars pay for it.
 
polonyc2 said:
I have FiOS here in NYC...started out great but has gone down a bit in quality...starting to compress more of their HD signals...internet speeds are fast but pretty much every major provider has 50-100 Mbps speeds nowadays...FiOS is still better then every other cable provider except for Google Fiber
Click to expand...

I would still take my Optimum Online over these two.
 
Nerdydave said:
I just think the only way we going to get fiber is people demand it or tax dollars pay for it.
Click to expand...

Get your home landline back and you will help with the second one there. The more people that cut their landlines, the less money the FCC has to give back as grants to companies to build fiber.
 
I am currently on 22 Mbps down cable Internet. My provider calls me frequently offering me to upgrade to 50 or 100 Mbps for a fairly modest additional fee and I keep declining. Why should I pay $20/mo more for 50 Mbps when I don't even saturate 22 Mbps?

The wife can stream HD Hulu+, Netflix, Amazon Prime, while I RDP into work or do some World of Tanks and it all just works on 22 Mbps.

How would 1 Gbps better my life?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top