Slashdot Mirror

Boycott Cisco

I use a Netgear router, but Cisco products may be upstream of my home. I know of two residential Internet service providers in Fort Wayne, Indiana: Verizon and Comcast. Verizon has been seen palling around with Cisco, and so has Comcast. So how do I boycott Cisco without boycotting the whole Internet?

First off, anybody who thinks that NAT is a long term solution to the IP address shortage is fooling themselves. NAT is a stopgap solution that has a scant handful of years left in it (some estimates say as little as 3-4 years). IPv6 is the only long term solution we have at the moment.

The biggest thing holding me back from switching is that my ISP doesn't seem to care one whiff about switching. The only way I have available to get on is to set up a tunnel, which seems to defeat the entire purpose of IPv6. I don't want to run IPv6 just for the sake of saying that I run IPv6, I want to run it so I can have an address for every device and finally get rid of the annoying NAT solutions.

Where do you live that you have fiber to your house? I sure as hell don't have that option.

Move out of the boonies.

http://www22.verizon.com/content/consumerfios/check+availability/check+availability.htm

How is this a good thing? I'm thinking that the financial resources being spent to roll this out would have done more good had they actually invested in their architecture to simply increase bandwidth. Now they are watching your total bandwidth, not to mention your average over 15 minute periods for every 15 minutes. Just upgrade your network, you'll have happier customers.

It's a good thing from their perspective because it will probably have the "unintended" side-effect of making it impossible to watch real time streaming video. The cable companies are terrified of IPTV because it competes with their core business -- so why make it easier for IPTV providers to reach your customers?

I suspect that once the IPTV market gets firmly established and powerful enough to have their own lobbyists you'll start to hear rumblings about anti-trust. Sooner or later the FCC (or state regulatory agencies) will intervene. If they don't then look for a DoJ suit that seeks to split up the cable and internet operations. You won't see any of this happen for at least ten years though -- so in the mean time you are effectively shut out from using these services if you are a Comcast subscriber.

Then I reminded him that Verizon is doing it and he came back with the argument of, "Yeah but it costs a couple hundred bucks just to have it set up." Now, I don't know what it actually costs, all I know is that there are enough people signing up as they roll it out that they haven't yet stopped rolling it out.

He's full of shit. Right now they are showing a deal for free equipment and $42.99/mo. Granted, it's Verizon, so I'm sure you have to sign a contract -- but there isn't a huge installation fee that I'm aware of. FiOS could kick their ass -- but I'd wager that unless state regulatory agencies intervene you are only going to see Verizon roll it out in the big cities. The rest of us will be stuck with crippled cable service or slower DSL offerings (if available) for the foreseeable future.

Personally I opted for DSL -- I only get 1.5Mbit/s as opposed to 5.0Mbit/s but at least I know I can use it whenever I want and I've never seen my Netflix videos choke and die during peak hours on DSL. I've also never seen my DSL lose connectivity for no apparent reason -- something that seems to happen at least once a month on Roadrunner around these parts.

That's nice.

Meanwhile, as of last week, we STILL cannot buy FIOS in Philadelphia. No matter how much I want to give Verizon my money, they just won't take it.

Unfortunately we live in Comcast Country. Verizon is slowly building out Philadelphia though, you can always check up on the FTTP construction locations monthly at http://www22.verizon.com/about/community/pa/. It looks like a lot of center city is getting it.

Yeah, but Japan has a much higher population density than the US. It's easier to wire things up when everyone is closer.

Which is why I, living in an area of the US with population density figures similar to Japan, have a crappy 6Mbps connection.

Really, the north east of the US has a population density that compares to that of Europe and Japan, and yet has crappy broadband options anyway. The fastest DSL option remains 3Mbps down/0.75Mbsp up. So the "population density" argument is complete bull.

Verizon FiOS actually is available in this area and can apparently get "speeds of up to 50Mbps" (which means "50Mbps down/20Mbps up") although that's $140/month. The basic plan, however, is 10Mbps down/2Mbps up.

And while it's available "in this area" it's not available where I live. Apparently at least 60% of an apartment building has to "express interest" before they'll actually run the lines. Despite the fiber running right past the building.

Your rates seem to be off. According to Verizon,
you could get 50/20 for $139.95/month.

Or, you know...stop building networks for asymmetric connections and overselling like mad. Improve the network and don't promise more bandwidth until you can reasonably handle it. (Why offer more bandwidth constantly? It's not like the major ISPs have any real competition. And certainly not everywhere.)

It sounds like your living in some internet stone age where regional monopolies are trying to squeeze every dime out of you they can without having to provide much service to their customers at all

It's a lot different servicing 9.8 million square kilometers than it is servicing 41,000 square kilometers. Throw in the tradition of companies engaging in the most aggressive anti-competitive practices they possibly can unless the government steps in despite their efforts to buy them off (a publicly-traded company must engage in any legalized form of bribery available - passing up this opportunity for more profits is an actionable tort), the enormous economic pressure on companies to spend as little money as possible while bringing in as much as possible (anyone in IT in the US getting whatever they need to do their jobs without any hassles, let me know where you work), and the widespread belief that being sophisticated enough to realize that they're getting a raw deal is "elitist" and wrong/weak/arrogant/gay/unpatriotic, and yeah. Internet Stone Age. There are actually, staggering though it will be to someone like yourself from civilization, advertisements still going around that talk about 768K DSL as the "High Speed" alternative to dialup.

The fastest 30Mbps service is that price - 15/2 and 15/15 service is in the $50-65 range. I pay $90 for 6Mbps/1.5 ($20 for increased upload speed and $10 for 2 static IPs) in my area, but that includes taxes and fees.
See:
http://www22.verizon.com/content/consumerfios/packages+and+prices/packages+and+prices.htm

I think Comcast's deployment in Minnesota is only available at the highest price tier ($120) at the moment, but they plan to scale it later, or at least that's what I remember from the article.

AT&T doesn't do FIOS. Verizon does.

Fios is viable over here in Cambridge. DSL reports claims that there is FiOS in parts of Boston proper. There is also a slightly out of date map showing deployment in the area. And, of course, their statement of intent to expand Boston coverage from a year ago. Heck, they're selling it out of Jordan's Furniture. You can't get more Bostonian than that.

I'd check availability in your particular part of boston. It doesn't seem like Verizon is holding anyone hostage, so much as rollout is taking longer than all of us would like.

1. Distance of your telephone line from a Verizon Central Office
2. Condition of telephone wiring inside and outside your location
3. Computer configuration
4. Network or Internet congestion
5. Server and router speeds of the Web sites you access
6. Other factors

There are these problems when testing speeds to your neighbor.

• Upload speeds are lower than download. So you can only test upload speeds this way.
• Your neighbor needs to be using the same ISP.

Maybe one day we'll see a class action lawsuit on various ISPs that claims they intentionally lied about the average speeds customers should see, But I'm not holding my breath.

1. Distance of your telephone line from a Verizon Central Office
2. Condition of telephone wiring inside and outside your location
3. Computer configuration
4. Network or Internet congestion
5. Server and router speeds of the Web sites you access
6. Other factors

There are these problems when testing speeds to your neighbor.

• Upload speeds are lower than download. So you can only test upload speeds this way.
• Your neighbor needs to be using the same ISP.

Maybe one day we'll see a class action lawsuit on various ISPs that claims they intentionally lied about the average speeds customers should see, But I'm not holding my breath.

The older telcos are scrambling because owning twisted copper pair lines is no longer enough to ensure a profitable revenue stream - there are several other ways into people's homes now: co-axial, satellite, wireless, powerlines, and fiber.

Yes, it does matter. The examples you provided have varying speeds of 0s and 1s delivery. As a rule, it would be fiber, co-ax, wireless, satellite and powerlines. You say it doesn't matter but considering all the whining on here about how long it takes to steal (er, liberate/borrow/sample/whatever) a piece of software or song or how long ones lag times are for WoW or BF2, it most certainly does matter.

People want the fastest service at the lowest price. Period. While getting a network connection through satellite is feasible, most people don't want to pay what it costs AND still deal with the slow response times.

Which leads to. . .

What consumers are increasingly going to want is a comprehensive telecom service: phone+TV+internet.

No, consumers are not necessarily wanting to go this route but providers like Comcast and Verizon are forcing it on consumers because they, the providers, can make more money that way. If you look at what Comcast offers for their triple play, it costs, minimum, $100/month for all three services. Considering I'm paying $23/month to Verizon for a landline, I would be spending $7/month more just for the phone portion which includes long distance which I don't use (thus the $7 difference).

If I could get just the internet portion from Comcast, that should be $33/month. A very reasonable rate. But Comcast won't offer you just internet. You MUST buy all three.

Verizon isn't any better. Their triple-play is also $100/month but they use fiber rather than co-ax. I have been getting offers from Verizon for just net connection and according to their own web site, they offer in my area:

$43/month for 5/2, $53/month for 15/2 and for $65/month I can get 15/15. These prices do not include the cost of installation ($80), the activation charge ($20) and are based on a yearly contract. If I quit early I am charged $99 and those rates will go up after the term expires (see the fine print for details). To see what the rates will reset to, click the link 'Show More Plans' at the bottom of the list.

Unless someone like Google or AOL (AHHHHH!!!) can provide the same service at a cheaper price, the monopolies like Verzion/Comcast/TW have nothing to fear.

I wish that Verizon did not block ports 25 and 80. I already have FIOSTV and would switch to their internet service in a heartbeat but I don't want to give up my web and mail servers.

Well the thing is with cable thats widely known is the shared bandwidth infrastructure. If you can get Verizon FiOS you get fiber optics right to your home with tv/internet/phone bundles. There are no caps and you can get download speeds from 5 Mbps download /2 Mbps upload to 30 Mbps download / 15 Mbps upload, some areas have 50mb and 100mb is coming. http://www.verizon.com/getfios

That's all well and good and you won't find too many people on my side of the fence that disagree with that concept.

What bothers me is that outfits like AT&T and Verizon that already own large swaths of the cellular (850mhz) band are going to be allowed to gobble up large swaths of the 700mhz band. Nobody has asked them to justify why they need this much spectrum. One would think that with the pending shutdown of AMPS that they'd have lots of free spectrum in 850mhz to do whatever they'd like with.

Why the hell are we allowing AT&T and Verizon to further cement their stranglehold on the wireless industry in the United States? If you believe that the airwaves should be used for the public benefit then you should want to see a more competitive market for wireless services emerge. This isn't going to happen as long as we allow two large companies (combined with two smaller ones) to completely dominate an industry. We should be taking steps to bring more companies into this market, not further cementing the position of the existing ones.

What would I do differently? At the very least I would require a justification of the existing use of the spectrum that they have and detailed roll-out plans. I'd also exclude AT&T and Verizon from the 700mhz band in any market where they already have cellular (850mhz) licenses. Let the carriers stuck with the poorer-performing PCS (1900mhz) band have the first shot at this valuable space. I'd also mandate stricter rules on what they can do with these bands, including a full adoption of carterfone rules and the elimination of their practice of locking people up into long term contracts with hefty termination fees.

Did you know that in some markets AT&T owns more then 50% of the available wireless (cellular, PCS and AWS) licenses? If you combine them with Verizon in those markets the two manage to own 75-80% of the available spectrum. What's wrong with that picture? AT&T previously justified by it by saying they needed to run three (AMPS/TDMA/GSM) networks. What's the excuse now?

$1000/mo? Have you checked out Verizon Fios? They offer 15Mbps up and down for $65 a month.

http://www22.verizon.com/content/ConsumerFiOS/packages+and+prices/packages+and+prices.htm%5C

Fiber is coming. Actually, in my hometown, it's here -- 100 mbits to the home. Just did the math, and that means at most an hour and a half to download 50 gigs of data -- assuming it's a full Blu-Ray disc (most BR movies are only 25 gigs). Unless you live right next to NetFlix, or you're getting some 10 or 15 discs per day, that pretty much has you beat.

Hmmmm..... A residentail fiber offering, giving 100Mbps in the US? I think not. I don't know where you're getting that 100mbps number; the fastest I've seen mentioned (yet to be built, as far as I can tell) is supposed to be about 25mbps.

I'm also surprised that they don't have some real cameras on the lists,... point-and-shoots are nice and all, and I do like the fact that most of them do video, too. But real photography geeks use dSLRs,...

I do wonder how much money was paid to the media writers for these lists, because the bulk of the products listed are not really true "geek" gadgets, and more majorly overhyped and overadvertised "hot" items, like the Wii, iPhone, and others. Not that they're bad products or anything, but just overadvertised just a tad,...

Here's a problem.
If you're NOT a Verizon customer, try and see if service is available in your area. You can't. It keeps telling you that you're NOT a Verizon customer.
http://www22.verizon.com/Content/ConsumerFiOS/
Their website sucks.

http://www22.verizon.com/about/images/133x275_english.gif

Two sources:

1. http://www.dslreports.com/. Their Verizon Fiber Optics forum is usually updated with information about the latest rollout areas and they also have a Google Maps application where users with FiOS service "pin" their location on the map and offer a user review in some instances. The forums also include some info on overall deployment, but it's usually secondhand info so take it for what it's worth.
2. The Verizon website for your state at http://www22.verizon.com/about/community/. For instance, Verizon Virginia has a monthly FTTP construction list in PDF format.

Two sources:

1. http://www.dslreports.com/. Their Verizon Fiber Optics forum is usually updated with information about the latest rollout areas and they also have a Google Maps application where users with FiOS service "pin" their location on the map and offer a user review in some instances. The forums also include some info on overall deployment, but it's usually secondhand info so take it for what it's worth.
2. The Verizon website for your state at http://www22.verizon.com/about/community/. For instance, Verizon Virginia has a monthly FTTP construction list in PDF format.

Thanks. That's certainly interesting information. Like I said, I couldn't get any straight answers from the FIOS guy I talked to, and the only answer he did give contradicted their TOS. Not that I expected him to know a lot of technical details, but it seems like "is there a cap?" is a pretty basic question.

Concerning running servers on residential FIOS, the easiest place to look seems to be the "Features" section of the FAQ which says:

1. Can I host a Web page?
Verizon FIOS Internet Service consumer packages include 10 MB of personal Web space. The consumer offers do not permit customers to host any type of server, personal or commercial. [emphasis mine]

As for the TOS themselves, I believe these terms of service apply to all Verizon residential internet connections, including FIOS. Some of the parts I don't like are the following:

3.7.5 You may not use the Broadband Service to host any type of server whether personal or commercial in nature. ...

ATTACHMENT A

ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY

...

3. You may NOT use the Service as follows: ... (j) to damage the name or reputation of Verizon, its parent, affiliates and subsidiaries, or any third parties ... (n) to generate excessive amounts (as determined by Verizon in its sole discretion) of Internet traffic...

So, at the least, they reserve the right to object to you running a server or violating unstated data transfer caps. And then there's that damaging reputation thing, which I'm not clear on the practical implications of.

It's interesting to know that they may not enforce these on their FIOS connections at the moment. I'd still be sort of reluctant to rely on them continuing to let me violate the TOS in the future, but maybe it's worth it. I really just wish I could get that sort of service from ISP that would deal with me straight.

Anybody have a clue how much it is for Just the Broadband minus the telephone and Subscription TV?

"Internet only" $64.99/mo

https://www22.verizon.com/FiOSForHome/Channels/OrderFiOS/DoublePlay_Landing.aspx

(Be sure to click the "Need more upload speed? View additional plan" link to revean the semi-hidden 20/20 plan!)

=Smidge=

[repost, with correct content type chosen this time]

http://www22.verizon.com/content/consumerfios/faqs/faqs.htm (Features)

1. Can I host a Web page?
Verizon FiOS Internet Service consumer packages include 10 MB of personal Web space. The consumer offers do not permit customers to host any type of server, personal or commercial.

And I'm in CT. :(

http://www22.verizon.com/content/consumerfios/faqs/faqs.htm (Features) 1. Can I host a Web page? Verizon FiOS Internet Service consumer packages include 10 MB of personal Web space. The consumer offers do not permit customers to host any type of server, personal or commercial. :(

That is where this comes in: http://www22.verizon.com/content/businessfios/

Only way to get staticIPs and not be hassled for running servers.

Finkployd

Dude, you're getting ripped off.

Verizon FiOS Packages and Prices

30/5 for $179.

Well, the densely populated U.S. cities could have been done. Still could be done. Still are not being done.

http://www22.verizon.com/content/consumerfios/

Coming soon to a densely populated city near you

No, it's nowhere near universal coverage. But it's definitely "being done."

From Verizon

All with a one or two year agreement! Gee, it's no wonder people are sticking with cable. They've combined the worst pricing schemes of both cable and cellular companies.
30MB for $180, what a deal, it's like paying for four cable lines every month.

FAST Up to 5 Mbps/2 Mbps
A $99 value - 1st month FREE
Just $29.99/mo. for months 2-7
$39.99

FASTER Up to 15 Mbps/2 Mbps
A $109 value - 1st month FREE
Just $39.99/mo. for months 2-7
$49.99

FASTEST Up to 30 Mbps/5 Mbps
1st month FREE
$179.95

Why would he go with cable when fiber is available? Sure cable is going to market itself as the better option, but from a technological standpoint, it's not.

Just looking at FIOS pricing, the options are 5/15/30 Mbps for $40/$50/$180 per month.

Cablevision offers 15 and 30 Mbps plans for $45 and $60 per month, possibly cheaper if you get additional services from them.

Why should someone care if they have a coax or fiber cable running into their house? The coax connects to a fiber backbone once it hits the utility poll anyway.

The unlimited internet promise appears to be made outside the US more than what I see here. I just don't see those claims made much, if at all in the US. A search on google for unlimted internet for me (mostly because google gives geography related search results) gives results for unlimited internet, but by that they mean an unlimited number of dialup internet minutes via 56k modem. Most of the large US ISPs will not show up in the first couple pages of google search results when one searches for the term "unlimited internet"--mostly dialup companies show up. Here are some of the main internet providers in the US--cable and phone companies:

ATT

Charter Communications

Time Warner

Verizon

Cox Cable

Qwest

And even evil Comcast

Find any claims of unlimited internet bandwidth from any major US ISP? Keep looking...you'll even find dislaimers saying explicitly that speed and bandwidth is not in any way guaranteed. Certainly those disclaimers are not front and center, but many have their disclaimers asterisk'd with notes on the main service description pages, so the disclaimers are not hard to find. The US has fairly clear and well enforced truth in advertising laws. Doesn't the UK?

I don't think anyone has any right to unlimited internet if I make no such claims, guarantees, or promises and especially if I specifically disclaim any such guarantee. The vast majority of US companies wouldn't make such a claim for fear of losing a class action lawsuit. It seems companies can make untrue claims about their products in the UK and not get sued? I certainly cannot in the US. That's a problem with your consumer rights laws, if they even exist.

(Which will be a while; phone companies aren't doing that either in the US)

Ahem...

http://www22.verizon.com/content/consumerfios/abou t+fiostv/about+fios.htm

This is no story. Read the post here and gawk at the pretty pictures.

http://policyblog.verizon.com/policyblog/blogs/pol icyblog/ericrabe9/347/fios-is-hot-but-not-that-hot .aspx

What if Sprint [verizon.com] started modifying upstream http-posts to start a more viral ad distribution system?

What if Sprint [verizon.com] started modifying upstream http-posts to start a more viral ad distribution system?

It seems that everyone is concerned about downstream modification, and is completely ignoring the possibility of upstream modification. What if Sprint started modifying upstream http-posts to start a more viral ad distribution system? Not only would they be able to target their customers, they would also be able to target the customers of anyone who could read the post!

This is the reason that we need to push for network neutrality. When the only choices are between a giant douche which alters content and a turd sandwich which alters content, the customer ends up screwed in the end.

of course verizon will sell you static ips. you just have to get a business account (costs more, of course). there is no port blocking on business lines. not sure if the link will work, but $80 for 3Mbps / 768Kbps. I currently have 5 static IPs (cost same as 1...) with 20/5 business FIOS with no ports blocked for about the same as the business DSL.

I can tell you that my reaction is based on Verizon releasing information without a court order or subpoena. The impression cultivated by their privacy policy is that they'll only release it with such. Here are some excerpts from that privacy policy (emphasis mine):

Disclosure of Information Outside Verizon
As a rule, Verizon will notify you and give you the opportunity to "opt out" when we disclose telephone customer information outside of Verizon. In fact, we generally keep our records of the services you buy and the calls you make private, and will not ordinarily disclose this information to outside parties without your permission. However, we do release customer information without involving you if disclosure is required by law or to protect the safety of customers, employees or property. This is further explained below...

Examples where disclosure is required by law or to protect the safety of customers, employees or property:

When you dial 911, information about your location may be transmitted automatically to a public
safety agency. Certain information about your long distance calls is transmitted to your long distance
company for billing purposes. Verizon also is required by law to give competitive local exchange
carriers access to its customer databases for purposes of serving their customers, to exchange
credit information with other carriers, and to provide listings (other than certain non-published and
non-listed information) to directory publishers.
Verizon must disclose information, as necessary, to comply with court orders or subpoenas. Verizon
also will share information to protect its rights or property and to protect users of its services and
other carriers from fraudulent, abusive or unlawful use of services.
We may, where permitted by law, provide information to credit bureaus, or provide information and/or
sell receivables to collection agencies, to obtain payment for Verizon billed products and services.
Verizon also occasionally uses contractors to do work for the company. These contractors have the
same obligations as our regular employees concerning customer information...

Your Telephone Account Information Rights
The FCC refers to your telephone account information as Customer Proprietary Network Information or CPNI. Under Federal Law, you have the right to, and we have the duty to protect, the confidentiality of your telecommunications service information. This information includes the type, technical arrangement, quantity, destination, and amount of use of telecommunications services and related billing for these services.

We may use this information, without further authorization by you, to offer you: (i) services of the type you already purchase from us, and (ii) the full range of products and services available from Verizon and other Verizon companies that may be different from the type of services you currently buy from us. In addition to local telephone services, Verizon and other Verizon company services include long distance (where authorized), wireless, and Internet services. A more complete description of our companies and service offerings is available on this Web site. Use of your information will permit us to offer you a package of services tailored to your specific needs. Without further authorization by you, we may also share your information with other Verizon companies with whom you already have an existing service relationship.


Granted, we should all know better than to trust a company that does not specifically state that it WILL NOT release customer information without a warrant or subpeona, but I still find I'm disgusted.

And no matter if they didn't break the letter of their privacy statement, the argument that this was free speech to petition the government is frankly insulting. My personal information, given to y

That's oversimplifying the service offerings and associated costs.

Verizon didn't lower their service charges by ~80%, undercutting their profitable T1 sales to business and institutional customers. They can only make more money by adding customers. FIOS primarily competes with cable-modem ISP services. It's a good deal compared to a cable modem and for a business which can't justify the cost of a T1, it looks like a good service.

But FIOS for business does not provide an SLA equivalent to Internet T1 service.

From the Verizon Business FIOS disclaimer:

Speed and uninterrupted use of the service are not guaranteed.

This is one of the main reasons why FIOS for business starts at $69/month and a Verizon (or similar) T1 with Internet service starts at around $600/month. The upload speed, average latency, and guaranteed latency are important factors as well.

In terms of variable costs, the SLA is probably the most expensive part of the service in terms of labor and management/monitoring infrastructure. Verizon has plenty of infrastructure to manage and monitor T1's, ISDN lines, POTS lines and other high-volume telecom circuit types. But FIOS uses different distribution, cable plant, and customer premises equipment than all the other Verizon services. This creates an entire new set of costs. This is why they don't offer it for FIOS - it's too expensive to build out the management systems, add NOC staff, and build the new FIOS network services at the same time.

FIOS may be offered with more substantial service guarantees in the future - I hope it is - but right now Verizon is learning how to operate their FIOS networks with consumers and small businesses as guinea pigs.

Yes, they sell naked dsl. They just don't want anyone to know about it. Mine was just activated yesterday.

http://www22.verizon.com/forhomedsl/channels/dsl/d ryloop/

Huh? Reverse number lookups have been around for a long time. You didn't need to do a DSL search, just click on the "Reverse # Lookup" link on Verizon's Support page. The fact that it was really hard to do this in a phone book in the old days doesn't make it a "security breach" on the web.