Slashdot Mirror
Verizon Taking FTTP Installation Orders
ooglek writes "Verizon is now qualifying and accepting installations for FTTP (Fiber To the Premises)! $39.95 for 5MB/2MB, $49.95 for 15MB/2MB, and $199.95 for 30MB/5MB. No word yet on whether Verizon will block ports (25, 80, etc) for incoming or outgoing traffic; with 2MB upload, I hope to basically run a small data center in my basement. Both phone and Internet will come through the fiber, and there is an unofficial rumor of video services as well by the end of this year. Got Fiber? My install date is November 2nd in Falls Church, VA (near DC). Several people in Keller, Texas have posted pictures and reported 14,679 kbps download and 1,794 kbps download speeds." Update: 10/26 23:52 GMT by T : That second "download" ought probably read "upload."
Verizon has clearly stated that the "actual throughput speed will vary based on factors such as the condition of your wiring inside your location; computer configuration; network or Internet congestion; and the server speeds of Web sites you access, among other factors. Speed and uninterrupted use of the service are not guaranteed."
So how long will the 15/2Mbps last, and is Verizon at least giving guarantee on a minimum sustainable speed?
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
As far as i got it, the ADSL lines had low upload because of technical limitations.
But why would these lines come in 5Mb/2Mb and not just 5/5 ?
The system had the verbosity of HTML combined with all the readability of compiled assembly viewed as bitmap images
Smaller countries such as Japan and Korea can more easily change their network infrastructure (see cell phones, broadband, etc.) We should compare America's network infrastructure to Russia or China or heck even Australia. Comparing it to a much smaller country (in both square footage and population) will not lead to any meaningful conclusions.
No word yet on whether Verizon will block ports (25, 80, etc) for incoming or outgoing traffic; with 2MB upload, I hope to basically run a small data center in my basement.
/etc/services file are only default ports, not mandatory ones. For example, you might run smtp server on port 80 and http on port 25 and they would complete the tcp three-way handshake just fine. If you have ever seen a web url in the form of proto://host:port then you know what am I talking about.
First of all you can use any service you want listening on any port you want. Data in your
Second of all, there are other important factors of Internet connection than only throughput. For certain tasks other factors may be in fact much more important, from which responsiveness, min/avg/max icmp round-trip, full duplex support, underlying protocol, mean time between failures, uptime and responsiveness are only a few.
Generally, when you want a good data center you have to learn to look at other factors than raw throughput when choosing an Internet connection, just like you have to learn to look at other factors than clock speed when buying a server for said data center.
Besides, what does the "2MB upload" mean? Two megabytes per second? Including or excluding data parity bits? Synch bits? Tcp headers? Data integrity checksum overhead? Networking is a difficult craft. There is a long way before you will "run a small data center in my basement" just as easily as you imagine, if it is ever possible at all.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
That's still faster than the fastest cable available around here (3Mbps/256Kbps) and much faster than the fastest DSL (768Kbps/256Kbps). It's also about a third the cost of DSL and half the cost of cable.
I just wish they were offering it here.
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
The same stipulation exists in my cable contract but the guy installing (who pointed it out) made it quite clear that so long as i'm not running at peak capacity 24/7 or trying to host a high traffic web server they'll never bring it up. It's more of a "we reserve the right" clause than anything.
Tokyo is only 25 to 30 percent more densely populated than New York City, so though cable cost might be orders of magnitude higher in Kellar, TX I am sure residents of NY would be happy to pay $30 instead of the $20 I pay (a whole 50% increase, let the profits roll)
**** lying is wrong even for sleeping dogs
Ah, another ASP.NET site /.'d to death.
From a technical perspective :
:
Because (just like every other service) they are over selling.
People who buy the 5/2 pipe will tend to not use it all the time. They can toss hundreds of people on and still get their speeds.
People who buy the 30/5 pipe WILL tend to use it, because they are hosting, or running some sort of service where they can afford the extra cash. Therefore they cannot get shared pipe, and they pay for the full thing.
It isn't a price inflation for the high-bandwidth option. It is a discount for the low bandwidth option.
Or alternitavely from the economic perspective
Prices have nothing to do with actual costs. People who need the extra bandwitdh are likely willing to pay more, therefore they are charged more. The joy of elasticity of demand, and low competetion.
Verizon has wired much of Northern NJ for FTTP, but NJ State legislation is preventing them from turning their network on.
My understanding, based solely on reading the forums at dslreports.com is that Verizon wants monopoly rights to the fibre they are laying. As in no second source ISP like Covad or Earthlink would be able to lease bandwidth or connectivity on the fibre lines at (low) state-set rates, like they are able to today on the copper lines.
Based on that, I think Verizon is in the wrong. They are dangling shiny trinkets of high-speed internet at a reasonable price in order to distract people from the inevitable long-term result of monopoly control over public works - erosion of price competitiveness and technological stagnation.
Sure, 15MBps at $50 looks GREAT today, but will it be that great in 5 years? What if the price goes up to $100? Pay no attention to the details behind the curtain!
Again, without knowing more than I've read at the forums, I think that if it were up to me, I'd be looking at a compromise. Verizon can have monopoly control over the fibre network with three caveats:
1) A viable competitor exists in each segment (neighborhood, town, whatever) such as cable which is priced within say 20% for equivalent levels of performance.
2) They agree to a more relaxed test for market collusion than what the FTC/DoJ uses in order to absolutely prevent Verizon and whoever their local competitor(s) are from abusing their certain oligopoly. Punishment for collusion being immediate and permanent loss of control of all the fibre in the area in which the collusion occurred plus enough of a geographical radius to cover enough more customers to equal 200% of the total affected. (The state would probably assume control and lease it back to Verizon and any other ISPs.)
3) Yearly review of their performance with a regular 5-year major examination of their quality of service and evaluation of their technological currentness.
These all assume that the details are worked out by Verizon and a team of negotiators for the state that are not biased by bribery of any sort (no cushy jobs at Verizon 6 months after the contracts are signed).
I am a big believer in "free markets" - as long as care is taken to prevent monopolistic abuses that can naturally arise in a loosely regulated market. But, public utilities are a natural monopoly and so special care, much better care than is usually applied, must be taken to keep a check on the monopolistic business practices that inevitably settle in. To do otherwise would be the equivalent of giving Verizon a money pipeline into the community's bank accounts.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
The internet IS P2P
Funny, until a few years ago, nearly all Internet-based applications (and hence, traffic) was definitely server-client based. HTTP, SMTP, POP, DNS, all server-client. With the recent advent of P2P apps, that may have changed in terms of raw traffic, but just because one person downloads a single 4 GB ISO hardly out-weighs the fact that another 100,000 have sat down in that time frame and used distinctly client-server applications.
If you don't have a "always on", syncronous connection with static ip where you can do what ever you want on any port, it is NOT an internet service.
So, once you put up a firewall, you no longer have an Internet service?
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
Except latency sucks, and DirecWay's Fair Access Policy means that if you download more than 169 MB in some period of time (their website doesn't say), you get dropped to 47 kbps for 8 - 12 hours.
The software for my roommate's digital camera was a 125 MB download from HP. Using this for anything like installing or upgrading a Linux box is out of the question. I've seen 50 MB government documents doled out like candy.
Ergo, as long as the world keeps getting more byte-bloated, the technical limitations of satellite internet will plague it into highly rural markets, as even many small communities have some form of land-based broadband.
I'd suggest DirecWay if you've got a cabin in the middle of nowhere, but that's about it.
"[T]he single essential element on which all discoveries will be dependent is human freedom." -- Barry Goldwater
Verizon wants monopoly rights to the fibre they are laying If they are laying it, it is their right to use it however they want. If Earthlink wants to run fibre, they can... If Verizon is spending millions of dollars to run fibre everywhere, don't you think they should be compensated fairly for it? You say you are a believer in free markets, but apparently not free enough.
In this case, its a premium service, not a "buy in bulk, and get it cheaper"... that would be buying a gbit pipe. Small businesses will lap it up at those prices. T1's are several hundred more in most markets, for 1.55/1.55mbit.
They are laying it on public land with forced easements. Very different from building something on land they own. The fiber is there because the public (i.e., the government) enabled it.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
If Ma Bell were still in existence, the Feds could have easily required broadband access to every
home.
Uh, you do realize that back in the days of Ma Bell you weren't allowed to even plug a modem into a phone jack? Why do you think that people used acoustic couplers?
Sure, you'd have high speed internet access. Oh, you would only be able to use it on a genuine Bell computer - buy your 1.2 GHz model for only $1500!
The problem is that barriers to local phone competition need to be lifted. Sure, you won't see competition in the suburbs - at least not initially, but in major cities it would probably take off quickly since the per-capita cost of additional wiring isn't too bad. It would probably slowly spread out into the suburbs much as phone service did in the first place.
We also trashed our airline industry
all in the name of competition -- too bad that
those really cheap airline tickets are being
subsidized by the American taxpayer in the form
of airline bankruptcy bailouts and fuel subsidies.
Regardless about how you feel about phone service monopolies - airlines clearly are not a "natural monopoly" (perhaps airport management is, but certainly not flying the planes themselves). All the federal government needs to do is let some airlines fold, and let the industry consolidate to a reasonable number of players. Fares would rise, of course, but not to the levels they used to be at. Back before deregulation, airline fares were such that only the "jet set" could afford to fly at all. There were no sales - prices were imposed from on high. Even the food served was regulated, in order to prevent airlines from differentiating themselves. That is just crazy.
Regardless of what you think about phone service, airlines should be in complete competition. Barriers to entry are fairly low, no real infrastructure is required (besides the planes and a few mechanics) - none of the usual arguments for natural monopolies really apply. If you're going to regulate airlines, we should be regulating the convenience stores down the street...
I am building a house in a new community in Westfield, IN (Indianapolis basically) and confirmed I could get it installed asap if my house was built. This is probably due to a new community with all teh wiring brand new, including the CO in the back yard.
What the hell is wrong with the moderators?
The fiber is there because the public (i.e., the government) enabled it.
Who the hell cares if the government enabled it, Verizon is spending the millions of dollars and putting in the time to make this possible. They should have monopoly rights on their investment and hard work. The government also "enables" stadiums to be built, large office buildings to be built, etc. The government doesn't then force the owners of Madison Square Garden to rent it out at a government-regulated rate. The government doesn't force the owners of the Empire State Building to lease out office space at a government-regulated rate.
The owners of these buildings (and other such properties or services) rent them out because it is in their financial interest to do so. The rate at which they are rented out is set by the fair market value. If it is in Verizon's interest to lease out their fiber lines then they will do so and the fair market value will determine the rate. We don't need the government stepping in to tell Verizon that XYZ is the rate that they can lease their fiber at and there's nothing they can do about it.
What we need is less regulation, not more of it.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes