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.
Not only does upload cost more to peer at places like LINX but offering 15mb upload would significantly undercut their (much!) more expensive leased line options.
Immagine that you were a business owner and you could buy three of these (cheap) and a pair of backup T1 lines (not that expensve) to replace your OC3 (very expensive). Bad news for their profits.
I wonder what the transfer cap on these things is? Probably something rediculous like 1gb/day that allows you to operate your line at full speed for all of 550 seconds before you exceed your quota and get terminated.
Beep beep.
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.
That would work if you ran a server destined to never offer serivces to even a small group of people, but for normal, practical usage, it's... well, useless. Sure, you can append port numbers to your protocol directives, but it'll never be an ubiquitous internet side in the least. You can't accept SMTP traffic unless it's been directly MX'd from a "normal" server, you can't even bounce port 80 requests to the proper port since presumbly, you moved it OFF port 80 to prevent random connections or avoid upstream blocks. Port shuffling is usually considered poor design and the worst example (if used in this fashion) of security/obscurity
There are quite a few reasons to limit upload:
-jim
What about breaking it down to areas that are of similar size.
The most densely populated city in Japan is Tokyo. 8 million people in 630 square kilometres (13,000 per k2)
The most densely populated city in the US is New York. 8 million people in 830 square kilometres (10,000 per k2)
The most densely populated city in the world is Seoul. 10 million people in 615 square kilometres (17,000 per k2)
In Tokyo we have 100% ADSL availability offering 40 mbits down
there is also limited (~10%) FTTP availability offering 100 mbits
Why is there not even one company attempting to offer something similar in New York, Korea has near 100% availability of dsl and cable yet they too are limited to US like services.
The real reason we have insane connection bandwidth in Japan is because the telecoms monopoly is restricted from price gouging, they must lease there cables at a flat rate irrespective of the amount of data that flows over them.
When I had an ADSL connection I would pay $20 a month to NTT for the ADSL connection, then my ISP could push as much or as little data over that connection as they wished.
Now I have a Fibre connection, I pay $40 a month for the wire, I actually pay $70 a month to my ISP but I get a static IP range and national wireless coverage too over the AirH network.
The reason Japan has stupid fast internet connections, and the second highest broadband penetration in the world? Competition, who would have thought of it.
**** lying is wrong even for sleeping dogs
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.
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