Slashdot Mirror
Verizon: FiOS Access For Other ISPs in the Works
Ant writes "According to Broadband Reports' story, 'Verizon has confirmed the claim made by a DSLExtreme representative here last week that the company has plans to offer other ISPs access to its new fiber-to-the-premises network.' A Verizon spokeswoman is quoted as saying, 'A couple of deals have already been signed and more are in the works.'"
I could see major ISPs like AOL and Earthlink latching on to this as their dial-up customer numbers dwindle. They have no connectivity to compete with cable and DSL, so something like this could keep them alive.
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
Comcast ($65/month for basic TV + Internet)
zzapp.org ($13/month for backup dialup and email)
Comcast broadband is OK - fast downloads, pokey uploads and semi-annual short outages. I would drop it like a rock, though, if I could get broadband from anyone else, especially a cool local ISP like zzapp.
If Verizon fiber has reliability near to my wired phone, I'd consider dumping the land line and going with VOIP.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
But the point is, why pay that $120 a month when you can have as much space as you want and many many times that in bandwidth (If you were running at the theoretical max of 2 MBps per second (250 KBps max theoretical, probably ending up at around 200 KBps), I get ~5184 Gb a month, or 648 GB a month (Note, please don't be vague on bit or byte))?
How often do you think that 100 meg (bit, probably) connection is going to be maxed out? Likely never.
With the sort of connection mentioned in grandparent, the only time you would have an issue with speedy connection is 6-7+ downloaders (Bringing each one down to about today's max for residential DSL upload) or a few hundred surfers.
For a smell site, the former situation is maybe likely (But, again, the download speed each will get is still respectable) but the latter situation is not likely. So... Why pay the $120?
Then maybe you can answer the question I have beeing trying to get answered (and no one knows). Will getting FiOS via another ISP mean the other ISP is just re-selling Verizon IP layer service (e.g. I get a Verizon IP address) or will this literally go through the other ISP network and I get the other ISP's IP address (or multiple addresses as the case may be)?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
If you look at the reply to comment 04-440 on the FCC web site this is Verizon's definition of an ISP [24]:
"With broadband, the role of the ISPs is primarily one of supplying content and applications, not in providing facilities-based Internet access services. This means that the major providers of broadband access services, including local telephone companies, have strong business incentives to provide consumers access to ISPs or other content providers..."
So Verizon has redefined ISPs as content proviers. To Verizon Yahoo, Google, Amazon and Expedia are ISPs. What you and me know are ISPs do not exist in this double speak Verizon world.
If Verizon gets their way nobody but them (and/or the lousy cable provider) will be able to provide broadband in the future.
How often do you think that 100 meg (bit, probably) connection is going to be maxed out? Likely never.
Hahahaha. Verizon isn't planning on just serving up high-speed Internet with their Fiber-to-the-whatever rollouts.
They're also planning on things like television and video-on-demand. At 4-6 Mbps (IIRC) per channel, you'll use up that network capacity very quickly. (I won't go into the details of how you multicast that much data to the set-top boxes.)
I saw a presentation recently on passive optical networks, which IIRC is what Verizon is using for their rollout (or it might be another RBOC, I can't quite remember at the moment, and my notes from the presentatio aren't handy). For a gigabit PON, you've got one gigabit per second available, total, for all subscribers connected to that passive network (anywhere from 2 to 64, depending on the number of optical splitters installed). In addition, you have very limited upstream bandwidth.
I'd much rather see Verizon and the other RBOCs deliver Gig-E straight to my home using active optical networks--Fiber to the home, not fiber to the premises or fiber to the curb. Something like what Provo, UT, is doing with their iProvo project http://www.iprovo.net/. I saw a presentation from World Wide Packets (the equipment vendor) on that a couple weeks ago, and it's very impressive. Almost makes me want to move to Provo.
Good points.
First, distance: A single WiMax router won't be practical since a 30 mile broadcast range can easily cover too many users. Instead, overlap them and route from there. Your distance from 1 router will be substantially below 30 miles.
Second: Latency. A quick search shows that Intel is interested in 802.16a. Intel says in a foot note on the linked page: "6 Latency may be unacceptable for real-time IP services such as VoIP during handovers but acceptable for TCP and VPN services as well as store-and-forward multimedia services." They do specifically mention issues with VOIP and games and that these are addressed. Other sources say similar things about latency.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Verizon and SBC are ready to get into the wireless game.
I already pointed out that SBC, AT&T, Sprint/Verizon and MCI testified in front of Congress.
Well, they mentioned the reason for the bigger mergers is so that the telcoms don't die. They want to have hands in every market, as they should to stay alive. The mergers give companies like MCI the wireless technology and it's implemented network and MCI gives up it's wired network (huge).
They touched on WiMax, but they hinted that once the cell towers are up they will be used for Internet access anyway. We see this already with Cingular's new plan. Remember, you can get "cell" reception almost anywhere now, in most cities and states, and when the technology is at the right price point we will see highspeed Internet offered over those towers.
Sprint's CEO mentioned a few highspeed trials already, along with FiOS so I assume we are talking comprable speeds. Listen to the testimony to get an insight into their plans I'd say. They are really looking at it from a perspective that they should offer what makes the most economic sense on an individual basis. Wireless in sparse areas, mixed networks in high density areas and fiber in the suburbs (for example).
Get your Unix fortune now!