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.'"

32 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. Hmmm... by elid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But how long will it be until widespread access becomes available?

  2. competition is good by gcnaddict · · Score: 3, Informative

    this will help other ISPs, and it will keep costs down thanks to competition. thank god

    --
    Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
    1. Re:competition is good by jjeffries · · Score: 4, Informative

      Maybe. Not if it's anything like their wholesale DSL plan, where they sell you, a wholesaling ISP, a port for $30--while they are retailing it for $35! This does not include any backhaul from the Verizon CO, and don't forget about Internet bandwidth charges on top of that--and you'll get to pay Verizon again for carring it back out to your upstream carrier...

      I'm not sure that too many/any other ISPs will be able to make this a workable business model.

  3. Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's always nice to see open networks. They do come at a price, but it's pretty fair to build a business around. I have seen those Verizon Guys in front of my house hooking up the fiber. They told me it will be a couple of months until I can get the net with the fiber, but it's coming. I just hope I can use the upstream to host my web sites. I hate paying for hosts and all that just to have a presence on the web. Unfortunately the residential service my current Cable Modem provider offers doesn't allow any servers being exposed to the public. I mean it's great having an intranet at home, but with all the money I spend they could have at least let me setup a web server and open that up. It's only a personal site so I don't know what the big deal is really. I can see if it was commercial, but man they are rough.

    So when they transfer everyone to digital (10 years or so) then maybe their bandwith will free up. For the future the Verizon solution looks like a good deal they already offer 30mbps down and 5mbps up for a reasonable price.

    1. Re:Nice by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 3, Insightful
      It's always nice to see open networks.

      What makes you think Verizon is building an "open" network? They have made business deals with a few other ISPs, and mabe more in the future. It's a business deal with the purpose of generating income for Verizon, and it is at Verizon's whim (as it should be) as to who they make these business deals with.

      It is not an open network>

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    2. Re:Nice by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is not an open network

      It is not open or closed. It is a network that Verizon is building, and in the sense that they are letting other businesses provide service over it for a fee, it is open, and in the sense that they aren't letting businesses provide service over it for free, it is closed.

      But I think everyone knew what he meant by "open."

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    3. Re:Nice by rekenner · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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?

    4. Re:Nice by CyberDave · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  4. It only makes sense for them to do this by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If they don't, then people will just implement other technologies that allow them to make an end run around verizon. That may yet happen, especially if verizon is as helpful to the ISPs who buy into this as SBC is to the other companies selling DSL on SBC copper, or for that matter to the ISPs selling dialup lines using SBC's modems.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  5. FiOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative
    FiOS is available in my area, for a cheap $44.95 (15mbps down/2mbps up) with an "approved" calling plan (49.95 otherwise)... I currently have 4mbps down/512kbps up with my cable co (cox). I was wondering if anyone in the Washington DC area has tried out this service. I would much prefer the FiOS if the installation is rather painless. The phone wiring _sucks_ in my house, the current phone wires are shorted out, and I have to connect my phone through a window. Do they do a full internal installation, or do they only go directly to the house, and we have to take care of the internals?

    Also, is it possible to retain my email address with my former ISP (cox) for a small fee? I can't seem to find any info on cox's webpages about such a thing (which is to be expected; they don't want us to switch!)

    But the promise of 15mbps, which is nearly 4x what I get now; and the major thing, 2mbps up, is really, really enticing. AND it would end up costing _less_ than what I pay for cable right now!

    1. Re:FiOS by LokieLizzy · · Score: 5, Funny
      But the promise of 15mbps, which is nearly 4x what I get now; and the major thing, 2mbps up, is really, really enticing.

      Why would you need 2mbps up, and 15mbps down? You wouldn't be sharing copywrighted music, would you?

      Signed,

      Your friendly neighborhood

      RIAA Agent.

      --
      My digital rights don't need management.
    2. Re:FiOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I am an engineer for Verizon designing part of this large fiber network. They are putting it up in places people can afford it and places where population density permits. It costs a whole lot of money to put this stuff up. It also goes very slow as the splicing of fiber optic cables is very time consuming and has to be perfect or the loss in the cable will render the cable useless. You will be able to get HDTV, phone, and a retardedly fast internet connection all on one bill. Fairly cheap I think. You can actually get a faster upload then 2mbps I think, but I am not totally sure. Either way you get a T-1 for way less than the business cost.

    3. Re:FiOS by jrmann1999 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The install is basically an external box that separates the fiber, they drill a hole to the nearest power outlet for the battery backup, and run Cat5 + Cat3 to a single drop anywhere in the house. Then they give you the crappiest D-Link wired router possible.

    4. Re:FiOS by Skapare · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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
  6. solution for old school ISPs? by dirvish · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  7. Heck yea! by episodic · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now slashdot will render in a tenth of a second rather than an eighth of a second like it does now! It is indeed a great day.

    1. Re:Heck yea! by joebagodonuts · · Score: 2, Funny

      I thought everyone read /. at work...
      My bandwidth at home is reserved for porn.

      --
      "Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
    2. Re:Heck yea! by chrisgeleven · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just think if they ever actually optimized the HTML/CSS in Slashdot to get rid of tables!

      *Drool*

    3. Re:Heck yea! by ZagNuts · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, but then the firefox slashdot render error would occur 25% more often!

  8. This is not competition! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    This, like DSL shared access, is not competition. For example, we sale DSL in Hell$outh and Verizon territories, and they charge us more for just the raw line than they charge customers for the line plus Internet access. We have to charge our customers twice as much as Verizon does just to break even. If it wasn't for our much better customer support, we would have been out of business a long time ago.

    To explain this a different way. For DSL, BellSouth charges end-users $25 for a slow connection. BellSouth charges us $30 for the same speed connection plus we pay about $20,000 per month in overhead for our ATM connection to those customers plus we pay about $15k per month for Internet bandwidth to Sprint. As you can see, BellSouth is abusing their monopoly position. They aren't selling to us just to be nice, and there is no competition.

  9. Wait a minute?! by ravenspear · · Score: 5, Funny

    Verizon would suck as an ISP, as would AOL a network provider.

    Are you implying by that statement that AOL does not suck as an ISP?

  10. Mod Parent Up! (Re:This is not competition!) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Parent poster is absolutely correct. I worked at another national ISP that no longer offers broadband services because we got burned in the same way. The carriers charged us more per customer than they did their own broadband division, so there was no practical way to compete. It's just a sham.

  11. I hope this is true... by alispguru · · Score: 2, Interesting
    ... and Verizon prices it rationally for third-parties to use. Right now I get ISP services from two places:

    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.
  12. Re:Can't wait... by iowannaski · · Score: 4, Funny
    If you live in an apartment complex, you should get free internet access.

    Look for an open WiFi AP named "linksys."

    --
    i forget
  13. I smell desperation... by Spoing · · Score: 4, Informative
    Follow this through with me...tell me what you think. Point by point; refute or agree with individual points as you see fit.

    1. People will go for good enough over better for convienience and/or price reasons.
    2. Fiber to the premises is an attempt at better...yet...
    3. The bells are institutions.
    4. Institutions are lothe to change and will fight it tooth and nail; institutions, once established, are primarily interested in perpetuating themselves.
    5. Current bell company DSL offerings fit this pattern;
      1. They really aren't trying to canabalize what they offer businesses (excessively expensive T1 lines with QOS while much cheaper lines with poor QOS...running over much of the same hardware).
      2. The bells also fight sharing the line with anyone, and do not offer even 1/2 of the same speed connection when DSL is provisioned by some other group.
    6. Network speeds are (roughly);

      1. Wired connections;
      2. 56K modem - (5.33 kB/s)
      3. DS1/T1 - 192.5 kB/s
      4. 10BT - 1.25 MB/s
      5. 100BT - 12.5 MB/s
      6. 1000BT - 125 MB/s (half duplex)
      7. 1000BT - 250 MB/s (full duplex)
      8. Fiber - 100-200 MB/s

        Wireless connections;

      9. Bluetooth 1.1 - 125 kB/s
      10. 802.11b - 1.375 MB/s
      11. Bluetooth 2 - 2 to 12 MB/s
      12. 802.11g/a - 6.75 MB/s
      13. 802.16a - 70 MB/s (30 mile range; licenced and unlicenced)

        CO/WAN connections;

      14. OC48 - 306 MB/s (reasonable multi-site corporate use)
      15. OC192 - 1.250 GB/s
    7. Look at #12 above: With WiMax (802.16a) hubs scattered around, why bother with a wired (or fiber) distribution system for anything?
    8. Tie that in with cheap VOIP "cell" phones...and there will be panic in both the cell and POTS providers.

    T1 was fine for many corporations 10 years ago. Many still use T1 lines...while wireless hubs are sprouting up either formally or informally. Driving around right now, it's trivial to get a wireless connection in many areas.

    Say you are a co-operative group like Seattle Wireless, and you get some WiMax (or other equipment), why not just disconnect mostly or entirely from POTS and go peer to peer? Maybe you'll be able to offer the service for $10/month...after all, they are doing it now at lower speeds.

    If you were a bell executive, what would you do? What would you do to keep your stock from tanking when WiMax (or any other tech) eats your customer base?

    --
    A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
    1. Re:I smell desperation... by Spoing · · Score: 2, Interesting
      1. If it didn't work for Sprint, what'd they do wrong? Why will the next company to try the same thing work?

      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.
  14. Seem to be better than Cable downloads but by zymano · · Score: 2, Insightful

    so what.

    It's still priced for the wealthy few.

    We need to keep the Wifi muni , FTTH municipal movement going !

  15. I heard about this two months ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Guy from verizon came to my house and we had some chitchat, I was bringing up how I cant seem to get broadband, and he brought up fios, and mostly the reason verizon is doing this is because of cost.
    Fibre is cheaper to run and maintain in the long run compared to copper. Mostly due to copper's physical limits, it's limited on speed and distance, and eventually has interference.
    fibre has insane speeds, you need less repeaters on the grid, and you can run more cable longer without signal loss, and zero interference. That's mostly the reason for the move, that and microsoft's new IPTV "technology" they want to unveil, I think that's part of it as well.
    I hope earthlink is jumping on this. Same with speakeasy.

    In my area, verizon's TRYING to get it started, but they made a huge mistake and started with Chino Hills, who are charging THEM for putting in the lines, charging them for using the streets, and charging them for licenses to install to every house.. like $100 per house, then other fees.
    If they had only started on this side of the Inland Valley, then it might be going somewhere. Cucamonga is growing faster than CH, and is more populated (thus has more potential customers)
    oh well, I hope they learn.

  16. Verizon redefines an ISP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  17. When they say Fiber to the Curb... by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Informative

    ..They do not mean you get fiber strands running into your house and you have to figure out what to do with all the blinking lights at the end of them.

    You have some hardware in-between you and the blinking lights, and I'll wager THAT hardware does not understand quantum cryptography. In fact it's whatever was provided by the lowest bidder, so it probably will not understand much of anything.

    Still, the fiber is all that much closer to you so in the distant future when all large backbone switches are optical perhaps you can get that as an option.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  18. Congressional testimony by ImaLamer · · Score: 2, Informative

    Others have commented to the point that their pricing makes it hard to compete, but I know nothing of Verizon pricing.

    I do however know that the four big telcoms testified in front of Congress recently and their testimony might be of interest in this discussion. I watched it on C-SPAN and liked what I heard for the most part.

    Their testimony basically told us that their mergers aren't going to harm competition. I'm sure a lot is bull, but please listen to the testimony first. It's interesting if you have a fetish for networks, redundancy and interconnectedness like I do. Plus loving gov't in action helps.

    There were a lot of good questions and some pressure for honest answers. Listening is better than reading because you can get tone and inflection. Good thing too because the transcript isn't up yet, all you have is Real Audio.

  19. WiMax by ImaLamer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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).