Slashdot Mirror
Is Verizon a Network Hog?
pillageplunder wrote to mention a piece in BusinessWeek asking whether or not Verizon has the right to set aside bandwidth for its own projects. They're planning a television service, and have allocated a swath of their bandwidth (which could otherwise be used for net and phone traffic) to back this service. From the article: "Leading Net companies say that Verizon's actions could keep some rivals off the road. As consumers try to search Google, buy books on Amazon.com, or watch videos on Yahoo!, they'll all be trying to squeeze into the leftover lanes on Verizon's network. On Feb. 7 the Net companies plan to take their complaints about Verizon's plans to the Senate during a hearing on telecom reform."
Since Verizon's recent purchase of MCI, they have more bandwidth, both lit and unlit, than they know what to do with. Making the whole point of squeezing anything totally a non issue.
Why shouldn't they be able to do what they want with it?
Let's play devil's advocate. It is their network, why shouldn't they be able to do with it what they want? I mean we hear the I own the software I should be able to do anything I want with it all the time. How is this any different?
... Like myself, others switch to another company. It's the only way they learn is to lose customers.
...asking whether or not Verizon has the right to set aside bandwidth for its own projects.
Verizon has the right to do whatever it wants with the bandwidth it pays for. If you don't like it, switch to another service. I'm sure they have a clause somewhere deep in their TOS that allows them to change the bandwidth available to their customers, otherwise they wouldn't be doing this. Anyone with conflicting info care to respond?
As long as verizon keeps on delievering the 2 MB/s connection bandwidth to me , I donot care about their reservations. But if they cut it to promote their products, its then illegal.
They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me. -Nathaniel Lee
Isn't the IPTV which they're offering meant to be largely handled by their FIOS service? I understand at some point they have to connect to a larger pipe to serve that, but really, do you expect a company that serves so many users NOT to think of things like this beforehand?
I don't get it.
yahoo Finance: Notice the 5.92% return on assets and 22.19% return on equity.
I don't about you, but I think they're getting a real nice return. Unless, their management is comparing their returns to cocaine cartels, then they're doing pretty shitty.
It's simply a matter of competition. If Comcast or another local cable provider can provide better bandwidth for a similar price, then go with the competitor.
I'm supposed to get 768/128 throughput. I actually get more like 640/100 with my Verizon DSL. If Verizon can't maintain something close to this even with their pipe-grab, then I would simply switch to broadband from 1 or 2 of the other options available.
If it's a matter of shared phone lines and other DSL providers being choked out too, then that's a good reason to go with cable or over-air altogether.
I don't see this as THAT big of a deal. If Verizon is foolish enough to throttle their customers' bandwidth down noticeably, there are many other offerings in the ISP industry, and people will not put up with slow Internet, pretty video feeds or not.
So let them try.
Is it just me or does this article appear to be confusing two issues?
(1) Pay-to-play - ISP's charging content providers so that traffic to and from their site is not delayed (Internetwork traffic)
(2) QoS - ISPs doing QoS to reserve bandwidth for specific applications they themselves offer their own customers (Intranetwork traffic)
- Tony
It's Verizon's network and if they want to provide a television service, then let them! They can allocate their bandwidth to their own services however they see fit. Now, if they were singling out certain competitors and preventing them from using a part of their network, that would be different. They aren't doing that. If there isn't enough bandwidth on Verizon's network, then the traffic will flow through other networks. And if there is a bottleneck because those networks aren't big enough, then there is space for another company to come in an fill the void.
Don't count your messages before they ACK.
Don't cable companies do the same thing? A cable modems bandwidth is shared with their TV broadcasting, and it doesn't seem to effect internet use.
As far as I can tell, they're the only player lighting up the last mile, and the majority of their video bandwidth will be on segments wholly devoted to their own network. I regularly use 50Mb/sec, but since it's withing my house and on my LAN, I don't think anybody has a right to complain.
I'd like to say that more of the laid fiber is lit, but most of it is just plain dark. So long as we're only using a small fraction of the capacity of the medium already in place, what does it matter how much they use? They pay for it, they light it up, they can use it. If there's more demand, light up some more fiber.
I can't hear you now. Someone's using all my bandwidth!
just bring me fiber to the home.
MORTAR COMBAT!
And not breaking contracts... they can do as they please in the way of allocating their resources. (not that bullshit bellsouth wants) this is about physical lines how much to use for their products.. tehy are obligated to provide certain quantities of bandwidth for their customers but other than that. why cant they use their networks for different projects?
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
Verizon's network. Verizon's decision. And when Google, Amazon, and eBay find their bottom lines impacted by Verizon's reduced network availability, Verizon will find their bottom lines affected.
Not unsurprisingly, people are already screaming for "big gubment" to step in...
There's a fundamental disconnect at Telco's with consumers. We think we pay our monthly DSL bill for 1.544Mbps down/ 384K up (depending on where you live). They think we're paying for a service that transfers packets, a byproduct of which involves our packets entering and leaving their network faster at some times than others. The reality is we share a single DSLAM with 250-500 of our neighbors that has a tiny little link to their core network, and at many times of the day, we cannot hope to achieve maximum throughput. Thus if they wish to saturate that link with video, they feel we have no say in the matter, as we're not actually paying for bandwidth.
In a better world, we'd of course shift our money from competitor to competitor, settling on the service that offers the best bang for the buck. Of course they know that in most parts of the country, there is only one competitor, and their service sucks in its own unique ways.
Now enter a big business friendly government. Let's not even say friendly, let's say that someone in the government has bent over and offered himself to the monopoly gods. As part of this relationship, the government uses the FCC to ensure that telco's and cable operators get their chance to make insane profits, while the rest of us bicker about Iraq, Intelligent Design, and whether the president has the authority to spy on citizens.
As much as I am a proponent for the Good Of All Mankind, I am confused by the idea of a mandate that says Verizon must use their bandwidth in this way or that way. I understand that Verizon (MCI) owns a lot of Internet backbone, but the Internet is a public entity. Verizon is not. The money they spent to build those fiber highways did not come from public coffers (unless I don't know about some kind of subsidy program).
And? Why would this be a reason to sue? If you don't like Verizon's idea, and it bothers you enough, then use a different provider. Also, who's to say that Verizon would have used the additional bandwidth to fuel their web services?
Yes, of course! Those other companies are especially concerned about Verizon customers, and are willing to spend their own money to sue on the behalf of customers that aren't even theirs and don't make them any money!. So let me ask you - when was the last time you saw a company act so noble and unselfish? Its very rare, of course.
So basically, Verizon has an idea that they think is cool and will possibly make them a lot of money. Their competitors freaked out because they aren't to the point where they can offer the same thing, so they go on the offense and sue.
Seems like there are three ways to make money in America: work, sue, or steal. I think people who file frivolous lawsuits should have to pay the defendants attorney fees, extra court costs for wasting time, and a percentage of what they originally asked for in compensation to the defendant. This "sue everyone for everything" crap is terrible.
PS: I dont think they ever expect to win this case, either. They just want the bad PR to be out there.
So what choices does Verizon have?
a) build a cool idea on their network.
b) pay Sprint or someone to run their video traffic. (rofl)
c) abandon an idea they feel will make decent money.
Look, if their customers don't like it, they will leave Verizon, and Verizon will have wasted a huge amount of money building this thing out and promoting it. Let the freakin market decide what is good or crap - dont freakin sue over every single thing you disagree with. It's disgusting...
I was told that I could listen to the radio at a reasonable volume from nine to eleven...
The sucky part is that in some parts of the country, they're still a one horse town and they have to bend over and take it. Which is why the telecom market needs to be deregulated even more! Get rid of these asinine local telecom monopolies! The legislation allowing that needs to be removed.
Well, they're NOT throttling specific applications/sites/uses, so your point is moot. Actually your point is unfair precisely because it inspires baseless anger.
Kinda like asking "well, what if you just start punching me for no reason, that wouldn't be fair, right?" Well, you're not - so it really isn't fair to even raise the question, invoking unwarranted emotions. (See implications of "have you stopped beating your wife?")
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
But it sure would be nice if they donated some of that bandwidth to compensate for their massive network of spam zombies with a wide open port 25.
It's their fiber, why can't they allocate it as they wish?
There seems to be a confusion in TFA about whether this applies to any backbones managed by Verizon versus the optical fiber that Verizon is supplying to people's homes via their FiOS service.
Regarding the backbones, as long as they are meeting their contractual commitments, why should anybody else have any say over how they allocate any additional bandwidth they may have.
Regarding fiber-to-the-home (FTTH), they are planning on allocating it as follows using three wavelengths (according to John Dix at Network World):
In the FTTH case, historically the Telcos have been required to provide fair access to their wires (thus you're not required to use Qwest as your ISP if you have Qwest DSL, for example), I would expect that the fair access rules would apply to FTTH.
The surest way to delay getting fiber bandwidth to your home or internet infrastructure is by taking away the incentives (read: profit) for the corporations involved. Verizon is currently making major investements in having a large share of the next generation networks, their competition is being caught flat-footed and behind the curve and will probably try to make legal challenges to slow their growth.
As a FIOS customer, I'll tell you with certainty that it makes sense that 80% of their fibre optic networks would be used for their services. That's because the optic line running into my house replaces my copper based phone line and provides my internet service. Eventually television services will be included. With fibre optics running into my home, 80% usage for phone/tv/etc leaves me with more bandwidth than I'll need for now!
Imagine if the government said that all roads will now be reduced by one half of a lane for their 'special projects' (advertising opportunities). Now, we all pay tax to keep the road up, so we're essentially their customers. Now not only are we shorted half a lane and paying the same price, but the roadways just became more congested and much more dangerous. Its 'their' roadways, but we have en expectation of service.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
How do you know if they are delivering the bandwidth promised? If you call and complain that you are getting low bandwidth, they will claim the following:
1. We can't control the internet, we only control our network.
2. It must be your equiptment.
3. It is network overhead.
How can you tell if the slowness is a result of prioritizing packets from a service giving a kickback \b\b\b\b\b\b\b payments for that priority?
I had my DSL at only 3mb down. They made many claims about distance problems, noise etc. When I started losing connectivity, it turned out to be a line problem -- once fixed, I started getting 5mb down.
Fight Spammers!
he who has the gold rules !
Sanity is the trademark of a weak mind. -- Mark Harrold
Based on what I just read I don't see a problem with anything that Verizon is proposing. They simply want to utilize more of the fiber that they have paid to install and bring to their customers for themselves.
I think that this is different than what SBC/AT&T is proposing, my understanding is that SBC wants to charge to content providers more money for higher speeds to the customer when both the content provider and the customer have already paid for their bandwidth. That should be illegal and entirely goes against the "best effort" principles of the Internet. If you want better ping times and QoS then buy into an MPLS backbone that can prioritize your traffic from end to end, but this only applies to private networks anyways.
It shouldn't be an issue if Verizon simply wants to bankroll a competitive service to the cable and satellite providers. That sounds like fair competition to me. This may in fact be good for the consumer as it will add another provider of TV content. It could conceivably cause the major players to reduce their rates to compete against Verizon.
Realistically I wish that Verizon provided service in Chicago as I would love to pay one provider for TV, Phone, and Internet while actually getting good service. Unfortunately, Comcast has the worst HDTV signal I have seen and my SBC DSL can not provide the paid for 3MBit service or even stay running for more than a few hours at a time. I am glad that I pay almost $170 for all of these services.
I don't believe this is about the long-haul backbones, this is probably about the local POP / loop, and the POP connection to the regional backbone. If a Verizon FIOS "hub" has a total of 1G bandwidth, and verizon is taking 800M of it, then all the other internet traffic can only use 200M split over who-knows-how-many end users. Furthermore, the POP to POP links may be allocated the same way. VOL will probably end up doing some massive video on demand system that will suck down most of the total bandwidth.
This would put any video on demand service that Google may (will) have at a severe disadvantage.
Even if a gob more dark fiber is available for all these pipes, it costs serious amounts of money to light them up. Obviously if VOL can "reserve" a big portion of bandwidth on the existing links to the point where they can offer all their value-add services, they don't have an incentive to light up more fiber.
Hello people.
We are talking backbone here, not last mile.
I am quite sure that the cable companies reserve
the right to allocate a portion of their backbone
for TV service, so why should Verizon not do the same?
If anyone can show me that the Cable operators do NOT
reserve bandwidth for their own media distribution,
I would like to see that evidence.
BTW I am a Verizon FIOS customer and I am so far very
happy with the service.
So in Verizon FIOS territory, just how many competitors do you have to choose from???? In my area, it's VOL DSL (or a VOL DSL reseller) or Cable. That's it. Cable TOTALLY blows, so DSL is the ONLY option. And it's ALL verizon.
Of course they have the RIGHT. They own the cable. Bought it, installed it, paid for it, and maintain the equipment that lights it up. Now, is it SMART for them to do so? Not sure. But do they have the right? Certainly. If you disagree, don't buy bandwidth from them. If enough people agree with you and don't buy bandwidth from them, then they will decide that it is not smart to hold back bandwidth for their own projects.
Jim is THE ULTIMATE bandwidth hog. He leaves SETI running ALL the time, has four P2P clients on various networks going, runs a "warez" FTP server, and since he's got it all running on a few Windows boxes that have been rooted, he's also unwittingingly spamming everyone in the world as well as scanning for more machines to infect. But not to worry. Jim's got it all under control because he sez, "I'm a computer expert. I've only been workin' with these things for the past four years, but I can do just about anything in Windows. I'm really into webpage development on myspace.com. I've developed about 20 webpages there for my friends and charged them reasonable rates. After all my time is money and I didn't spend my time learning all this PC shit just to give my knowledge away for free". So as you can see, Jim is an expert and we needen't worry about how much bandwidth he's using. Even if it is bleeding Verizon (his ISP) dry. Hmmm... there's a moral in there somewhere. ;P
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Verizon's FIOS is a private network just like the cable companies COAX. There are four fiber lines in the cable. 1 for video, 1 for voice, 1 for internet and 1 for future use. Unless the author means Verizon is hogging the public internet bandwidth (backbone), then this article is completely false. Even then, I believe Verizon is streaming the content from thier own equipment on the FIOS network, not the public BBN.
0 -1034_3-5275171.html.
Article on FIOS here - http://news.com.com/Verizons+fiber+race+is+on/210
Enjoy.
It's just the normal noises in here.
(B) + (D) + (B) + (D) = (K) + (&)
Can I dig up the section of coax my cable co. buried in my backyard without my permission?
Additionally, these fears really are unfounded as these specialized services are almost assured to only be available to the new FiOS customers as they roll out. If I'm verizon, am I going to throttle a 1.5mbps dsl line to squeeze more bandwidth out of my giant 30mbps+ fiber pipe? doubtful.
It seems as though this is only a small part of a bigger issue that is only recently being examined:
http://muniwireless.com/community/1023
For FIOS, you do pay for the amount of bandwidth you want, so that bandwidth would be difficult for them to change.
Now for bandwidth out to the rest of the network, let's be real here... if everything was slow except for verizon services, then people would simply complain and move to comcast.
But the video service that Verizon is offering goes over fiber which has enough spare bandwidth that it won't even affect the IP network. I think it's a non-issue, but I'd love to hear the counter argument.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
This is the exact same issue (from the exact same source) as the interview with SBC Chairman Whitacre last fall. I covered the dispute in my blog last month. It doesn't seem to die.
The issue is clouded by fuzzy-headed thinking. Cable companies already do this. They "reserve bandwidth" (i.e. channels, frequencies, capacity) for their video content and only make a small amount of space available for Internet. The idea that ILECs would do the same when they roll out IPTV or other video-over-packet strategies, is so shockingly unremarkable as to not be news.
The only interesting issue here is whether VZ or SBC or others will restrict or degrade their existing Internet service in the process. I seriously doubt they will--the market would punish them for that. But if they were to, that would be interesting.
I read in the above comments " if you dont like it switch carriers" may i ask to who??? since its all almost MA bell all overagain, you almost have no choice but the LEC, unless you go VOIP, which is ok, until the power goes out. Now that the FCC has ruled that the LECS can charge as much as they want , to CLECS, that put most of them out of business, because now they cant make a profit, for beat the LEC in prices. Choices are getting slimmer each day. And by the by what happened to the "naked dsl" from verizon? or did they decide to force you to have there phone services to get dsl?
I am very sorry for this comment, but I choose to tell my opinions about this forum. I see little discussion. Most of the time there are people that only want to listen to their own boring subjective point of view. I signed up because I wanted to learn more about new technology and discuss it, but "you" are competing to be the most negative Java and C# code monkey screaming for attention. When I am reading here, I often think I choose the wrong profession. Again, I am sorry, but I think Slashdot deserves this critics.
Like other people have said, it's their bandwidth to with as they like. If you as a customer become dissatisfied, stop using Verison. They need your money! If people voice their dissatisfaction by switching services, Verison will change their ways. However, if it's not that big of an issue that people are willing to switch, then I fail to see the problem. In fact, why is it a bad thing that they would do this at all? By allocating their bandwidth for different tasks, they assure that heavy traffic through one service does not effect service in another area. For example, just because there are a googelplex of people talking on the phone at once and internet traffic is bogged down because everyone's downloading the current season of 24 does not mean that the TV service will be rendered useless. Sounds like a rather good idea to me.
Unlike some people, I am locked into using Verizon for my high speed service, unless I want to pawn up three times the amount for an equivalent service from a local no-name. My apartment complex is not on the cable grid because they provide their own cable services. So I am stuck with 768/160 kbps DSL from Verizon while living in a 1.5 million metropolitan area in southern VA. I need my FIOS damn it!!!
Ummm, no. In short, no. Also, no. :-)
Seriously, capacity is not some monolithic thing that you "have enough of" or "have too much of". Capacity is from a place to a place across a set of resources. VZ can have plenty of capacity from NY to VA but not enough peering to AS3356 (level3). Or They might have plenty of cross-country capacity until a train derails in Colorado causing a 3-4 day outage of the middle path and congesting some other paths. It all depends and the devel is in the detail.
Even using generous estimates of multicast efficiencies, video over packet (or IPTV) is going to consume a *lot* of resources. ~20-25Mb/s per channel. Right now, virtually no one has "enough capacity" for that.
someone doesn't understand basic Internet topology.
Repeat after me:
The Internet is a -quilt-, not a singular fabric.
You are NOT entitled to have anyone carry your traffic. NOT entitled.
Anyone can do whatever the hell they want with their own bandwidth.
Why the hell is it companies feel that they are entitled to have other networks carry their traffic? Why the hell is it that basic Internet topology is so ignored?
OK. I can tell by the mods that this one missed the mark. Let me clarify for the thick:
The end users who abuse their internet connection + the ISPs who oversell their bandwidth = BIG PROBLEM. Verizon wanting to keep some bandwidth for their actual services to run ISN'T the problem. If they stop claiming unlimited internet access at ten gagillion bits per second to people like I was parodying up above, that would take care of part of the problem. The other thing that would help is the enforcement of QoS on their entire portion of the internet. Same with other ISPs. If they can determine levels of priority for srvices and then divvy that up to the customers, the problems become minimal. Grandma doesn't always need ten gagillion bits per second to send normal e-mail or look at the dancing Jesus page. She might need a bit more bandwidth to watch some streaming video but that's about it. However, someone like me who runs multiple servers at home because I don't trust any ISP to manage my data might want a dedicated 1 Mbit line at all times. That's why I pay more for my bandwidth. Is that clearer?
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Its not just Verizon customers that are affected. Its a good chance that no matter who you use, your traffic goes over some other companies network (probably several) before you get to the destination server. So this affects everyone, and changing services won't help. If you can run a traceroute (probably blocked for you now), you would see a bunch of different routers in your path to your destination server. Those routers could be owned by several different companies. Now if one of those companies decided to affect the type of traffic going through those routers, then everyone traversing those routers is affected. Now whether those paths will be too congested, and whether those companies have a right to change the ammount or type of traffic flowing on those paths is up for debate.
On the flip side, they spent the money for the network, they can do whatever the hell they like with it. If you have a problem with that, go to a non-capitalistic country.
Thank you. This is yet another thing that I'll have to consider when buying property.
About the only thing Verizon seems to be really good at is wireless phones. I can walk into their office, order a phone and walk out with it working. Their coverage is better than their competitors (at least in my neck of the woods) and their prices and features are competitive.
Rather than spending $10 billion to try and break into another market, it seems like they ought to spend it trying to make the rest of their company as good as the wireless.
I stand corrected about the right of way. My knowledge is limited to things that happened with pipelines and no other easements. I made the mistake of over-generalizing.
Regarding the deregulation, well, I don't know. Your property may be dug up more often - I'm afraid.
In other words, if the telecom market is deregulated, then you better start hanging out at your town hall.
And I'll do what I want with it.
Excuse me while I dig up the storm drain in my front yard, and cut down the telephone poles in the front and back.
You see, the free market only applies when the market was established via free conditions. If the government intervened in some fashion to create a monopoly (Verizon, you get to be the telephone carrier for this area), then the government MUST intervene to keep the market sane; market failures CAN be created by government, and when they are they should be checked by the government.
Geographic monopolies are often established by the state. I have no idea why one would want a geographic monopoly to run rampant and unregulated.
Otherwise, it's MY land. I want a cut of all the profits that the phone/cable/electrical companies get by stringing their lines on MY land.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
>>Leading Net companies say that Verizon's actions could keep some rivals off the road.
>And? Why would this be a reason to sue? If you don't like Verizon's idea, and it bothers you enough, then use a different provider. Also, who's to say that Verizon would have used the additional bandwidth to fuel their web services?
You don't get it, do you? The bandwidth use that they are reserving is a portion of a major backbone for the US networks (i.e. the internet). This isn't just about Verizon customers, it is about common carrier backbone infrastructure. I'm not saying that they can't use the hardware (as long as they can still exceed demand), but the way you are saying it you seem to think it would only affect their customers. If they don't do this right it will cause a nationwide bottleneck in service and prevent smaller ISPs from providing the service they promised to their own customers.
Just for illustration, imagine they have 10 OC3 lines going through Texas and decide to reserve 4 of them for their own use only. Then you would have a 40% bottleneck through the southern backbone and the reroutes would delay your packets by a full second or more. I know that sounds trivial, talking about a second, but in networking terms a full second is enormous.
Cable companies reserve bandwidth for their voice offerings, TV, On-Demand, etc. Why the uproar about Verizon?
This is no different than cable - they have a large portion of the cable's bandwidth allocated to providing video and a small portion for providing internet access.
What was it I heard recently about the FCC auctioning off a bit of "prime real-estate" in bandwidth-land (adjoining or neighboring on the portion of the spectrum currently in use by the wireless telecoms) so the government could move all their wireless telecom traffic to some obscure (and supposedly more secure?) portion of the spectrum (but still not "subspace" *frowns*) -- was supposed to generate bazillions of dollars (plenty, anyway, to cover the government'$ expenditure for their move) and provide more "elbow room" for such stuff as wireless broadband, etc.?
There's this site, but I don't want to have to roll up my pants and go wading right now... anybody else remember this? (I could've sworn I heard Paul Harvey mention it one day while at lunch...)
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
Well, to some extent there is no one to switch to. If I want DSL, Verizon is involved. If I want landline telephone, Verizon is involved. OK, dump landline and go cellular. Uh, from what my friends and roommates tell me, Verizon is the only service that works at my house. I don't want one I can't use... VOIP? I don't trust the only other broadband provider's connection is reliable enough to trust with my phone service. If my roommate can't play FFXI because the connection keeps dropping every few minutes, then I don't expect it to make a good phone line either.
It it even possible to boycott your regional BellCo without going Amish? Naw, I think Verizon has enough people like me screwed out of any possible alternative that they don't have to care. A lot of unhappy customers simply have nowhere else to go.
BTW, I'm considering changing to DSL instead of cablemodem because of the piss-poor service I currently have, I'm considering getting a Verizon cell phone (I don't currently have any cellphone), and I would like FIOS if it was available here. I currently have Verizon land-line and nothing else from them.
If you don't like how your mega-corporation former-baby-bell ISP is implementing QOS to favor themselves (Verizon) or others who pay more (BellSouth) then vote with your feet, and get another ISP.
I would not use Verizon broadband because they block port 80 access.
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
Verizon is a part of a regulated monopoly which is a common carrier. Look it up. It must carry traffic from anyone without any discrimination as to content. Else they would be liable for whatever travels within their networks.
Now they want to discriminate traffic to prioritize some traffic over other traffic. Once they do that, they are not a common carrier and should lose that protection against liability of what they carry (porn, XXX video, kiddie sex, gambling, games, terrorist plots, etc.). They want to retain their monopoly, the protection, the fat profits from the last mile and now even more.
They can make their new service work without prioritizing by putting in enough capacity to send all traffic through their network simultaneously (typically known as nonblocking) without any delays. You do that by adding up all the bandwidth of each user and making sure that the network can carry it all. Yes that is expensive, but it can be done. We paid for their network over the years and now they want to have us pay both money and time to move their stuff first. Let it stand with the same restrictions everyone else works under.
If they have a delay problem, then have them deal with it like the rest of us, put storage close to the outlet to buffer the traffic and send it faster to the buffer than it plays out. That way, the "video" plays without apparent delays and short delays are absorbed by the buffer. They could send a 360MB compressed 1 hour show (45 minutes without commercials) in 15 minutes (or less) to the set top box (or server for the block just outside) and after 3-4 minutes (long enough for the preshow act and titles and stuff to be viewed), they could have a bunch of packets delayed 10 minutes and still the user(s) never see any delay.
Heck they can make it even easier as popular shows or scheduled ones could be sent prior to being viewed (shows can't be real time, but outside of news and sports, that is rare) so the whole video is on the server before a viewer even starts watching. That's how many of my friends and relatives use Tivo and similar DVR services. It works, they like it that way and they are even willing to pay for that on an ongoing basis. Doing is this way also cuts down on the bandwidth usage as one program being sent can go to thousands of servers which then allow millions of customers to view them. That BW savings can then be used to send those real time shows in the typical manner to those servers for being sent over multiple "last mile" links. And the users requested that this service be prioritized on their links. Others who don't watch shows real time, can surf, download or upload without losing any of their paid for BW. And the network remains "dumb" and non discriminating.
I say to the regulators, force Verizon and any other such carrier to do it right. Its more expensive, but why should they be able to get away with a solution not available to any other providers, requires current users to accept additional delays, lost packets and lower bandwidth to bring out some cross subsidized service on the cheap? The cost of doing correctly will pay benefits in the long run and force them to use the network like anyone else would be required to do. They still have the advantage of locating the necessary stuff right next to the links. It also gives the rest of us the bandwidth when not needed for video. Bigger pipes helps everyone who wants to send or receive content.
Pete
PS: Alternatively, they could just bring fiber to the home. Then cable would not be able to match the aggragate capacity and every user could have 10Gb/s data links and still have thousands of 19.2Mb HDTV channel feeds, all simultaneously. And we would still have the inevitable complaint "ten thousand channels and nothing to watch!"
For the "last mile", the incumbent carrier is a regulated monopoly, and must not be allowed to exploit that monopoly unduly. We have some problems with the Bush Administration in that area, but that's probably temporary.
At the CO, I should be able to get that wire tied to a long haul carrier of my choice. Covad, for example. Beyond that point, the incumbent carrier has no involvement and no voice.
But if Jim is using FIOS he can only use the amount of bandwidth he's paying for. Unlike cable and DSL, FIOS limits are quite explicit. Your hypothetical example may point out someone who is a pompous ass, but certainly within his moral and legal rights to do.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
they have more bandwidth, both lit and unlit, than they know what to do with
Is that like when you buy a new hard drive and say "Man, it'll take me forever to fill this thing up!!"
If you're paying for a business class internet connection, you're buying AFAIK guaranteed bandwidth.
eg 1.5/384 means you get 1.5/384 all day, every day.
Otherwise, why would anyone pay more for a commercial connection?
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Keep in mind that a "free" market is one in which you have a number of choices for a given item that are equivalent replacements. Automobiles are a free market as their are many manufacturers and models that I can choose from that will fill my transportation needs. In this care, there's no "free" market.
What this is talking about isn't verizon's customers, but rather network traffic that has to go over Verizon's network. So, in essence it could cause an aggregate slow down of other network providers. Customers of those other networks might be pissed but there's nothing they can do about it save for switching to Verizon which is causing the problem in the first place.
That's not a free market.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
SO IT DOESN'T MATTER!!! Your data and video are separate. There is no overlap or oversaturation of video messing up your internet data or phone calls. Also, they are setting it up so that the video never travels across the public backbones. Only from Verizon's points of the physical networks.
So this is all completely bogus. Somebody is running their mouth when they don't have all the info.
For those who don't know, the reason Fiber is expensive to light up is because of the hardware involved.
While the latest hardware can pack a lot more information in a fibre line than in the past, the hardware is also a lot more expensive.
Once you figure in the cost of signal boosters, lighting up any longish stretch of fibre gets expensive pretty quick.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Sure its their network, fine. But they are for the most part using the public's right of way. Or from easements across people's private property.
So, collectively we have a right to impose reasonable regulations on its use. Personally, I don't see any problem with Verizon managing how the bandwidth is used, to a point. Just as the cable companies allocate certain bandwidth for cable tv and internet respectively. I see no difference.
That's an incredibly stupid way to setup your network though when there are better ways like QoS to prioritize your "premium" traffic over the commodity Internet traffic without carving out arbitrary bandwidth limitations. Basically they'd be far more likely to configure their routers to prioritize Verizon's VoIP (if they do that) or video-on-demand service over general non-tagged web traffic for instance. The way you're describing it is that they're carving out fixed-size PVCs which may or may not be utilized efficiently. That's just a silly way to do it.
If, for example, consumers find they can use Verizon's VOD well but not Google's; yet Google has the better product, consumers may well opt to get their network service from the Cable Company instead.
The real issue is if Verizon is required to provide equal access to the local POP or not. This is a regulation issue -- is owning the copper to the home a monopoly?
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
It's not exactly intrAnetwork traffic if they are one of the few limited backbones for US connectivity. Their actions could very easily affect your usage of google or ilovehotmoms.com by restricting the bandwidth or implementing QoS. However, I don't see much a problem with this for the these two simple facts:
1)They currently have more than enough bandwidth to go around, and are not going to stop growing this network, and
2) If they do start to implement QoS, their service contracts will (if they don't already) have a method to gaurentee that they will receive the level of service they pay for. No one's going to pay for a OC12 to only have the available bandwith of a OC3.
www.oobersworld.com - For those that ride.
Suing would be a stupid thing for Verizon's competitors to do.
They're taking the smarter path and trying to get the Senate to lay the smack down on Verizon.
Since you read TFA, show me where it says anything about a lawsuit.
Your comment got modded up by the standard "OMG TeH L4w5u1t5 aRe t3h 3viL" crowd.
You = Offtopic
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I hope they do it! The resultant consumer backlash might get them bitchslapped down into a more regulated industry again, and force the breakup of all the consolidated companies the stupid government allowed to happen. We sure aren't getting better service with the re-monopolization of the nations wires.
Breaking up AT&T was long overdue when it happened, now they are allowing it to regroup in chunks, leading to eventually back to one big fat monopoly, or just a couple and it will be a cartel, same thing to the end user consumer.
I remember as a kid you couldn't even own the phone! It was rented from them, and hard wired directly to the wall, not even a plug! You couldn't install a second phone, THEY had to do it and charged big bucks and it was ILLEGAL for you to do it. THAT is the mindset these big companies have. The bigger they are, that's what they want, and they have more bribery power to make it happen.
The problem is that the market assumes total & free flow of information. Yes, if Verizon throttles back speeds, us technical-types will recognize what's going on, who to blame, and will switch to another service.
Consider this though: when the cup-holder breaking, tech-support calling, joe average notices that his access to eBay slowed down, do you think that he'll know Verizon is responsible?
Funny, my local cable company have allocated large swaths of their bandwidth (which could otherwise be used for net and phone traffic) for crap like the YES network. Maybe I can force them to allocate the bandwidth to net traffic?
The part of verizon that is related to phone service is a common carrier. The ISP and the parts related to it are not. They are separate divisions, so be sure to know which one you are talking about when you claim verizon is a common carrier.
stated that the local incumbant(in this case Verizon) is obligated to sell its network resources (bandwidth and local access) to any competing company at wholesale. My only issue with the use ( or misuse) of bandwidth would not necesarlly be for lack of available bandwidth to consumers, but the possibility of hindering local competition.
Considering that they are going to be rolling out a massive video on demand service, probably centralized, I would expect that they WOULD do something like carve out PVC's. This would be an anticompetitive move to ensure that no other outside provider (think google) could compete with VOL's VOD service due to lack of bandwidth.
I think that is the POINT of google being upset. It's not stupid, it's just a nasty anticompetitive thing to do.
Either way -- intranetwork or internetwork -- it's wrong and should be disallowed by the FCC. Communications networks are public utilities, and as such ought to be run fairly, without any "pay-to-play" or QoS whatsoever. In fact, since running the network and serving content is inherently a conflict of interest, companies should be barred from doing both at the same time.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
"Verizon is a part of a regulated monopoly which is a common carrier. Look it up."
That's wrong.
PART of Verizon is a common carrier. Part of it is not. The rest of your argument doesn't matter anymore.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
How is what Verizon is proposing to do different than what the cable companies do, i.e. most of the bandwidth on the coax coming into your house is reserved for the video offering, with the rest left over for other packets? This to me seems different than the packet prioritization that VZ and others have floated before.
I doubt very much the business case for FIOS works without a robust video offering - if this gets killed off it might be a LONG time before you get FTTH.
WTF? IMHO, you write too many acronyms to make sense to most readers. We don't all speak that language.
No.
"Me fail English? That's unpossible." - Ralph
Verizon is rolling out new infrastructure, most of which is earmarked for these new VOD services.
Keep in mind that these VOD services won't be free. They'll be in addition to the basic Internet service Verizon is already offering.
Now, if Verizon doesn't charge for their new VOD service, then the question is:
WHAT pays for the infrastructure upgrades?
If Verizon were taking existing capacity, earmarking 80% of it for VOD, and making users pay the same price for the remaining 20%, that would be Bad. But what they're doing, is taking the existing 100%, adding another 500%, and users that stick with the original 100% pay the same price. Users who want to use something from the extra 500% pay extra. To me, that's better than all users having to pay for the new infrastructure even if they didn't want/need the upgrade.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Definitions for the Geek Impaired: POP = Point of Presence, FIOS = Verizon's fiber to the home service. Loop = phone line to the house. What the fuck is WTF and IMHO? In my humble opinion you shouldn't use bizzare acronyms... :-)
The problem is verizon is stopping companies like cablevision,and other companies from using their bandwidth. basically all traffic that is not from a verizon customer will be severely limited. so if you have cablevision.verizon,timewarner,comcast or anybody else that uses verizon to connect their network to the other networks will be very slow. It should be illegal what verizon wants to do making the net extremely slow for anybody not using a verizon connection. ISnt this the kind of stuff mabell was broken up for to begin with ?
Cable modem providers (ie your local telephone company) use most of their bandwith to carry television. At any given moment, the majority of the signal going across my cable carries television programs that I'm not watching. Why shouldn't the phone company be able to do the same thing?
Broadband ISPs need some incentive to increase bandwidth on their networks. If they can't use it themselves and they can't charge other providers to use it, then they'll have to charge end-users. But, there's only so much that end-users are going to be willing to pay for higher speed. As a result, the broadband ISPs will take a lot longer to roll out higher bandwidth service.
Think about it -- Verizon didn't build the network and then say to themselves "Hey. We could use this to carry TV. Why didn't we think of that earlier?" TV was part of the reason that they built it.
It's good for consumers too -- it'll be another competitor to cable and satellite.
The big problem is that they're effectively locking out a bunch more TV competitors -- there are any number of providers out there who would like to deliver video over the Internet, but Verizon's bandwidth allocation locks them out. Verizon really ought to open up the Internet pipe and then offer their video service on the internet -- doing so would allow them to target all Internet users, not just their own customers.
I don't think the FCC will have much to say about this. Here's why.
Verizon has two effective classes of business. Highly regulated (POTS) and almost unregulated.
If we were talking about DSL DSLAM sharing, the FCC would have something to say (or at least in previous administrations). Anything over "legacy" telco switching equipment like POTS, DSL, T1 PRI interconnects, that sort of thing, is publically regulated. Meaning they have to go to a public utility commission to raise rates or change the way charges are collected (for DSL it's slightly different, but that's on the level of another company leasing dry copper from VZ, rather than the end user data charge.
Anything outside of that, like wireless phone or networks they've developed seperately (think fiber to the home) is a value-added service and therefore much less regulated.
While I'd love unrestricted access to bandwidth for a government subsudized low cost, in this area, they don't have to play nice. It's their pipe and they can use or charge what they want for it.
Do what I do.
Be on the lookout for news about IT hardware/software that can truly help you or your business. Also look for news that can help your IT skills such as online programming tutorials or warn you of IT related threats such as the lates computer virus. Ignore everything else here as it is either 'Slashvertisements' (ads for known (non)commercial interests or the people associated with them), or pointless discussions on topics that do not interest you or (in)directly affect you, your family and friends, and/or your business affairs.
I only read a fraction of the stories here on Slashdot but quite a bit of time I come across some 'words/links of wisdom or interest' that were truly worth the time to visit or 'cut and paste' into a save file to read and reflect upon in the future.
Posting anonomously to avoid downmodding.
I hope you are able to read this, FoxyFox. Have a nice day.
Did you know there is a 3% fee for Americans' phones? Read below:
NewsNet5.com reports that there is a call to repeal a telephone/phone (including cellular/cell phones) tax most Americans probably don't even know they are paying. Anybody who has ever tried to decipher a phone bill knows how tough it can be. One of the charges is a 3 percent fee on every phone bill in America. The origin of the tax predates the invention of the phone by nearly a century.
Every time a person use their his/her phone, he/she supports the war effort -- the Spanish-American War. The 1898 war involved Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders. The fee began as a luxury tax on phones at the turn of the 19th Century. And we're all still paying for it today. Phone bills don't specify that the tax originates from the Spanish-American War. It is labeled as the federal excise tax, which amounts to 3 percent of every monthly bill...
Seen on Shacknews. Posted on my site recently.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Another company? Be careful. You don't want to use capitalist arguments in situations where capitalism doesn't apply. There is no capitalism here. For one simple reason: Pure capitalism assumes no entry costs into the market. In making that assumption, you're assuming that fiber is free. which it isn't.
When you are about to buy a property, check on the rights of way. If you can't live with it, don't buy the property; otherwise, use it as a negotiating point.
I've been a broadband cable customer before and it wasn't really an issue with them and co-ax has much less bandwidth than single-mode fiber. I'll be interested to see if it's really an issue with Verizon any more than with Charter or Brighthouse. By staking out a chunk of the bandwidth, Verizon has clearly let others know not to try to engineer their bandwidth for them. So, don't look at their 1GB of bandwidth and figure that it's available for everyone to use as they see fit.
As well, it also depends on where this applies. As long as they meet their contractual obligations, it's a moot point. I'm a FIOS customer and I expect my bandwidth to remain unchanged. I'm on for the 15 mps service and I'll drop it if I don't see that bandwidth even if I am watching a movie. Fortunately, I live in an area where there's a choice so if they drop the ball I can go back to cable broadband.
One of my friends went with VOIP a couple of years ago. It went fine until Charter started offering a competing VOIP service. Shortly afterwards, after more than a year of near perfect service, his voice service started dropping out periodically. He'd be on a conference call and get dropped. He had Charter cable and 10 mps service, at home, during the day working from home and started having problems. He finally had to switch back to SWBell for a landline to continue working from home without interruption.
It's not a case of just the telcos so much as it appears to be the broadband providers that are looking to muscle the competition on their networks. Whatever the telcos get away with, look for the cable companies to follow in those footsteps. If they build 8 lanes to my house and I'm paying for 2 of them, I want my 2 lanes worth of traffic. What they do with the other 6 is up to them. Google pays for multiple 8 lane interstates to the 'Net and they should get that access. But if they want to offer video service, either we're going to move it on the 2 lanes to my house that I pay for, or they're going to have to buy some of those other 6 from whoever is providing them. As long as I get my 15 mbs, how I use it should be up to me.
You must be the change you wish to see in the world - Ghandi
the bandwidth has little to do with the latency that will be experienced by this "QoS"
Guess what guys? It's not going to effect any of us. If they want to play around with new ideas and such, let them, it may just work out. IDK how well any viedo service will work out but if it doesn't you can be sure they will do soemthign with all of their bandwidth capabilities. So if your not lagging right now, leave it alone. Unles you are a major shareholder that really doesn't like the idea, it won't effect you.
Exactly. On top of that, the FiOS product is far more advanced that the users here seem to realize. It uses a Corning high-performance DWDM fiber that, to the home, supports 10Gbit. It gets muxed back at the central office into a DWDM optical switch, where the individual services are separated out, voice, video, and data. So all the way around, Verizon's providing a truly superior product. On point of the article, it's Verizon's network, and IMO, it's their call as to what they do. They're within the law, as far as the 1996 Telecom act states.
Kinda ironic that when I spotted this article on the front page, and while I type this reply, I'm looking at a Verizon banner.
I guess they can do what they like with it...
Companies like mine that get their Internet connection through a local T1 provider really don't have a choice to switch to a non-Verizon company. In my area, Verizon owns all of the connections. Sure, I can order a T1 through Sprint, or AT&T, or any number of smaller carriers, but they all, each and every one, work through the Verizon network, because there simply is no fiber not owned by Verizon here in NH, and I'm not in a rural area. I am switching from a small provider to Sprint soon, and the best connection diversity I can get is to have multiple T1s connecting to different Verizon COs, but no matter what I do, I am going to be getting my connection through Verizon, no matter who I send my money to every month. If Verizon's network starts bogging down because their video service is using too much bandwidth, I will have exactly zero options other than to call my provider and complain, or file a lawsuit against Verizon. No matter what company I do business with for connectivity, Verizon will have me as a customer.
Of course it's "their" pipe. Under "my" land.
Let's see if we can apply some property rights here...
Verizon (or ANYONE) is not entitled, authorized, or any such thing to dig in MY property. Whether to lay copper, fibre, or dead bodies.
The GOVERNMENT gives the right to do so. But there are some rules. Rules that I (we) impose. If the government has allowed such action (more accurately, has FORCED it), we am entitled to some benefit:
Specifically, access to the property or service at reasonable rates, with reasonable sharing.
Of course "reasonable rates" are debatable; as is "reasonable sharing".
It's not "their" pipe -- it's "our" pipe.
When cable was rolled out, it was rolled out on the understanding that cable TV was to be provided. Was an alternate TV network contemplated when the fibre was rolled out? If it was, then ok; if not, we need a PUBLIC debate.
Nothing against Verizon (or any other public utility), but that IS the rule. And if anyone gives me a hard time about, I'll backhoe my property. Sue me already.
As a final observation: Let's get into this century, already. I don't see the sewage removal provider making a play for Gas delivery. I don't see the Gas provider (delivery only) making a play for water delivery. They kind of stick to their own turf.
But the "data" services are coallescing. Voice, TV, Internet -- its all data. Reasonably, we expect that NEW pipes would treat it the same. If you close your eyes really tight, and pull back 20 years, then, yeah, its different. Which gave rise to "Cable TV" as separate from "Phone".
Now I expect a single bundle of fibre to a home and I expect it to carry ALL the data equally. A separate "bandwidth" supplier distinct from purposing.
As an example: if you have a home heated by a Gas furnace, and a Gas BBQ, and a Gas stove, would you really expect two or three different bills? Of course not, a single bill each month suffices.
I want a single "data" bill every month, that combines "TV", "Phone", "Internet", "VOD" carrier fees. I may have a separate accounting for "VOD movies", "POTS integration", "HBO access".
I advocate complete separation of the cost of maintaining the "plumbing" and "delivering" the data from the data itself. The Gas company here (Enbridge) can do, so I expect the fibre suppliers to be able to do it as well.
Ratboy.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
That's not how it works. Unless you're way out in Backwater, Alabama, there are alternates.
A semi-monopoly will always control the wiring in your neighborhood, but an alternate ISP will be picking the phone signal up from Verizon without them touching, looking, altering, redirecting, or molesting it in any way. The only opportunity they have to screw up your service is the wire and a couple pieces of hardware.
Verizon has the right to set aside bandwidth for its own projects. i.e. Porn.
-=JML=-
I see alot of posts here talking about how people will just leave Verizon for another provider if they (Verizon) don't manage the bandwidth appropriately. Well, people serviced by FIOS won't have many choices.
:-/
I just tried to get DSL installed at my home. However, Verizon is planning to put in FIOS soon. They've already marked my area as being service by Fiber, actually. So when I called SpeakEasy to get DSL, they told me, "Sorry, DSL doesn't work over fiber. We can't sell you DSL." I told them the fiber wasn't actually in place yet, but that didn't matter. Verizon had tagged our area as having fiber, so my choices were cable or whatever Verizon's offering.
I hope that when FIOS is finally in, it's everything it's cracked up to be, because if it isn't, my only other option is Comcast.
But I guess that having 2 options qualifies as "competition", right?
---- The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. -Thomas Jefferson
It is doubtful that Verizon would want to merge a video distribution network onto the wholesale IP core, given the nature of video services. With current MPLS technologies, such convergence is possible, and QoS reservations can be configured for the latency sensitive premium applications, but it is doubtful that the net/video traffic would be sharing the same long haul pipes.
The most probable architecture is a scattering of downlink stations to take the video from the sky and drop it onto the MPLS core as IP (multicast) packets to preserve bandwidth. The VoD servers are probably more plentiful and scattered across a larger geography, maybe on their own CDN for ease of management and movie rotation. Delivery to the FiOS end users is over a passive optical network (PON,) so there is likely a lambda dedicated to video. No contention with Internet traffic on the last mile.
Given the sensitivity of the video application and the resistance of the entertainment industry to pushing their content to "publicly reachable" servers, I would expect that Verizon has done much to isolate the public network from the video network. So there is *probably* no contention at the IP core either...
Um, no. That is ONLY the case when you have a CLEC like covad that puts their own equipment in Verizon's offices. Again, generally only happens in larger markets. Other ISP's just resell Verizon DSL lines by getting a PVC to the VOL network. Usually it costs even more than Verizon too, for service that is as bad or worse. In larger metro areas, you can get alternatives like Speakeasy which rock. Not the case everywhere.
I had Verizon DSL for about 5 months. I used to have cable a few years ago, and would have had it again in this apartment but because Cable told me they may or may not be able to give me service once they've had 3 weeks for a site check, and even then it would be about 3 months before they'd have the phone service running (part of their all-in-one package they advertise) in my area so I'd still have to go with Verizon for phone.
So I said screw that, Verizon here I come. Phone and some DSL and I'll live without the cable. Then I had to move again 5 months later (sewage pipe break) and told Verizon. They told me that I'd wait about 2 weeks for then to test and see if DSL service would stretch to my new place even though it's only 3 HOUSES FROM WHERE I JUST HAD SERVICE. Half a block. Whatever. The neighbor has a moderately reliable wireless connection for me to use until those two weeks are up.
After those two weeks came and went I checked the order status telling me I placed the order 12 days after I had actually placed it but that it didn't matter because THANKFULLY my service started a couple nights ago after 6 p.m. according to them. Regardless, I didn't have service.
I called the customer service and was told that yeah, they gave away my connection because even though I was just moving, it puts my slot in line out for the next shmuck to get. "yeah, they've been trying to get you in for a few days... even after we cancelled you and started you back up. We really shouldn't have even placed that order for you, I don't know why the sales staff did."
WTF! Couldn't they have told me that ahead of time, like maybe as soon as they discovered that there was no way they could fulfill my order because they had no visible upcoming slots and had to restart my order? Apparently not.
Thankfully my landlord is an ass and informed us that less than a month after we moved in to this replacement apartment that what he meant by "I'll give it to you for $25 less than what I planned on renting it for because you guys are great tenants" was "in less than a month I'm going to inform you of a 20% rent increase (20% like we'd rent this dump for a penny more than what we're paying) so we informed him of our not staying.
So on the phone to the Verizon people: Oh, why do you want to discontinue service?
- Because when we moved there was a...
- Oh, that's too bad but we enjoyed your patronage
- I didn't finish. You gave away our...
- I'm sure we didn't mean to but if you ever want to come back to us.
- I still haven't finished answering WHY we're not coming back.
- Oh, I'm sorry about that sir. So when do you want service shut off?
Some customer service. So when shopping around for cell phones, we went with T-Mobile (wife's choice... the guy offered her a "sweet deal" on a free phone that was maybe a third as good as the other free phones offered by these random companies and with service we can barely use half an hour outside of town... you know, where we live and travel from each day), we're getting the all-in-one service at our new place (where it's only a 6 day wait for installation because we're a little closer to town) and we'll probably do our best to never go back to Verizon, specifically because they SAID they could give us DSL, and their service wasn't that horrible so long as I didn't need them for anything bu they couldn't even be bothered to tell me they couldn't carry through with their offer.
I guess TripMaster Monkey missed FP.
wtf is the world coming to?
Having all channels simulcast for IPTV isn't a good idea anyway. Maybe sending 2 or 3 channels max at a time is all you need. Really, the cable company should be doing this, wasting 100s of megabits of bandwidth just to simulcast to the user is just plain looney.
I don't get it.
Who owns the lines? They owner has the 'right' to do whatever they want with it..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Verizon is a producer of bandwidth, not an end user or a middle man. They can make as much bandwidth as they want. If I build 100 motorcycles a year, but I decided to keep 25 of them for myself, would you bitch because other people could be using those 25 motorcycles?
You talk better than you fool!
I am not totally familiar with the details of how digital cable is implemented, but doesn't digital cable only send 1 channel per digital cable tuner over the cable link?
Perhaps, but analog doesn't, and a good amount of people still have that.
I don't get it.
The one case that is handled differently is video-on-demand. That requires the temporary use of a dedicated subchannel for a single subscriber.
Your cable modem downlink works in a similar way. The cable modem tunes to a 6 MHz digital channel that contains multiplexed packets for a group of cable modem subscribers. The cable modem forwards any packets addressed to you and ignores the rest. The uplink is handled differently. Each cable modem is assigned a unique time slot on a shared RF uplink channel. When it has data to send, the cable modem waits for its time slot and then transmits packets until its time slot has ended.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
The government would have to consider "the network" to be similar to the highway system. National government would build a mesh of interstate feeds. State goverment would set up a mesh between counties. Counties would build the network into towns/cities and individual municipalities would bring it to your doorstep. (Ok... somewhat simplistic but you get the idea.)
Any entity that wanted to offer service such as Internet access could do so at a set price (per Mb or bandwith or whatever) and they could litteraly sell service to anyone in the US. Now we're talking competition.
The very sad thing about that whole idea is that is exactly what the telcos are suppsed to be providing for us already. They get tax breaks and have been allowed to collect $200 billion in extra fees/charges already. That's WTF "common carrier" is supposed to mean. But instead of charging for carring data/calls now they are starting to charge for services. Services that those controlling the network shouldn't be allowed to provide over it. If "Verizon Media" wants to send data over the "Verizon Network" lines it should have to pay the same access/bandwith charges that any competitor would have to pay.
I'm in the middle of nowhere, and on wireless at the motel. I'm forced to use RoadRunner's Webmail... and I can't *begin* to tell you how much I HATE them.
They randomly log me off after anywhere from 2 to 15 minutes... that is, when I can log *on* (I type in login and password, wait a couple minutes, and am told I'm timed out).
Anyone else notice this, and is it happening with other ISPs? Either RR is not putting up enough power, or the a**holes who are Webmasters have the timeout set insanely low.
mark
Over 90% of the fibre backbone is dark thanks to WorldCom laying it like railroad tracks were laid 150 years ago? Let's get _something_ on there! Not that I'm a fan of Verizon (recently screwed over DSL service), but I don't really see a problem with this proposal unless they're blocking/impeading public use of chunks of the network.
Did google see this coming? Is this the reason for their dark fiber purchases? Could google subvert the telecoms with some type of alternate system?
I do security
VOD doesn't need a channel per subscriber, just enough so that the subscriber doesn't know the difference... if you start a movie on 3 minute boundaries that 30 rolling channels for a 90 minute movie, covering your entire network 'on demand' for that movie. You can optimise it of course so the channels are only active when demanded... still a shitload of bandwidth but not as much as a per-subscriber setup.
I don't think my system (Comcast) works that way. You can use the remote to pause, restart at beginning, fast forward, rewind, etc., just like a DVR. Plus, it has a fairly large library of shows and movies.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
It all depends and the devel is in the detail.
Do you mean "the devil is in the detail," or that "the development is in the detail." At first I thought you meant the later, but "the details are in development" would have made more sense, so I am not sure.
Verizon wants to get into the TV cable business. Most of the TV is a one way broadcast that will fit on a chunk of one fiber pipe. That one pipe is then tapped where the broadcast needs to be dribbled out to a TV. In the big picture, that doesn't use up a very high percentage of the fiber out there. With wireless, power utilities, and traditional cable tv companies among others all competing for the same customers bandwith needs, Verizon looks to have its hands full just staying in business.
Verizon (and just about every other Telco) wants to offer ADSL2+. They want to compete against the local cable company by selling cable TV over DSL. That means rolling out GigE everywhere. It means sending out a new modem, or in some cases, a firmware change in an existing ADSL modem, and mailing out some set top boxes. In outlying areas, Verizon will need to light fiber to the neighborhood. But the average consumer should welcome that as an enhancement over multiplexed T1's or DS3 trunks. The telcos want to offer video on demand too, and Tivo-like services, same as the cable company. They want to increase revenue. They want to offer bundled packages.
Do you want to hear what's really funny? Comcast can sell phone service with little regulation, but the telephone companies can't sell cable TV without filing in EACH municipality. The system is rigged against the Telco, and for the cable company monopoly. And the cable company has very little regulation or accountability when compared to the telephone companies. VoIP phone service is fine, but the minute someone tries to offer video over IP, Comcast and Adelphia bitch and moan to the FCC. What a waste. De-regulate it, and you'll REALLY see competition.
The bandwidth that is getting all your undies in a knot is going to be multicast. That means that it's not going to be hundreds of OC-48's hauling video data. For NTSC, 150 channels will take about 600 meg. Middleware servers in the Central Office will offer VOD and TIVO functionality. But it's not getting hauled all over their network. it's focused on the local loop. The whole network will run on GigE. And as the network demand grows, a second or 3rd GigE port can be lit to feed each metro area. It's extremely efficient. Verizon will send out set top boxes that use IGMP to join and leave various video streams. It's all broadcast. And it's all switched. So the efficiency is very good.
So do you still feel that Verizon is going to rob you of all your bandwidth? Do you really feel that you're smarter than Verizon? That you need to watch out for Verizon? Or any other Telco?
The truth is, you need to watch out for the content owners. And the cable companies. They will form a very, very tight monopoly in the next few years. And once it's done, it will be almost impossible to undo.
Complaining about Telco investment makes you look like a whiny idiot. No wonder I rarely pay attention to
To the rest of you with an ounce of brains, try to drown out the morons...
Thanks for your time.
Though the cable might be able to handle 10 Gbps, the Optical Network Terminal (OTN) they install at your house can only handle 655 Mbps. At the risk of posting a link to my blog on Slashdot, you can check out my account of Verizon installing the hardware last week. I have links to the hardware manufacturer's specs.
Newsflash: The government puts the pole there. They just pay the utilities (or your municipality) to do it, then rent it out. Look at the itemization on your phone bill and figure it out. And that pole isn't on "your" property, it's on the public right-of-way. Don't like it? Sell the surrounding property that is yours, and move somewhere where you don't have electricity and telecom service.