Slashdot Mirror
Verizon About To End Construction of Its Fiber Network
WheezyJoe writes: If you've been holding out hope that FiOS would rescue you from your local cable monopoly, it's probably time to give up. Making good on their statements five years ago, Verizon announced this week it is nearing "the end" of its fiber construction and is reducing wireline capital expenditures while spending more on wireless.
The expense of replacing old copper lines with fiber has allegedly led Verizon to stop building in new regions and to complete wiring up the areas where it had already begun. The fiber network was profitable, but nowhere near as profitable as their wireless network. So, if Verizon hasn't started in your neighborhood by now, they never will, and you'd best ignore all those ads for FiOS.
The expense of replacing old copper lines with fiber has allegedly led Verizon to stop building in new regions and to complete wiring up the areas where it had already begun. The fiber network was profitable, but nowhere near as profitable as their wireless network. So, if Verizon hasn't started in your neighborhood by now, they never will, and you'd best ignore all those ads for FiOS.
The free market strikes again!
You put FIOS 2 blocks away and stopped. Suck a dick.
Yup, FiOS isn't as profitable because users won't tolerate overage charges or massive throttling on wired connections but they'll bend over when it comes to wireless. Even though their wireless connections are NOWHERE near as good as wired connections.
Yet in even some of the poorest countries you can get 20Mbit connections with no cap for less money than you pay in the US.
That is in fact exactly what the article says. While the profit margin on FiOS is apparently 4.4%, the wireless side had a 23.5% profit margin. While those numbers are heavily encrusted with bullshit, they do show the relative value of the technologies to Verizon.
I read the internet for the articles.
They're going to say they've stopped, wait for local municipalities to take care of it themselves, then pop back up and say, "Actually, we want to provide service in this area anyway - you need to give up your infrastructure to us cause FREE MARKET!"
When Verizon de-wired my neighborhood to put in fiber, the number of internet options I had went from about 8 to about 2 (Verizon & Cox). I could be wrong, but my understanding at the time was that when the court put the squash on the baby bell monopolies, companies like Verizon had to share their copper going to your home with competitors. The court action however did not mandate that they had to share their fiber. Once the fiber went in, the equipment that made it possible for an alternate telecom company to sell you DSL service was removed.
I know that DSL sucks in comparison to FIOS or even cable, but new technologies exist today that supposedly close the bandwidth gap over copper. Even if I had to endure crappy speeds over conventional DSL, just ask me if I feel that it would have been worth it to have seen a future where the multiple companies found on sites like dslreports.com competed to offer me higher speeds at lower prices sans the monopolistic/duopolistic practices of companies like Cox, Comcast, and Verizon.
Yeah, ask me and I'll tell you: HELL YEAH!
When I last had both available in an area, it didn't make much difference who you picked, the service was decent and close to the same cost. However, I now live in an area where only Comcast is avaiable and I am being screwed for a connection that barely sees 10% of the max throughput and Comcast couldn't care less. Even if there isn't a significant difference in cost for performance, having the option forces them both to be a little more honest.
No you misread. FiOS isn't AS profitable, it's profitable. Someone without a conflict of interest, willing to compete with wireless, could set up a business and make money, give good service, employ people and return value to an investor. Verizon won't, they see it as a cannibalizing their wireless market.
This is an example of all that is wrong with telecom.
There is VZ and ATT, and then there is Sprint and T-Mo.
I've had all four in my area, and VZ by far has the best coverage. It isn't even close. I curently have T-Mo and the speed is much better, but coverage much worse than ATT and VZ. I'll give up a bit of coverage for better speeds.
As for Fiber vs Cable vs Wireless, Fiber will win on raw speed every time. The issue is the cost for last mile, and always will be. Which is why I recommend that Municipalities start looking at building out their own infrastructure and offering CONTENT/INTERNET providers the opportunity to compete for the last mile customers.
Right now, there is no competition, only franchise agreements that limit competition.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
lets get the Gov't to enforce the law. It's our Government. I never said we trusted it. I don't trust fire, but I use it to cook my food.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/