6 ms·

Wow. Let me get this straight... You would let companies like Verizon, who raised $70 billion to build out a FTTH architecture, get away with undelivered prom

by jmtame 18y ago

Wow. Let me get this straight... You would let companies like Verizon, who raised $70 billion to build out a FTTH architecture, get away with undelivered promises? The fact is we already paid for a faster Internet. We should already have broadband penetration at much higher rates, and most of us should already have fiber optics connections. Yes, you already paid for it. And some shareholder and CEO took that money and paid for an expensive car with an expensive house and an expensive yacht. That's where your money went. And what's why broadband penetration sucks, considering we're the country who invented the Internet. You are all being taken advantage of, and you aren't even worried about it. No wonder CEO's jobs are so easy.

Zev 18y ago
Verizon actually is working on a FTTH architecture though. Have you ever heard of FiOS? It's incredibly nice, incredibly fast and pretty damn expensive; Verizon's estimated to be spending around $23 Billion on it through 2010. Or around $800 per customer.
- Goronmon 18y ago
  Until they decide that certain regions aren't profitable enough for expansion so they pawn off the infrastructure on another company, leaving their customers hanging.
  - Zev 18y ago
    Well, when it costs Verizon $750+ per person to connect, (see http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/a-bear-speaks-why-verizons-pricey-fios-bet-wont-pay-off/?pagemode=print http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/a-bear-speaks-why-v... ) It's kinda easy to understand why Verizon wants to get the areas that have large amounts of people grouped together first before moving on to rural areas. Verizon is still first and foremost a business whose goal is to turn a profit for shareholders. There is nothing wrong with this. If they weren't trying to make money, the board and shareholders would be ticked off. Hell, they already are ticked off because of how much FiOS is costing to lay out..
    - jmtame 18y ago
      New Networks Institute, a public interest research group, has estimated that Verizon has received over $70 billion through tax cuts and overcharging to build out a fiber-optic broadband service to consumers (technically known as Fiber to the Home, or FTTH). Verizon has promised on several counts to replace their 100-year old copper wires with fiber-optics lines that reach a customer’s door in the beginning of next year (2004) (Tell-the-Truth Challenge, New Networks). "Verizon admits that such a speed [of 100mpbs] is more a marketing weapon than anything else at this point." (Broadband DSL Reports) </endquote>. Consumers have already paid the fees. The telecoms are the ones who have not delivered. And by the way, if you're going to just say "screw the poor people, only rich people get fiber or broadband" then I would first say, you are a pompous prick. Second, I would say let the municipalities build their own damn networks, and stop suing them when they get full support from the communities. It's not that hard to build a fiber network, if you want to see an example just look up Monticello, Minnesota. Oh wait, it is hard, because even after millions raised voluntarily by taxpayers and an overwhelming 75% support, they were sued by guess who? Large telecoms who REFUSED to build out fiber networks for them. America's too big? Give me a break. The solution to this problem is simple. It's accountability and it's social responsibility. Three questions should be addressed by any single Internet provider: how much money has already been collected for networks that weren’t built? How profitable is the current local phone service today? And finally, when will the Internet provider in question give its customers their refunds for non-delivered goods, or when will they deliver on their previous commitments? Obama hit the nail on the head. It is unacceptable that our broadband penetration is this bad. And you should stop buying into the story that America is this massive country where it's impossible to wire people up. The money has already been raised to take some tubes with lights in them and stick them in the ground. There are actual reasons why the telecoms are resisting this. They know that as soon as people have 100mbps, the television will die. Skype will become such a novelty that the telephone will also die. And all of a sudden the hundred-year-old telecoms see themselves in the same shoes as the current record industry: no profit, and zero purpose to live because their technology is old and outdated. There goes their revenue stream. So now it's a fight to up the fee so high that they can justify letting it happen.
      - 18y ago

by jmtame 18y ago

Zev 18y ago

Verizon actually is working on a FTTH architecture though. Have you ever heard of FiOS? It's incredibly nice, incredibly fast and pretty damn expensive; Verizon's estimated to be spending around $23 Billion on it through 2010. Or around $800 per customer.

Goronmon 18y ago
Until they decide that certain regions aren't profitable enough for expansion so they pawn off the infrastructure on another company, leaving their customers hanging.
- Zev 18y ago
  Well, when it costs Verizon $750+ per person to connect, (see http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/a-bear-speaks-why-verizons-pricey-fios-bet-wont-pay-off/?pagemode=print http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/a-bear-speaks-why-v... ) It's kinda easy to understand why Verizon wants to get the areas that have large amounts of people grouped together first before moving on to rural areas. Verizon is still first and foremost a business whose goal is to turn a profit for shareholders. There is nothing wrong with this. If they weren't trying to make money, the board and shareholders would be ticked off. Hell, they already are ticked off because of how much FiOS is costing to lay out..
  - jmtame 18y ago
    New Networks Institute, a public interest research group, has estimated that Verizon has received over $70 billion through tax cuts and overcharging to build out a fiber-optic broadband service to consumers (technically known as Fiber to the Home, or FTTH). Verizon has promised on several counts to replace their 100-year old copper wires with fiber-optics lines that reach a customer’s door in the beginning of next year (2004) (Tell-the-Truth Challenge, New Networks). "Verizon admits that such a speed [of 100mpbs] is more a marketing weapon than anything else at this point." (Broadband DSL Reports) </endquote>. Consumers have already paid the fees. The telecoms are the ones who have not delivered. And by the way, if you're going to just say "screw the poor people, only rich people get fiber or broadband" then I would first say, you are a pompous prick. Second, I would say let the municipalities build their own damn networks, and stop suing them when they get full support from the communities. It's not that hard to build a fiber network, if you want to see an example just look up Monticello, Minnesota. Oh wait, it is hard, because even after millions raised voluntarily by taxpayers and an overwhelming 75% support, they were sued by guess who? Large telecoms who REFUSED to build out fiber networks for them. America's too big? Give me a break. The solution to this problem is simple. It's accountability and it's social responsibility. Three questions should be addressed by any single Internet provider: how much money has already been collected for networks that weren’t built? How profitable is the current local phone service today? And finally, when will the Internet provider in question give its customers their refunds for non-delivered goods, or when will they deliver on their previous commitments? Obama hit the nail on the head. It is unacceptable that our broadband penetration is this bad. And you should stop buying into the story that America is this massive country where it's impossible to wire people up. The money has already been raised to take some tubes with lights in them and stick them in the ground. There are actual reasons why the telecoms are resisting this. They know that as soon as people have 100mbps, the television will die. Skype will become such a novelty that the telephone will also die. And all of a sudden the hundred-year-old telecoms see themselves in the same shoes as the current record industry: no profit, and zero purpose to live because their technology is old and outdated. There goes their revenue stream. So now it's a fight to up the fee so high that they can justify letting it happen.
    - 18y ago