7 ms·

Yeah I've heard/seen this as well, they've done it in favor of expanding LTE coverage [0] I'm astounded at how anyone at VZ thinks this could be a good idea.

Yeah I've heard/seen this as well, they've done it in favor of expanding LTE coverage [0] I'm astounded at how anyone at VZ thinks this could be a good idea. [0] http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Again-Confirms-FiOS-Expansion-is-Over-118949 http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Again-Confirms-Fi...

res0nat0r 13y ago
I believe the FIOS demand wasn't high enough to justify the costs of expanding it any further.
- pwarner 13y ago
  fios penetration rate is 35% which is not bad. http://www.lightreading.com/fios-slows-but-still-grows/d/d-id/707379 http://www.lightreading.com/fios-slows-but-still-grows/d/d-i...
twoodfin 13y ago
There are a lot of folks on forums like this who think networks like FiOS should be regulated into being essentially dumb pipes. Verizon and their investors see some chance of this happening, and even if it didn't, it turns out there aren't a lot of "value added" services you can sell to consumers over a proprietary network; they just want the internet. You can't make the margins as a "dumb pipe" that Verizon needs to justify the capital investment in FiOS. That's the long and the short of it. They had dreams of selling pay-per-view movies, video chat, and a dozen other applications over their network for big $$$. Instead they're fighting with Comcast over the same $120 in cable and internet bills, while Netflix, Google, and Apple build their high-margin businesses on VZ's fiber.
- rayiner 13y ago
  It's amazing to me how many people here on HN complain on one hand about companies not wanting to make massive capital investments to build out faster internet service while simultaneously espousing regulating such services into low-margin dumb pipes.
  - ericd 13y ago
    I think there's a simple solution - municipal fiber everywhere with companies allowed to lease access. Internet access looks like a utility and quacks like a utility, so it should be treated like one. The timeline for breaking even on the investment has been pretty reasonably short in the examples I've seen.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      The municipalities have no money to build, and more importantly, to maintain and continually upgrade, such networks. Heck, they can barely maintain utility systems that evolve far slower than internet connectivity: power and water. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/us/18water.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/us/18water.html?_r=0. People outside of HN won't be anywhere near sufficiently eager to earmark sufficient public dollars to properly maintain such networks, not when pensions systems are underfunded and schools are putting teachers on furlough.
      - mhurron 13y ago
        Yep, it'll never happen. Except where it did before the State stepped in to ensure Comcast/TWC didn't have competition. But other than that it'll never happen.
      - ericd 13y ago
        I don't know enough about fiber to have a very intelligent discussion about it, but from what I've heard, one of the nice things about fiber is that you can run increasing amounts of bandwidth through the same fiber once it's laid as the endpoints improve. I would expect that the buildout could be funded by a municipal bond issue, with the repayment being handled via the revenue from the customer-facing companies that lease access to the infrastructure. I've heard of municipal networks like this being run profitably and being repaid in a reasonable timeframe (on the order of a decade or two), but unfortunately I don't know more than that.
        res0nat0r 13y ago
- skyebook 13y ago
  Its a shame, regulated pipes is starting to look like the most reasonable solution when providers are doing exactly what you said, eyeing up higher margin models and drooling. Regardless of opinions on free market, political leanings, etc, the fact that this is standing in the way of progress is bad news for everyone.
JonFish85 13y ago
I wonder how many people honestly care about what internet provider they have? Do most people want FIOS? Or would more people prefer to have a much better connection on the phone/iPad? On top of that, as was mentioned above, it's probably cheaper to update to LTE than it is to run fiber everywhere, and on top of that, it's probably worth more money to them on the $x/mo for LTE service since to add another customer in the area is trivial compared to FIOS.
- yeukhon 13y ago
  It isn't about the provider, it's the speed we care. Are they going to let my router able to get stable internet from LTE technology? I have desktop and laptops and I don't want to add wireless card to my desktop in particular. I rather serve things over my own router. How are they going to market to home users? FIOS has been said to be high speed, reliable, fiber-optic. Great. I am willing to add $20 to my monthly bill to get one. And how can they drop the agreement like this?

res0nat0r 13y ago

I believe the FIOS demand wasn't high enough to justify the costs of expanding it any further.

pwarner 13y ago
fios penetration rate is 35% which is not bad. http://www.lightreading.com/fios-slows-but-still-grows/d/d-id/707379 http://www.lightreading.com/fios-slows-but-still-grows/d/d-i...

twoodfin 13y ago

There are a lot of folks on forums like this who think networks like FiOS should be regulated into being essentially dumb pipes. Verizon and their investors see some chance of this happening, and even if it didn't, it turns out there aren't a lot of "value added" services you can sell to consumers over a proprietary network; they just want the internet. You can't make the margins as a "dumb pipe" that Verizon needs to justify the capital investment in FiOS. That's the long and the short of it. They had dreams of selling pay-per-view movies, video chat, and a dozen other applications over their network for big $$$. Instead they're fighting with Comcast over the same $120 in cable and internet bills, while Netflix, Google, and Apple build their high-margin businesses on VZ's fiber.

rayiner 13y ago
It's amazing to me how many people here on HN complain on one hand about companies not wanting to make massive capital investments to build out faster internet service while simultaneously espousing regulating such services into low-margin dumb pipes.
- ericd 13y ago
  I think there's a simple solution - municipal fiber everywhere with companies allowed to lease access. Internet access looks like a utility and quacks like a utility, so it should be treated like one. The timeline for breaking even on the investment has been pretty reasonably short in the examples I've seen.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    The municipalities have no money to build, and more importantly, to maintain and continually upgrade, such networks. Heck, they can barely maintain utility systems that evolve far slower than internet connectivity: power and water. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/us/18water.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/us/18water.html?_r=0. People outside of HN won't be anywhere near sufficiently eager to earmark sufficient public dollars to properly maintain such networks, not when pensions systems are underfunded and schools are putting teachers on furlough.
    - mhurron 13y ago
      Yep, it'll never happen. Except where it did before the State stepped in to ensure Comcast/TWC didn't have competition. But other than that it'll never happen.
    - ericd 13y ago
      I don't know enough about fiber to have a very intelligent discussion about it, but from what I've heard, one of the nice things about fiber is that you can run increasing amounts of bandwidth through the same fiber once it's laid as the endpoints improve. I would expect that the buildout could be funded by a municipal bond issue, with the repayment being handled via the revenue from the customer-facing companies that lease access to the infrastructure. I've heard of municipal networks like this being run profitably and being repaid in a reasonable timeframe (on the order of a decade or two), but unfortunately I don't know more than that.
      - res0nat0r 13y ago
skyebook 13y ago
Its a shame, regulated pipes is starting to look like the most reasonable solution when providers are doing exactly what you said, eyeing up higher margin models and drooling. Regardless of opinions on free market, political leanings, etc, the fact that this is standing in the way of progress is bad news for everyone.

JonFish85 13y ago

I wonder how many people honestly care about what internet provider they have? Do most people want FIOS? Or would more people prefer to have a much better connection on the phone/iPad? On top of that, as was mentioned above, it's probably cheaper to update to LTE than it is to run fiber everywhere, and on top of that, it's probably worth more money to them on the $x/mo for LTE service since to add another customer in the area is trivial compared to FIOS.

yeukhon 13y ago
It isn't about the provider, it's the speed we care. Are they going to let my router able to get stable internet from LTE technology? I have desktop and laptops and I don't want to add wireless card to my desktop in particular. I rather serve things over my own router. How are they going to market to home users? FIOS has been said to be high speed, reliable, fiber-optic. Great. I am willing to add $20 to my monthly bill to get one. And how can they drop the agreement like this?