3 ms·

> If everyone here (as I do) hopes they'll have gigabit speeds to their homes in a few years, Unless you already live in a very densely populated area[0], I do

> If everyone here (as I do) hopes they'll have gigabit speeds to their homes in a few years, Unless you already live in a very densely populated area[0], I don't think there's any reasonable chance of that happening for most people, whether we go the Title II route or not. Title II is better than the alternative, but having gigabit speeds for most households is quite a ways off no matter how we do it. [0] And even then - I live in Manhattan and several buildings on my block have FiOS, but mine does not (thanks to TWC's exclusive agreement with the building owner).

exelius 12y ago
> [0] And even then - I live in Manhattan and several buildings on my block have FiOS, but mine does not (thanks to TWC's exclusive agreement with the building owner). This is a problem with MDUs and why the big telecoms have dedicated sales teams assigned to make these kinds of deals. The more likely scenario is that Verizon was working on getting these kinds of deals set up, then they halted FiOS expansion and stopped adding new buildings before they got to yours. I don't think contractual exclusivity is legal, but a building owner does have to set up agreements with a company like Verizon or TWC to allow them access to the building, provide a contractual basis as to who owns what wiring, etc. So if Verizon doesn't reach out to the building and set that up, FiOS isn't going to be offered.
- chimeracoder 12y ago
  > The more likely scenario is that Verizon was working on getting these kinds of deals set up, then they halted FiOS expansion and stopped adding new buildings before they got to yours. Actually, no, they are still adding new buildings in NYC, but only on the condition that they provide both television and Internet service to the building. (For a short period of time they did Internet-only out on Long Island, but they've stopped that). I got very far up the Verizon chain and found out a lot of information about this, which is why I know the specifics here. In my case, I requested that Verizon figure out whether they wanted to provide service to my building (they did) and that they then contact my building (they did), at which point it turned out that TV (not Internet) for the building could only be provided by TWC. For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure Verizon uses this as an easy excuse to avoid expanding their service (since 2010 or 2011, Verizon has been very half-hearted about FiOS and doesn't really seem to care about expanding FiOS as much as they care about appearing to care)[0]. > I don't think contractual exclusivity is legal, No, but they've found creative ways to get around it, and it's certainly not something that's widely enforced. [0] My evidence in favor of that comes more from my experience dealing with them in New England.

exelius 12y ago

> [0] And even then - I live in Manhattan and several buildings on my block have FiOS, but mine does not (thanks to TWC's exclusive agreement with the building owner). This is a problem with MDUs and why the big telecoms have dedicated sales teams assigned to make these kinds of deals. The more likely scenario is that Verizon was working on getting these kinds of deals set up, then they halted FiOS expansion and stopped adding new buildings before they got to yours. I don't think contractual exclusivity is legal, but a building owner does have to set up agreements with a company like Verizon or TWC to allow them access to the building, provide a contractual basis as to who owns what wiring, etc. So if Verizon doesn't reach out to the building and set that up, FiOS isn't going to be offered.

chimeracoder 12y ago
> The more likely scenario is that Verizon was working on getting these kinds of deals set up, then they halted FiOS expansion and stopped adding new buildings before they got to yours. Actually, no, they are still adding new buildings in NYC, but only on the condition that they provide both television and Internet service to the building. (For a short period of time they did Internet-only out on Long Island, but they've stopped that). I got very far up the Verizon chain and found out a lot of information about this, which is why I know the specifics here. In my case, I requested that Verizon figure out whether they wanted to provide service to my building (they did) and that they then contact my building (they did), at which point it turned out that TV (not Internet) for the building could only be provided by TWC. For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure Verizon uses this as an easy excuse to avoid expanding their service (since 2010 or 2011, Verizon has been very half-hearted about FiOS and doesn't really seem to care about expanding FiOS as much as they care about appearing to care)[0]. > I don't think contractual exclusivity is legal, No, but they've found creative ways to get around it, and it's certainly not something that's widely enforced. [0] My evidence in favor of that comes more from my experience dealing with them in New England.