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.
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.
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.
Well, when it costs Verizon $750+ per person to connect, (see 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..
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.
The quote was given in 12/07. Back then, Verizon's network was largely made with BPON nodes (655mbit down, 155mbit up to each node). It really couldn't handle 100mbit at the time. Since then, the FiOS network's been getting GPON upgrades (2.44gbit down, 1.22gbit up to each node), and is easily capable of handling 100mbit to the home. Times change and some companies really do upgrade equipment instead of overselling lines.
Rich and poor has nothing to do with it at all. Population does. All I'm saying is to get the service to the largest number of people first - which happens to be urban areas. This way, there's more equipment being made and the techs have more practice doing said installations which will speed things up. Which then goes and brings the cost down and makes it cheaper to bring services out to more rural areas.
Monticello, MN was sued by TDS Telecom, not Verizon. You can't blame telco x for what telco y does when they're unrelated to each other beyond being telco's.
When did I say America was too big to wire up? Don't put words into my mouth. All I'm saying is that it costs more to run fiber one or two miles to a house then it does to run fiber ten or twenty miles. It's not hard to build a network, but it takes time and is expensive.
Comcast, Optimum Online, Time Warner, etc. They're cable companies that started in on telco. Verizon's the other way around - a telco that started in on cable. Which happened right around the time they started laying Fiber out for the first time.
Yes, we should be outraged at the shit that some of the companies do. But please don't lump every company into your bad egg basket just because a majority of them suck.
Now, if you want to be outraged at the fact that because the lines are fiber and not copper, Verizon doesn't have to share them anymore, go for it. If you want to be outraged at what Verizon is doing with Verizon Wireless caps, feel free to be. You'll be correct to be pissed off. But that's got nothing to do with FiOS.
Yeah, I'm sorry but I think every point I made went right over your head.
I said give municipalities the right to build their own networks, and you say "well, one of the nation's largest phone companies sued Monticello, not Verizon. Therefore, your claims against Verizon are unwarranted."
What? And then you said "it's expensive, and it takes time." Well yeah, that's pretty much a given. That's why you let municipalities do it instead of suing them when they try. That's why we handed Verizon $70 billion--to do exactly that. That's what we expect out of a company like AT&T who generates $120 billion in annual revenue. They should have saw this coming, and instead of upgrading their crap network, they want to tell us that "we don't have the bandwidth to support your YouTube and Hulu habits, therefore, we shall charge you even more!"
Rich and poor has everything to do with it. Look up redlining and HR 5252. This is all about money, you'd be stupid to argue that it's not.
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.