 linicxCaveat EmptorPremium join:2002-12-03 United State | One sentence say it all :( "No competition meanwhile allows most of these companies to bend to investor pressure and skimp on next-generation upgrades whenever and wherever possible. "
Been there, done that; liven' it now. I don't expect miracles. | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD | Useless
As always the government misses the mark. The problem isn't with laying new lines of fiber along major roads, but rather, last mile connectivity. -- Romney 2012 - Put an adult in charge. | |
|
 |  covfam join:2012-03-05 Black River Falls, WI | Re: Useless While i agree that its not nearly enough, i do think it will help some. wich is better than the goverment of the last 20 years policy of do nothing and let the cable/telecom industry make communication policy. | |
|
 |  tshirtPremium,MVM join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| but then we would own a whole new generation of "dark fiber" and in 20 year or so people would begin using the damaged ducts and fiber which on many federal highways would have been dug up and moved during that time as the RoW was expanded for new lane.
This sounds like a "dig a hole, now fill it up" type stimulus project. Not a terrible economic idea, but little to do with building out usable end user networks. | |
|
 |  |  patcat88 join:2002-04-05 Jamaica, NY kudos:1 | Re: Useless All government roads already have fiber along them. Look for the no dig warning signs. The USF and ILEC internal long haul projects fibered all the roads in the 1980s. The CLECs refibered all the arterial roads in the 1990s through the state PUC/PSCs. The state DOTs fibered all the roads in the 2000s for their surveillance/anti terrorism/traffic congestion monitoring networks and for law enforcement cellular/trunked digital radio systems. On state/US route number roads, it would be hard to find a traffic light replaced in the last 20 years that isn't fed with fiber. Some arterial roads were ducted prior to the 1980s in the 50s/60s as part of the cold war for L carrier cables but ILECs/Bell generally used long haul directional radio until the 1980s. | |
|
 |  |  |  tshirtPremium,MVM join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Useless That's true..in a lot of places, not everywhere. In front of my house, in a pretty rural area there is a manhole which goes down 15 feet to 5- 6 inch ducts which date to that time. since 1990 they have removed all the copper bundles and relined 3 ducts for fiber, one was damaged and can't be used, and the last one was turned in to a pump /drainage system (they used to have to pump for a full day in winter before they could work on the wires, a weekly occurrence at times Anyway before abandoning this area, verizon was going to put fios here... as an aerial plant, the buriedfiber is backhaul and CO to CO, but only surfaces every few miles for FIOS use. even though the US gov't paid huge amounts to have GTE place thos ducts that deep, they are no US property, but part of GTE NW> verizon>Frontier. So yes, ducts are along many roads, they are owned by many various entities, and many are full/already planned for other uses or in the case of Frotier MAYBE future FTTH backhaul.
The need for additional underground ducting is zero on the local level, and the long haul need is a few specific missing links, not along EVERY federal highway. The trouble with any blanket public mandate is there is no body with the authority to use common sense, no one who can say "this road has none and need 2, that road has 2 and doesn't need anymore right now" which would spend the same money but get much more of what NEEDS to be done,,, done! Private industry is far more efficient at those types of decisions | |
|
 |  | | At least Government is trying and that's better than what the commercial types are doing, which seems to be just raising rates for scant & restrictive services... | |
|
 CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium join:2011-08-11 NYC kudos:1 | Need FIOS instead They should have included forcing Verizon to continue with the FIOS build. Now THAT would help broadband. | |
|
 |  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD | Re: Need FIOS instead said by CXM_Splicer:They should have included forcing Verizon to continue with the FIOS build. Now THAT would help broadband. Yes... force a private business to engage in unprofitable actions. That's the ticket. -- Romney 2012 - Put an adult in charge. | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: Need FIOS instead Aren't we paying them to do just that? Why shouldn't we demand that they actually do what they're supposed to? | |
|
 |  |  linicxCaveat EmptorPremium join:2002-12-03 United State Reviews:
·CenturyLink
| It does not happen in Rural America where Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, and the other giants lost interest at least 10-years ago when they started to sell off their Mid-Markets (which included farms and ranches) to the likes of SuddenLink and Frontier and their ilk. FIOS, FTTH, LTE is a pipe dream to the rest of us even though many farmers depend up the GPS for planting.
There is a very small farm town not far from out state capitol. BB and cable doesn't exit. The fastest dial up is not even 33.6 - maybe. This is common in rural America.
The only people who will benefit from the legislation live on planet Rural America. I don't support any more of the greed than is required. -- Mac: No windows, No Gates, Apple inside | |
|
 |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  jdir join:2001-05-04 Santa Clara, CA | Re: Need FIOS instead wow - $45 a month for 100Mbps. And here I'm paying $65 a month for 12Mbits. Is there any cap withthat 100Mbps? | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  somms join:2003-07-28 Salt Lake City, UT | Re: Need FIOS instead said by jdir:wow - $45 a month for 100Mbps. And here I'm paying $65 a month for 12Mbits. Is there any cap withthat 100Mbps? 
»www.xmission.com/utopia#more

Supposedly there is a 1TB 'soft' cap...I've gone over this amount in a month and never heard anything from my ISP... | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Need FIOS instead Seems kind of silly to offer a premium 100/100 tier and restrict you to less than 2% utilization. Guess you can get email wicked fast | |
|
 |  |  |  |  linicxCaveat EmptorPremium join:2002-12-03 United State Reviews:
·CenturyLink
| You live in Salt Lake City. If you lived in Bath, IL you'd do really, really good to get 1Mbps down. Now if the cable goes out that far, you can get a guaranteed 10 Mbps down for $99 plus 13 channels of basic cable! Now isn't that special? -- Mac: No windows, No Gates, Apple inside | |
|
 |  |  BF69Premium join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN | said by pnh102:said by CXM_Splicer:They should have included forcing Verizon to continue with the FIOS build. Now THAT would help broadband. Yes... force a private business to engage in unprofitable actions. That's the ticket. I'm pretty sure FiOS is making a profit. | |
|
 |  |  |  | | Re: Need FIOS instead It is. The main reason Verizon killed FiOS is because Wall Street said it wasn't profitable enough for their tastes. Saying it isn't profitable is simply false. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  openbox9Premium join:2004-01-26 japan kudos:2 | Re: Need FIOS instead Actually, VZ is focusing on building out wireless infrastructure. Capital is being allocated to that end instead of FTTH. My guess is that VZ will return to its FiOS deployment once its LTE build is complete....at least as long as the FCC doesn't meddle with requiring sharing of infrastructure. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  | | FiOS is not profitable in terms of customers signing up. And that's their problem. Overbuilding, again does not work. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  Sammer join:2005-12-22 Canonsburg, PA | Re: Need FIOS instead said by 25139889:FiOS is not profitable in terms of customers signing up. Verizon added 104,000 more broadband subscribers and added 108,000 FiOS TV subscribers in the 1st quarter. I don't know where you get the idea that no one is signing up. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Need FIOS instead said by Sammer:said by 25139889:FiOS is not profitable in terms of customers signing up. Verizon added 104,000 more broadband subscribers and added 108,000 FiOS TV subscribers in the 1st quarter. I don't know where you get the idea that no one is signing up. It will get more subscribers this and next and so on, verizon still havent put caps on the usage and why should they? people that are using cable where they can get verizon will switch over, cable companys caps are gonna bit them in the long run | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Need FIOS instead Can't wait for the new net quarterly numbers.. I'm predicting a loss even with the higher speeds.. the higher prices will turn off alot of customers, especially those with alternatives. Wireless will see a net loss for the first time as well due to the price increase. Very little geography overlaps with Comcast.. apparenly only one of two major companies who've taken the plunge towards caps. And.. the DOJ might finally get involved in breaking that logjam sooner rather than later.. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  Reviews:
·DSL EXTREME
·RoadRunner Cable
| I think that's cause Verizon has priced their FailOS services too high and so is unattractive to potential customers, just like their LTE service pricing is, of course the LTE caps are way too low and the prices for LTE, are way too high, unless one is multi millionaire... | |
|
 |  |  | | 1.) That is the exact reason for regulations. If private businesses had it their way they would take your money and send you away with nothing but the expectation to come back next month to give them more money.
2.) Businesses only have the right to sell at the permissions given by the government. You seem to have the ass backward view that businesses run the government and I understand why with all the legal bribery allowed, but that simply is not true. | |
|
 |  |  |  | | Re: Need FIOS instead said by Skippy25:1.) That is the exact reason for regulations. If private businesses had it their way they would take your money and send you away with nothing but the expectation to come back next month to give them more money.
2.) Businesses only have the right to sell at the permissions given by the government. You seem to have the ass backward view that businesses run the government and I understand why with all the legal bribery allowed, but that simply is not true. 1) No business would ever survive with a model like that. You give value for the price you charge or you die. The only way to screw that up is with government interference. 2) Simply not true. I could start a business selling cupcakes tomorrow on the internet and the government would have no say in 'allowing' me to do it. Why do you want to live in a world where sleazy politicians control your every move? -- Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty - Ronald Reagan | |
|
 |  |  |  |  | | Re: Need FIOS instead 1.) Seriously, you are going to give a serious answer to a tongue in cheek statement? Regardless, though it is not possible to survive that way, that is the way the would prefer it if they had it their way.
2.) You are right you could, as a small business so I clearly was not speaking of lemonade stands. Become more than a small business working out of your home and I promise you wont get far without being accountable to your local, state and federal government. Even then, try buying wholesale items and see how easy it is without the Federal Tax ID. Which by the way can be denied to begin with and revoked. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Need FIOS instead said by Skippy25:1.) Seriously, you are going to give a serious answer to a tongue in cheek statement? Regardless, though it is not possible to survive that way, that is the way the would prefer it if they had it their way. And if politicians had their way they'd be elected for life and you'd give 100% of your income to them as taxes. What's your point?
said by Skippy25:2.) You are right you could, as a small business so I clearly was not speaking of lemonade stands. Become more than a small business working out of your home and I promise you wont get far without being accountable to your local, state and federal government. Even then, try buying wholesale items and see how easy it is without the Federal Tax ID. Which by the way can be denied to begin with and revoked. Not my fault you made broad generalizations that don't apply. -- Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty - Ronald Reagan | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Need FIOS instead Sorry, next time I will be sure to talk down to your level so you can play along too.
Sometimes I forget that even chickens can poke away at keys to make a legible sentences to post here. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Need FIOS instead said by Skippy25:Sorry, next time I will be sure to talk down to your level so you can play along too.
Sometimes I forget that even chickens can poke away at keys to make a legible sentences to post here. Who'd have thought you'd throw out more arrogance and condescension? Nobody saw that coming! -- Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty - Ronald Reagan | |
|
 |  tshirtPremium,MVM join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| said by CXM_Splicer:They should have included forcing Verizon to continue with the FIOS build. Now THAT would help broadband. But that would require raising 100's of billions of dollars in new taxes to pay for it...Which people* bitch about even more than slow broadband rollouts.
* perhaps rightfully so, as we cut basic education, food stamps, and health care, among other things MORE important than FORCING a private company to build something they already learned is not profitable. (and probably way less profitable once the contractors add the "Gov't mandate, you HAVE to buy it" surcharge too it) | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: Need FIOS instead stimulus round 2!!, heck why not we spend trillions on waistfull stuff.................might as well haha
in all seriousness the goverment has missed this completely | |
|
 |  openbox9Premium join:2004-01-26 japan kudos:2 | Umm, no. That's not how public/private partnerships work. "Forcing" infrastructure builds will only ensure that it'll be expensive, of poor quality, and will likely not materialize in a manner initially intended....if at all. Perhaps if you swapped "forcing" with "encouraging", and then actually asked the government to following through on the stick end of the carrot, we might have a better chance. | |
|
 |  |  See 9 replies to this post |
|
 |  vpokoPremium join:2003-07-03 Boston, MA | Who's going to give them the capital? As rich as Verizon is, they can't afford to suddenly run FTTH to the entire country. | |
|
 |  |  See 9 replies to this post |
|
 |  ropeguruPremium join:2001-01-25 Mechanicsville, VA | said by CXM_Splicer:They should have included forcing Verizon to continue with the FIOS build. Now THAT would help broadband. And forcing all the big boys to start broadband build out within six months after fighting any muni initiative and complete to every home that was identified in the muni plan within 2 years. Money has to be presented up front and put into an account that is solely for the project.
Maybe this would make them think twice about spending millions fighting build out where they do not plan to at all. | |
|
 jdir join:2001-05-04 Santa Clara, CA | Gov land - thats out in the Nevada desert ? Is this like building a bridge to nowhere? 
If the government is serious, they should turn/allow the US Post Office to enter broadband/DSL Cable service. Just imagine all those empty office/building space and linking all the Post Office together and selling ISP service. Plus there is a Post Office in every neighborhood | |
|
 |  See 9 replies to this post |
|
 Duramax08Win8 sucksPremium join:2008-08-03 San Antonio, TX Reviews:
·Millenicom
·Cricket Broadband
| Karl always mention this.... "While these efforts may help make some connetivity headroads, the government continues to ignore the biggest reason for low quality service, slow speed, and high prices in the broadband market: a lack of real competition in the market. Most users are lucky to have the choice of one or two carriers, who simply look at one another and wink when it's time to raise rates. No competition meanwhile allows most of these companies to bend to investor pressure and skimp on next-generation upgrades whenever and wherever possible."
How about we connect everyone first and THEN start worrying about the prices? I'll gladly pay $60 for anything faster then 1mbps.
Give it time Karl, your competition shall come soon. | |
|
 |  | | Re: Karl always mention this.... if its not FTTH and free or basically free he doesn't like it. Especially if its not backed by Google. | |
|
 kxrm join:2002-07-18 Fort Worth, TX | I see several topics here but... I just want to focus on the need of competition in internet access. The only reliable way to do that is to do as Texas has done for electricity. Put someone in charge of the physical network and allow individual businesses to aggregate customers onto that network for which that pay a regulated fee to access said network.
The only other option is to make the physical lines publicly owned and tax individuals to use the system. Having true competition where all these providers dig up and install their own lines is redundant and idiotic.
Also I agree with what others have said. Forcing any private business to do anything is the wrong route to take. I get it, you don't have FIOS and want it or a system like it. Begging or forcing Verizon to do it is the wrong route to take. How would you like it if what you do for a living was suddenly forced upon you by a government entity at a discount? No one here would be happy being forced to do more work and to take a paycut to do what they do for a living. So asking the government to force Verizon to do more than it wants or is willing is unfair. | |
|
 |  atuarreHere come the drumsPremium join:2004-02-14 College Station, TX | Re: I see several topics here but...
And why shouldn't we be able to force private businesses to do this? They sure manage to force cities and municipalities, through laws that they lobby to get passed, to not be able to wire their own cities/areas. | |
|
 Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| Really? 4 years later? Too little too late.. IMHO, all this really is meant to do is bolster deployment of backbones services for wirleless connections than it would be to deploy last mile wireline services. All you have to thank is the lobbying efforts to monopolize and duopolize the wireless industry-- AT&T / VERIZON. They would be the beneficiaries of this federal exec. order. Not the end subscriber. This is more a give-away than a trickle-down to the consumer benefit. | |
|
 ctceoPremium join:2001-04-26 South Bend, IN | Executive Order You must comply. One step closer to an access ID.  | |
|
 linicxCaveat EmptorPremium join:2002-12-03 United State Reviews:
·CenturyLink
| Wanna bet? Back in the '90s AT&T was directed to share lines (not for free) with competition in rural areas. AT&T laughed all the way to the bank. They did not do it then and they won't do it tomorrow either.
The sad thing is it will be going on outside my house because I live on a government road. I'll still be paying $60 a month for 10Mbps down while Google sends serves up sex ads. It would be amusing if I was 40 years younger. -- Mac: No windows, No Gates, Apple inside | |
|
 decifal join:2007-03-10 Bon Aqua, TN kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
| waste I donno, but the public funds from the usf should've been going to pushing broadband out to everyone just like phone service in this country... Instead its gobbled up and listed as line maintenance....
Sorry, but its not going to take that much money to maintain the networks.. Its not there for that. | |
|
 MaggsLife is awesomePremium join:2002-11-29 Woodside, NY Reviews:
·RCN CABLE
| Karl "The first part of the order involves speeding up the installation of fiber along government roads and property property by ensuring all government agencies use the same process for build project approval."
You probably meant "private property". At least the government will use easements for this. They could easily bury fiberoptic cables along the shoulders of most major roads. -- Hello, is anyone out there. | |
|
 |  | | Re: Karl All roads built for use by the general public are Government roads, bought and paid for by taxes, but then if one wants a road, one has to pay up as they ain't Free to build. | |
|
 | | Executive Orders This kind of thing doesn't strike me as the sort of thing Executive Orders were supposed to be, at least from my admittedly limited study of the Constitution. The fact that both parties do this sort of thing when they're in power doesn't make it right!
This involves an expenditure of significant funds, so it should properly be a job for the legislative branch. Now, if only the legislative branch would actually DO their freaking jobs rather than let the executive branch take control of these things (as opposed to spending all their time engaging in some "mini civil war", which both sides have been doing for at least a decade now).
I'm not saying some National Broadband Program wouldn't be okay... it wouldn't be the worst expenditure of taxpayer money by any means. I just think the proper people should be running the show, that's all. | |
|
 |  Reviews:
·DSL EXTREME
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Executive Orders That's cause Repugnicans in Congress have not liked the fact that they lost to a Black Man who now inhabits the White House and have wanted Him out at any cost and if that meant screwing the economy to do so, then the Speaker John Boehner said "so be it". Repugs declared war on Obama in early 2008, to them He's the enemy, to be dispatched one way or another... | |
|
 |
|