 majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Lindenhurst, NY
1 edit | hmm IT depends on which cable company. Isnt cablevision spending something like only 300 million to deploy docsis 3 and wifi?
Sorry got the figure wrong. | |
|  | 
OOL Tech1234
@cromptoncorp.com
| Re: hmm YuP! Definitely Cablevision isn't the bad cable provider. They offer great speeds, a good rate and alots to offer. If only Cablevision were to expand, they would definitely steal all of TWC and Comcast customers  One can only hope. | |
| | | 
Matt
Gone playing Dragon Age Origins
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
| Re: hmm said by OOL Tech1234 :YuP! Definitely Cablevision isn't the bad cable provider. They offer great speeds, a good rate and alots to offer. If only Cablevision were to expand, they would definitely steal all of TWC and Comcast customers One can only hope. Cablevision was bought out in most areas. We used to be Cablevision back in the mid-late 80's here. Time Warner bought them.
What I think is interesting, is the belief that it's easier to deploy to a smaller geographic area. Cablevision could be considered proof of that. | |
| | | | acs12798
join:2006-03-13
1 edit | Re: hmm I think that is a flawed analysis. Cablevision has an easier time deploying because they are literally in the best cable market possible. Its dense continuous suburbs(dense enough that a lot of people I meet at school who are not from major cities consider it urban) but single family housing at the same time. Easy to deploy, and the areas almost uniformly wealthy.
Anyway, I have to disagree with the initial comment in this thread anyway. I agree that Cablevision isn't a bad cable internet provider. They are terrible with TV IMO. They are as slow if not slower than the big guys in deploying HD, and they cram 4 HD channels in one QAM. | |
| | | | Darth Fiber
Premium
join:2005-12-16
Pompton Lakes, NJ
| It wasn't the same Cablevision. The Cablevision from New York only had a system in Ohio for a while, because one of the Dolans lives out there.
Lightpath isn't limited to certain markets, they do have a statewide francise in New Jersey. The only limit is how close the customer is to their fiber. | |
| | | | |
Matt
Gone playing Dragon Age Origins
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| Re: hmm said by Darth Fiber  :It wasn't the same Cablevision. The Cablevision from New York only had a system in Ohio for a while, because one of the Dolans lives out there. Lightpath isn't limited to certain markets, they do have a statewide francise in New Jersey. The only limit is how close the customer is to their fiber. Weird, it was the same logo. | |
| | |
highhorse
@rr.com | Ego This guys is on such a high horse it's unbelievable. | |
| | | | | BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
 ·Comcast
·Comcast Formerly ..
1 edit | Re: Ego said by Eat Me :Yeah right? The limitations of coax - so why is the connaction between the ONT and the Actiontec done with MoCA, and why is FiOS using cable TV technology to deliver FiOS TV? Why did FiOS have to drop analog from its TV service? Were they running out of bandwidth like they are throwing pot shots at the cable company for doing? Guess you never heard of this thing called physics and signal degradation ?
Moca is done only to give the box low bandwidth usage. Perfectly fine. Especially when you control such a short piece of copper.
Ever see the limitations of ethernet on a long run of cat6 ?
Fios dropped analog because they know it was a waste of bandwidth or were willing to take the shot to get rid of the filthy whore that analog transmissions in general are. Plus the fcc gave them a wide open window to do so.
If you look at the fiber specs for the equipment they used , they are definitely not near running out of bandwidth , for them its as easy as adding another shade and using a newer ont on new subs homes.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
| | | | | | | | |
vzguy1
@bellatlantic.COM
| Re: Ego said by Eat Me : said by BosstonesOwn :
Guess you never heard of this thing called physics and signal degradation ?
Signal degradation has zero to do with available bandwidth. quote:
If you look at the fiber specs for the equipment they used , they are definitely not near running out of bandwidth , for them its as easy as adding another shade and using a newer ont on new subs homes.
Which costs money. They are already in the hole $8000 per sub.
Ha! where did you come up with that number? It's not even close to what the actual cost are. In the beginning it was never that high. Fiber cost of been going down consistently and the cost to run fiber to a home is roughly $750. Nowhere near $8k | |
| | | | | 
a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
 ·Cingular Wireless
·Verizon Online DSL
1 edit | Actually, signal degradation indirectly causes a decrease in bandwidth... this is seen in both twisted pair (DSL) and coax (DOCSIS). In twisted pair, as distance decreases, signal degradation drastically increases at higher frequencies, effectively eliminating/attenuating them. And obviously, having your range of available frequencies reduced lowers your equivalent bandwidth by quite a bit, following Shannon's Law. This is kinda the reason DSL suffers on long telephone loops. Add in stuff like load coils/bridge taps and you're in trouble.
In coax, short runs usually don't show much of signal degradation, but on long runs with tons of splitters and old cabling, attenuation/noise can sometimes reduce the available bandwidth noticeably. Not to mention, some of the higher frequencies can also be attenuated, and end up having their energy converted to heat in the coax... this has happened, and was actually a huge issue back when coax was being used in undersea cables (I'm talking way before fiber was even in the labs). They actually had to place inline amps every few miles to get around the effect, but this was a rather expensive solution. | |
| | | | | | 
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ | Re: Ego Modern HFC systems do not have long coax runs and lots of amps.
Cable companies have been gearing up and doing node splits. My node is within walking distance. | |
| | | | | soothsayer15
join:2002-03-01
Irving, TX
| said by Eat Me : said by BosstonesOwn :
Guess you never heard of this thing called physics and signal degradation ?
Signal degradation has zero to do with available bandwidth. quote:
If you look at the fiber specs for the equipment they used , they are definitely not near running out of bandwidth , for them its as easy as adding another shade and using a newer ont on new subs homes.
Which costs money. They are already in the hole $8000 per sub. Wow. It's apparent that you have not worked in telecommunications. If you did, I feel bad for your employer. | |
| | | | | AVonGauss
Premium,MVM
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL | $8000 per sub? | |
| | | | | PapaMidnight
join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD
| said by Eat Me : said by BosstonesOwn :
Guess you never heard of this thing called physics and signal degradation ?
Signal degradation has zero to do with available bandwidth. Except for the funny fact that it does. In order to compensate for Signal Degradation, one needs to increase the signal strength. What is the cost in doing so? More bandwidth usage.
Think. | |
| | | | | JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
West Chester, PA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| said by Eat Me : said by BosstonesOwn :
Guess you never heard of this thing called physics and signal degradation ?
Signal degradation has zero to do with available bandwidth. quote:
If you look at the fiber specs for the equipment they used , they are definitely not near running out of bandwidth , for them its as easy as adding another shade and using a newer ont on new subs homes.
Which costs money. They are already in the hole $8000 per sub. As others have pointed out, signal degredation DOES affect bandwidth. Since signal strength drop-off happens faster at higher frequencies, most cable systems can't run at 870MHz. Some are upgrading to 1GHz service, but to get there requires a stronger signal, which equates to more boosting stations.
And that $8000 figure is patently ridiculous. Guesstimates I've seen on line put the figure at half that. But that's exactly what they are - guesstimates. And old ones at that. The cost of fiber continues to drop precipitously, and Verizon has gotten better/more efficient at doing installations, dropping cost even further.
One thing that strikes me when people criticize the cost of FiOS, they have no problem throwing out old figures in terms of cost ($4000/customer). All technology comes down in price over time (when DBS first became available, I remember seeing a DirecTV setup in a department store - price: $1000+, which included a single LNB dish and one receiver - this was before they were able to carry locals... and didn't include installation - they expected you to either do it yourself or hire someone to do it). But somehow, many of these analysts think that cost of fiber just defies gravity. Please.
There's one other side of this that people also miss. One time I had a tech over my house, and I started asking him about how FiOS works. He said that FiOS is more than just about bring fiber to your house. It's a highly automated system, that allows them to diagnose, and even fix, many problems without having to do truck rolls, saving money. That's a big aspect of FiOS - Verizon estimated that when their roll-out of FiOS is done, they're going to save $1Billion/year in reduced maintenance costs. That's probably an over-estimation, but even if they're off by 100%, and "only" save $500Million/year, that's not insigificant. Fiber doesn't degrade... it doesn't breakdown (I've seen pictures of their fiber sitting in several inches of standing water, to no ill-effect) and it's not prone to atmospheric conditions. About the only way you can affect it is to break it. | |
| | | | 
submrge
join:2004-10-10
Mine Hill, NJ
| I'd be interested to know (if there are any VZ techs here) what the bandwith is in MHz from the ONT to the STB. I have a feeling it's *similar* to cable - (55 to 870 MHz for the forward signal).
If it is then they have similar issues that the cable co's do with bandwith. | |
| | | | |
a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY | Re: Ego Obviously, the bandwidth is the same as cables, but as my other post states, this bandwidth is being used to deliver video/data for ONE household, as opposed to serving hundreds of homes at the same time. | |
| | | | | | 
PGHammer
join:2003-06-09
Accokeek, MD
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Ego said by a333 :Obviously, the bandwidth is the same as cables, but as my other post states, this bandwidth is being used to deliver video/data for ONE household, as opposed to serving hundreds of homes at the same time. The video side of FIOS is a *single-household cable plant* - emphasis on single household, please. It is for that reason that at the ONT, as opposed to amplifiers (even for multiple-TV households) because the signal strength is too low, they have to put in *attenuators*, because the signal-strength is too high. (I am a Comcast subscriber (cable-TV and HSI), and I have a signal amplifier in my bedroom (cable-TV) due to too little signal.) The signal-strength is so low due to the split occurring thrice between the street and my bedroom. With FIOS, the TVs connected to the first split would need attenuators due to signal overstrength, and I would be able to get rid of the amp I have now. | |
| | | | | MichaelWacey
OwlSaver
Premium
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA
·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
| Cable systems use one Coax to deliver TV, Internet, and Phone service. So, they are all competing for the Coax Bandwidth.
In FiOS, the TV, Internet, and Phone service are all delivered over their own dedicated Fibre wavelength. In the home, Coax is used for TV and MOCA, Cat5/Cat6 is used for Internet, and Cat3 is used for phone. So, there is less contention for bandwidth.
A true comparison would require looking at the details from the Central Office/Head End out to the home. But, it seems to me that FiOS has much more room for growth. For example, I would expect that FiOS will always have more HD content that is at the same level of compression as the source. | |
| | | | | |
submrge
join:2004-10-10
Mine Hill, NJ
| Re: Ego said by MichaelWacey
In FiOS, the TV, Internet, and Phone service are all delivered over their own dedicated Fibre wavelength. In the home, Coax is used for TV and MOCA, Cat5/Cat6 is used for Internet, and Cat3 is used for phone. So, there is less contention for bandwidth.[/QUOTE :
Not in the installs that I've seen. It's Coax into the home for Internet and Video. Then twisted pair for the phone.
My point is that they can have all the bandwith they want from the CO to the ONT but they are still tied to the same restriction as cable from the ONT to the STB. | |
| | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO | Pretty sure it's an 860MHz equivalent. Not 1GHz but you don't need that 140 MHz since it'd be for data and that's on anoher wavelength anyhow. | |
| | | | | | JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
West Chester, PA
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Ego said by iansltx :Pretty sure it's an 860MHz equivalent. Not 1GHz but you don't need that 140 MHz since it'd be for data and that's on anoher wavelength anyhow. That's correct - it runs ~870MHz for TV service. But there's a difference between FiOS and traditional cable on this front. First, most cable services run well below 870MHz. Second, Verizon uses all 870MHz for linear TV feeds. All other associated feeds (guide data, VOD, widgets) all come in via the IP feed, which is separate from the TV feed. As a result of that layout (and the fact that they don't have any analog service), FiOS runs with 135 QAM channels. That's what gives them the room to carry all their channels with no additional compression. | |
| | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| said by BosstonesOwn :If you look at the fiber specs for the equipment they used , they are definitely not near running out of bandwidth , for them its as easy as adding another shade and using a newer ont on new subs homes. Which the equipment doesn't exist for. WDM PON is a proposal some people are throwing around the industry, ITU doesn't even recognize it, let along debated making a committee for its standard. | |
| | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO | Re: Ego VZ runs phone on one wavelength, video on another, internet on another... | |
| | | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: Ego said by iansltx :VZ runs phone on one wavelength, video on another, internet on another... Thats irrelevant. It was designed that way for equipment simplification at the Central Office, not for higher speeds. Phone is only 64kbit ISDN over fiber for example.
How about WDM internet which would be the real purpose of WDM in the first place, since its impossible to overload the TV or Phone portions at the moment. | |
| | | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO | Re: Ego WDM internet would be nice, but there's no need atm. Even the new DOCSIS 3 packages can't compete with 50/20 FiOS and Verizon knows that. | |
| | | | | | | dcdeadbeat
join:2008-10-07
Washington, DC
·Covad Communications
| hold on a minute Verizon Let's not forget that the reason copper (DSL) is coming to end is that telcos failed to keep up with the maintenance of it and redirect resources to fiber rollouts. Cable companies on the other hand are usually not as old and most cable companies have a fiber backbone. So if the cable companies wanted to end of life cable, they could in theory run fiber to the home as well. With Docsis 3.0 there is a lot of bandwidth to grow into. So spending the money now is probably not a smart business decision. Sorry Verizon. What do your stock holders think of losing so much money to run fiber to each home? | |
| |
See 10 replies to this post | |
cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27
·Verizon FIOS
| Pot, kettle... This guy = douche.
The copper phone line infrastructure is failing. Has been for years. But they still push it. Where is the 100% FiOS rollout? Still "cherrypickin". (But why not, it helps fun the little guy, when they eventually get there...2036...why that number is in my head, oh yeah, Twin towers...)
Anyway, they are still using the inside Coax for feeding the Fios end unit. If the STB was fiber direct, that would be a first!
Have a good weekend fellow DSLr's. Yay, TGIF!
--
Weeeeeeee! | |
| |
See 7 replies to this post | |
majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Lindenhurst, NY
| also Also this guy isnt taking into account the hardware from companies like cisco.
Cisco has docsis 3 equipment that can convert to fttp. IF cablecompanies use this equipment it will only really be a matter of changing the coax runs to fiber and the onts o neach house.
This also means that cablecompanies can start having a high end fttp package and a low and medium end coax package. | |
| | | | | 
voipguy
join:2006-05-31
Forest Hills, NY
| Re: also Cable would need to run fiber ONLY to homes that needed more speed than DOCSIS 3.0 could deliver, and is completely unnecessary for video delivery.
Telco needs to run fiber to all homes that need more than twisted pair copper can deliver, and is required for video delivery.
Cable's second network would run from the "node" to the home.
Telco's second network needs to run from the CO to the home.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I think Cable will continue to have a tremendous cost advantage, not to mention the ability to learn from Telco's mistakes and take advantage of their volume pricing and equipment maturity discounts. | |
| 
jeep4fun
Premium
join:2005-03-30
Littleton, CO
| Good for all At the very least this is a healthy, competitive "we'll see" type of argument.
Can cable use DOCSIS to 'buy time'? It seems clear that at some point FTTH will be necessary. VZ had fewer choices than cable companies. The telco legacy systems; twisted pair, are inferior signal conductors compared to coax.
VZ 'jumped the shark' to the emerging technology.
There are several more chapters to be written before declaring this an over-whelming success in my eyes - can they sustain the rollout? Will they continue to attract video subs?
ATT is trying a 'halfway' approach; cable is squeezing more out existing pedestal to home infrastructure with DOCSIS (while investing in backbone and headend upgrades).
It's a fun competition to observe and think about...
Hopefully there will be additional emerging technologies as well to continue to fire up the opportunities. | |
| patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | data A coax cable pumps 20gbps of data today, what does FIOS pump? A puny 622 mbps or 2.4 gbps? | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
wildcat man
join:2007-11-03
Kansas City, MO
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| ironic... 1. VZ (through the MCI acquisition) provided the VoIP service to at least two major cable companies and spent three quarters explaining why revenues were falling in their retail markets segment. They loved cable in the enterprise side of the business until it started to leave
2. So VZ counters with a "we're thinking about" article in the wsj on Feb 17th touting a $5 local incoming-only (except E911) service.
3. That doesn't work, so VZ counters by offering a $199 home phone device that is called the Hub but really isn't integrated into any existing VZ wireless service (imagine if Sprint or US Cellular had introduced this product?)
4. Meanwhile, they have a "buy one get one free" sale on the Blackberry Storm (which are not cheap). Reduce inventories before the quarter is over, and increase subsidy
There's a lot to criticize about any company, including and especially Sprint, but VZ's hands are definitely not clean here. | |
| |
PGHammer
join:2003-06-09
Accokeek, MD
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: ironic... said by wildcat man :1. VZ (through the MCI acquisition) provided the VoIP service to at least two major cable companies and spent three quarters explaining why revenues were falling in their retail markets segment. They loved cable in the enterprise side of the business until it started to leave 2. So VZ counters with a "we're thinking about" article in the wsj on Feb 17th touting a $5 local incoming-only (except E911) service. 3. That doesn't work, so VZ counters by offering a $199 home phone device that is called the Hub but really isn't integrated into any existing VZ wireless service (imagine if Sprint or US Cellular had introduced this product?) 4. Meanwhile, they have a "buy one get one free" sale on the Blackberry Storm (which are not cheap). Reduce inventories before the quarter is over, and increase subsidy There's a lot to criticize about any company, including and especially Sprint, but VZ's hands are definitely not clean here. 1. That is a completely-separate side of their business (as you pointed out, it was part of the MCI acquisition), and involves mostly existing contracts. VZB still provides both video-backhaul and data services (including to Comcast); again, this is something they have done for years. (That is a pretty large portion of the business of most ILECs, and even the few premises-based CLECs, such as CavTel.)
2. This is a service that VZ has been studying for years (if not decades) as a replacement for existing *lifeline* services; however, the pressure has only increased due to unlimited VoIP offerings by cablecos, Vonage, and MagicJack.
3. The *hub phone* is an evolution of a previously-planned product/service from VZ (specifically the Verizon ONE and iobi Service) that predates FIOS; unlike the original Verizon ONE, it's meant for deployment in FIOS areas, and targets both cordless phones and netbooks and is meant as a standalone alternative to a combination cordless phone and netbook (with data service).
4. The BOGO sale applies to *all* of VZ's BlackBerries, not just the Storm. Buy any BlackBerry, get one of equal/lesser value free. This is far from new, except that it's offered on BlackBerries (every wireless provider has offered a similar deal, including VZW).
So, far from ironic; however, it's far from being news, either. | |
| | wildcat man
join:2007-11-03
Kansas City, MO
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Remember, the quote from Ivan S is "I don't know what Sprint thinks it is." The irony of the comment is that many in the investment community have trouble figuring out what VZ thinks it is. Is it a local phone company? Only in the long run to FiOS areas unless cable self destructs. Or is it a global IP provider? Not without a recapitalization due to the near-term cash requirements of FiOS (re: VZ carries $52 billion of debt; T carries $65B in debt but has a larger ILEC cash generation footprint). Or is it a leading wireless provider (which it is without a doubt except when providing in-region wireless access solutions which cannibalize the un-depreciated base)?
I think Sprint knows what it is - it's not an incumbent, but a challenger. Whether it can contend depends on the management of its assets and the ability to generate long-term sustained value. Sprint definitely has less room for error, as all challengers do, but so did Nucor, Southwest Airlines, and Target. | |
| fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Ivan is an idiot! On two counts.....
1) He's lumping all copper together. To compare twisted pair to a thick, bandwidth capable coax is simply absurd. He's trying the jedi mind trick. He says it's so, then it must be. Coax is only pushing out between 5 and upwards to 1G now. However, there is still another 1G of of bandwidth being explored right now. Further, 2/3 of the frequency is being eaten up by analog. Remove analog and see how much is free'd for bonding purposes. But, he's an idiot if he thinks he can directly compare twisted pair to 525 or 1" coax.
2) Sprint selling Boost at $50 unlimited. Well, no, they're not idiots, rather, very brilliant. They wrote off the purchase as a loss. The Nextel network has been pretty much left to rot by businesses that have opted for more robust phones with high speed and data capabilities. Now you have a network that's been paid for and under used. You have a group of customers out there that can afford $50 a month and are a less of a risk for non-payment with their payment programs. Sprint is taking an under used service and generating some income out of it instead of letting it rot.
As Ivan did with telling people that copper is dead, which not all is, yet, he's TRYING to convince people that cellular service is not SUPPOSED to be priced at $50 a month, so people would hopefully believe that the VZ, AT&T's of the world ARE pricing correctly.. ie: service at FAR higher prices than home phone service EVER was, and getting LESS of it..
If wireless is the future, then it's time to price it out flat rate. Sprint got on that bandwagon a while back. To be honest, I have the Simply Everything at $99 a month. Do I under use it? Probably.. mostly not though. 3,500 minutes a month usually. I just don't want to worry about over charges and watching my use. And, when I do go over, I don't want to get hit with high bills, its that simple. This is no different than when long distance moved to all you can chew.
FUD is a term I will use here for about the first time ever. He's trying to scare people into believing that what Cable and Sprint is doing is somehow bad. Um, the consumers can see otherwise.
Also, if he has such a GREAT FiOS product, then why sell the 50 meg service so high? Drop the price... in fact, sell the 100 meg service cheaper as well. This is nothing more than a statement of FUD in order to protect the price scheme.
To be honest, we're all still paying high prices on cellular for 2 reasons, the first being the most important. 1) To control network congestion. 2) They need money from existing subs in order to keep up the cost of competition with other providers. Yes, they use OUR money to pay for these ridiculous ads, and to also subsidize the cost of hand sets to get new customers through the door.. all at the expense of other consumers.
I will grant them that call services are FAR better today than they were just years ago. However, in the name and spirit of competition and protectionism of their client/customer base, the rules are getting more thick, the contracts are getting larger, the offers on handsets are getting smaller.. etc. I remember when Cellular One and ATT Wireless was throwing a new phone at me anytime I walked in the door. I was paying $100 a month bills. I do that today and I get a discount on a phone annually now, but have to sign another 2 year term to boot.
Cable will continue to be a threat to Verizon's FiOS for some time to come until they get serious about their customer service (not forgetting Cable must do the same) and they have to playing the games they do as well. It's not all about the connection to the home and such. If that was the case, satellite would have clobbered cable years ago with an all digital service. Cable could do two things, and most likely kill the competition over night.
1) Drop the price of service 25% over night.
2) Build fiber from the node to the last mile/home.
With those two things... 1) The price drop would slow FiOS growth for those that shop on price. That would start to put a dent into the FiOS money tree and slow earnings. 2) Fiber to the home would be rather cheap to cable since they're already mostly fiber anyway. This would now put FiOS on a hard road to walk against cable. Cable would have a more attractive price and they'd have the firm technology foundation as well. Then what? It becomes 100% about the customer.
Ivan is sitting up there, like most ultra rich, and just not getting it. It's not just about the connection, it's not what his numbers say is so.. its what the customers are crying for. If ANY of the providers would listen to their customer base, and give them what they are asking for, in which is reasonable, that, in the end, is who is going to win... its not about the connection to the home, per say, it's about the customer being happy with letting go of their money in trade for getting what THEY want, not what some suit in the tower says they need. | |
| tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| Making the Apple Mistake While having a decent brand such as Verizon does have it's advantages & disadvantages. They are in a position similar to Apple in the sense that they sell products at pricing structures which in some cases are loved and in others are hated. On the one hand, consumers love fiber to the home bandwidth (even at it's slowest 10/2--do they still offer 5/2 fiber?) speed uncapped/unthrottled and for an ultra low price). They love best of breed wireless products & services.. but aren't exactly thrilled with the pricing. Same goes for voice phone service. Their cable-tv service is a mixed bag with alot of potential.
Verizon is at a weird place in the market-- with better services & branding.. but faced with competition that will not get into a pissing contest with the carrier (ie do WHATEVER it takes to win). That's why I compare them to Apple.. nobody will make a better "iphone" or a better "mac o/s computer" for fear of being railroaded out of business.
Infact, few.. if any telcom/cable companies are positioned to make them best of breed within the Verizon footprint. Cablevision may make some bold steps into docsis 3 this year but will have to get their pricing structure right. Maybe a 'lite tier' of $29.95 for 15/2 stand-alone will be a game changer-- then ramp up 30/5 for $49.95 and 50/xx(20-50?) for 64.95. However that takes courage.. Verizon will refuse to be outdone. There is latent fear that the killer application for such bandwidth will serve to REPLACE cable-tv service subscriptions with on-demand p2p/streaming websites. In many ways, that is already underway at the slower broadband speeds. Having more bandwidth will make the interfaces/search engines all the more robust in the future & lead to oodles MORE content going the ONLINE route.
2+terabyte hard drives make that easy as pie.
**Would you rather come home from a hard day's work & click a remote to search through content you don't know you'll like OR have pre-programmed on-demand content at your fingertips waiting for you that you KNOW you'll love!?!?
The model of keep charging MORE and MORE for the former option is becoming less valueable in the consumer's eyes. This is where Verizon has a good opportunity to exploit cable's fear & lack of courage in the market place to evolve their business models. Putting down/talking down the competition is petty. Saying how your own company IS positioned to take advantage of ANY competitive situation is much more the way to go when your "Apple" in the market place. The key is not to get cocky & arrogant thinking the company can do no wrong.. because IT HAS in much of it's early deployment of FIOS & wireless pains with vodafone. Things they are struggling (while not breaking an external sweat) to correct. The growth in subscriptions for Verizon is slowing with the souring economy, so we'll just have to see whether bottom line price is king or future proofed networks are more popular for the last mile consumer. Verizon's been reluctant to LOWER prices for it's products.. and we WILL see how long they can hold out from realistically making FIOS & LTE more popular than cheaper dosis and 3g networks. If I were Mr. I.S, I'd use cable's recent black eye over bit capping as an example of why cable has a lack of commitment to docsis 3 & last mile upgrades. Getting on the bad side of the consumer is bad for business. | |
|
Corrections
@cox.net
| To much disinformation Ok folks, lets clear all this up as far too many of you are are having the few with informed opinions get discounted. Due to all the bad information that gets passed along from the guy who knows a guy, or worse, Wikipedia, lets clean this discussion up.
Ivan says "Cable will find the same limitations in [coaxial cables] as we did in copper,"
You have to look at this from a telco point of view as he is. It's a oversimplified statement for a non-technical member of the press that means a home-run copper pair has the same technical limitations as shared coaxial cable. The simple fact is it's an electrical signal using a metallic copper conductor. The comment was never mean't to be a apples to apples comparison, it was a generalization. You are reading into it what you will and commenting based on whatever personal bias you may have.
I'm not going into HFC network engineering or RF concepts that 80% of the readers don't get, just keep it stupid simple in that its an electrical signal using the copper in the cable as its conductor (highway) for the last mile into the home. Who cares who has what fiber anywhere in their network beyond your home. What matters to everyone here is that cable drop to your home that you pay dearly for and is the bottleneck.
Ivan says "I don't know what Sprint thinks it is,"
Simply put, if you look at the cost model of the Nextel network, regardless if the asset was written down, it still has an operating cost. Most wireless networks given their revenue and margin have a pay back period of 3 years and less. Meaning for every cell tower, its paid for in 3 years anyways.
Operating costs include spectrum licenses from the FCC, equipment spares for hardware that does break, headcount for people to answer your call because our society has become unable to read, fix those boxes in the network that break, oh and let's not forget the expensive back-haul network from every cell tower. Its worth noting given the thread that this is the single most expensive piece of any network (again the last mile to the tower, to the home, its were the big costs are i think we can all agree).
So what does all that have to do with Ivan's comment? Typical wireless margins i've seen thrown around are in the area of 35 percent depending on the carrier. If you assume the average person who signs up for a unlimited plan is a heavy phone user, say 1200 minutes a month to be fair, you would similarly pay today somewhere in the area of $90 for a individual plan with average features included. Obviously with discounts and the right deal you can get to $80 possibly.
So lets be aggressive and say $80 for a typical Vz or ATT plan of those minutes and the $50 for the Boost Pre-pay plan. The Boost is 37.5% cheaper. All this really means is they are selling at operating cost with no intent of generating a dollar to go into their savings or to service their heavy debt load. They do this from a marketing perspective to hope that $50 dollars and the words unlimited to fill the network up. Their marketing folks are just planning on some small percentage of those customers to simply be attracted to the price and not really use more than 800 minutes a month or so to turn a small profit on those users. In the end, they are after the economies of scale by wholesaling the nextel network to keep costs low on the Sprint CDMA network since they share back-haul costs.
The net net here: They make no real money and are trying to be the Wal-mart of wireless. Pat yourself on the back for saving $30 dollars when you are now no longer helping support 401K's that need funded and driving down the number of jobs Sprint can afford to offer. So tell those folks from Sprint who were laid off and can no longer afford your lawn service, financial advising, or whatever your line of business. It will reach your pocket book in some way.
The FiOS vs. Cable Comparison. Forget it. Beams of light along a glass fiber and an electrical signal cannot compare. What matters is who gets there first since they will get the first customers and begin paying down the cost of bringing the fiber to your home before their competitor. You can change out the equipment on the ends at any point once the technology/costs come down.
Lastly on the comments about Verizon using the coax at the home for delivery. Because they are using it for the last hundred feet or so for most of you, the signal as many pointed out is excellent for various technical reasons. Its the thousand or more feet outside that matters. Bottomline, Verizon can bring you more dedicated bandwidth to your home than Cable can. Splitting a 622MB/s for the older connections or the newer 2.5GB/s fiber connections with 31 other customers is far and away better than the 150 if your lucky, customers cable splits with a DOCSIS 3.0 130MB/s connection.
Again net net: 622Mb/s or 2.5Gb/s divided by 32 homes vs. 131Mb/s divided by 150 or so homes if your luck enough to be in an area where they are splitting nodes. Technically, you would be spending the same with cable and getting a worse connection than a fiber optic connection. | |
| | | |
|
|
Verizon CEO Slams Sprint, Cable
·
·