Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Verizon Speeds Up FiOS To 150Mbps

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the zippy-for-americans dept.

Networking 314

wiredmikey writes with a snippet from MacWorld offering some welcome news for Americans sick of 20th-century broadband speeds "Verizon is adding a new tier of service to its FiOS fiber broadband service, offering 150Mbps (megabits per second) downstream and 35Mbps upstream for $195 per month. The carrier has begun to roll out the service to consumers in the 12 US states, plus the District of Columbia, where FiOS is available. Small businesses will be able to get it by the end of the year, Verizon said on Monday. The fastest service offered so far on FiOS has been 50Mbps downstream and 20Mbps upstream."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Nice, now why (1)

zoomshorts (137587) | more than 3 years ago | (#34331952)

are we not meeting or exceeding all other countries in this?

Re:Nice, now why (1, Interesting)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332164)

Look at the price. The ISPs continue to believe they deserve hundreds of dollars for connections like this even in a major city where population density is extremely high.

Re:Nice, now why (3, Insightful)

Zak3056 (69287) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332522)

I honestly can't believe that people bitch about paying $200 a month for speed comparable to an OC3 ($20k/month).

Re:Nice, now why (2, Informative)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332620)

Because in most other advanced countries, those speeds would run you a quarter that price or less.

Re:Nice, now why (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34332968)

Other countries that have connections like this for a cheap price also have a quarter of the land area and require a quarter of the infrastructure to support it due to it being available in higher density areas.

Re:Nice, now why (1)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 3 years ago | (#34333038)

Which I already addressed in my first comment.

Why don't high density American cities have cheap superfast connections?

Re:Nice, now why (1)

donnyspi (701349) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332654)

With a connection like that it's about latency, not just pure speed. Also you usually get an SLA. Not so with residential FiOS.

Re:Nice, now why (2, Insightful)

coryking (104614) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332684)

Because people who buy an OC3 are actually using the capacity of their link. The end user—us Joe Shmoe's in our apartments, we barely use it at all. But when we do use it (say to watch an HD Netflix movie) we want it delivered fast.

So really, per gig used, $200 is very, very, very expensive if you pull down a dozen gigs a month (which is probably within reason for a netflix user)

Re:Nice, now why (3, Informative)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332844)

But when we do use it (say to watch an HD Netflix movie) we want it delivered fast.

You don't need a 150mbit/s connection to watch Netflix in HD. I watch it just fine on my 10mbit/s cable connection. The HD streams from Netflix run around 5-6mbit/s in my experience.

I can't think of any reason that someone would need this much bandwidth at home, other than geek bragging rights or a heavy porn/bittorrent fetish. Perhaps one day there will be a killer app that needs this much bandwidth but as it stands right now I'm not sure why anybody would pay for it. Must be nice to have that kind of disposable income lying around.

Re:Nice, now why (1, Flamebait)

coryking (104614) | more than 3 years ago | (#34333010)

Now you are trolling. I'll pull this out of my ass but most of us are lucky to get above 3mbit. Here in Seattle, I can't get more though DSL.

If you can't see why people would want to burst to 150mbit and beyond, you have a serious lack of imagination. Here, I will use mine with tangible things i could do better if I could burst above 150mbit:

1) better VPN into work. It would be quicker to check the source code repository out.
2) faster online backup, and more important, backups that down slow down the Internet for everything else.
3) Uploading stuff to client FTP sites would be orders of magnitude faster.
4) software distribution would be faster thus people would do it more.

Nobody will be saturating their Internet, but the fact that everybody will be able to burst to speeds approximating that of a LAN will open many new doors and enable things that were not feasable before. I don't understand what is so hard to imagine about that.

Re:Nice, now why (1)

TrentTheThief (118302) | more than 3 years ago | (#34333132)

Because people who buy an OC3 are actually using the capacity of their link. The end user—us Joe Shmoe's in our apartments, we barely use it at all. But when we do use it (say to watch an HD Netflix movie) we want it delivered fast.

So really, per gig used, $200 is very, very, very expensive if you pull down a dozen gigs a month (which is probably within reason for a netflix user)

I've got a 25/25 FiOS line ($104 minus a $25 package rate * 24 mo.) with a static ip and could easily use the whole thing. I have to throttle my server to keep it down to 15 up.

Before I throttled the server, I was seeing long-term averages of 35M and bursts to 85M. I've only had a couple users notice the throttling, so for the most part I'm thrilled with my FiOS.

I'm not a verizon fanboy, but man, this is a damned nice line.

Also, for netflix viewing you need 2.5M to have a nice HD picture. You'll find that the issue is not Verizon's speed, but that of the junk on Netflix's end. Netflix currently doesn't have the capacity to serve the number of subscribers using instant view. Especially now, with the growing number of net-enabled TVs, set top boxes, and blu-ray players it's you'll get freezes and grainy/jumpy pictures during peak hours. They plan to move to provider that'll be able to give them more throughput in the near future. I hope it's damned soon.

Re:Nice, now why (1)

splutty (43475) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332798)

OC3 is unlimited, guaranteed, bidirectional 155Mb/s...

FIOS is... Well... Not.

Re:Nice, now why (2, Informative)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 3 years ago | (#34333082)

I honestly can't believe that people bitch about paying $200 a month for speed comparable to an OC3 ($20k/month).

I honestly can't believe it's not butter.

Re:Nice, now why (2, Insightful)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 3 years ago | (#34333130)

Probably because with that $20 thousand dollar connection, you actually get the speed. But with the home internet services, you get a burst of speed and then you get slowed down or cut off altogether. You're getting charged hundreds of dollars for a connection that flakes out.

Great - now put FiOS here please (1, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34331956)

I'll probably be waiting a long time. It's only been three years since they upgraded my phone lines to handle DSL. It'll probably be a long time 'til they upgrade them to fiber.

I think Congress could help too. Simple mandate, through the FCC, that phone companies MUST provide DSL (or cable or fiber) to any customer that requests DSL. And then give them a one-year-limit to do the upgrade. No person should have to be stuck on 50k internet.

Re:Great - now put FiOS here please (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332526)

Because that's not realistic. They have been dragging their feet, but giving them only a year to upgrade that much line and not just in urban areas is asking a bit much. A better solution would be to require telecoms to invest in their infrastructure and not raise their rates unless they can demonstrate that they're needing the extra money to pay for actually expenses. That's worked in other industries which were essentially utilities.

Re:Great - now put FiOS here please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34332574)

But that's the KEY with dsl.

You don't need to upgrade the lines (it's just POTS twisted pair). All you need to do is install the DSLAM at or near the central office, and that can be done before lunchtime. Phone companies could easily upgrade a customer from Dialup to DSL on demand & within one year's time of the request.

Re:Great - now put FiOS here please (2, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332974)

In theory, yes. If the customer is close to the exchange. If they're not, then the DSLAM needs to go in a cabinet on a roadside somewhere. Often these are not large enough, so the cabinet needs replacing with a larger one. This needs planning permission, and because they look ugly locals have a habit of objecting... and then complaining that their Internet is slow.

Re:Great - now put FiOS here please (3, Insightful)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332532)

If I choose to live in the middle of nowhere, Alaska, does it apply to me? Why should they pay for my choice to live in the boonies? It's just promoting more sprawl.

Re:Great - now put FiOS here please (4, Insightful)

rjstanford (69735) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332918)

Yes, but they've been charging government mandated fees (totaling in the billions, literally) to deliver on that promise. We've already paid them for it, as an involuntary tax on services provided. So they should indeed deliver to you. They work around it be defining "broadband" as some tiny number like anything over 33kbps (don't recall exactly, anyone can google for the details).

Re:Great - now put FiOS here please (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332930)

In one thread people talk about congested spots for terrorist attacks, and in another... a petition to prevent people from spreading out.

Re:Great - now put FiOS here please (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332534)

It is kind of annoying how these things work.

I moved into a new place just at the end of August here. I was with Telus for my internet service before - and my room mate works at Shaw, the other big ISP in our city, and he was always going on about how it was so much better and faster and he never had lag playing Halo and what not. So I called them up. Got to the machine, navigated to wanting a new setup, please hold for an agent. On hold for 20 minutes, hang up.

The next day at work, I decide to try again, except this time I called Telus at the same time, to see who could get me to a human being capable of processing my request faster. I got to Telus within a few minutes, still on hold with Shaw, which was on my desk phone so I just put them on speaker phone so I could hear if someone picked up while listening to hold music while chatting with Telus.

About half way through my Telus call the Shaw service says that they are experiencing higher than normal call volume and if I want, I can opt to put my number in a que and they'll try calling me back later. Sounds good! Did that. They called me back Three weeks ago. That was two months my number was in wait without getting a response. Anyways, enough about Shaw.

So in researching both companies I decided that the Optik TV and internet service was a good bundle for its price. So I say thats what I want. They say its not available in my area. I ask why not, don't get a straight answer. I get the next best thing. Anyways - so I go online, there's the "Check Availability" for Optik TV button, must have missed it before. So I go to try it out. It asks me to enter my address. I do. It says, "Choose the correct street" where it populates a bunch of choices for street names similar to the one I entered. Puts it in the format they like, so I choose my street. I click continue, it asks me again. No matter how many times I try selecting any house on my street it won't go to the next page and tell me the availability, it won't accept the street name.

Frustrating.

Re:Great - now put FiOS here please (2, Insightful)

jimbolauski (882977) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332702)

I'll probably be waiting a long time. It's only been three years since they upgraded my phone lines to handle DSL. It'll probably be a long time 'til they upgrade them to fiber.

I think Congress could help too. Simple mandate, through the FCC, that phone companies MUST provide DSL (or cable or fiber) to any customer that requests DSL. And then give them a one-year-limit to do the upgrade. No person should have to be stuck on 50k internet.

If you want DSL or fiber how about you pay for the lines to be run I'm sure no company would object to that. The problem with people in the boonies is that the cost to run the line will not be recouped, think initial cost and maintenance, pricing it to cover the cost would be too expensive for most people, the only way everyone could get DSL is if the price were subsidized, I'm overcharged enough with out having to pay for someone else's service.

Re:Great - now put FiOS here please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34333120)

You'd be surprised how much they object.

When I signed up for DSL (nearly a decade ago!), I was informed that my location was just at the edge of being serviceable (12000 line feet was the limit at the time), and that they would have to determine whether I was actually within the proper distance or if I was just outside of it. If I was outside of it, I would have to pay for "line conditioning" to get DSL. That bill would've been around $2500. Fortunately, I was just inside the service area (11800 line feet) and they removed an unterminated segment and got things working for me.

But just out of curiosity, I asked if they would put new lines down to a location that was capable of being within the limit, but because of current line routing was not. They said that they wouldn't do that, not even if the tenant offered to pay for it. It had something to do with the scheduling of current build-out projects. They couldn't meet a reasonable deadline on a custom project, so they just wouldn't take it.

50/20 isn't the fastest (2, Informative)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 3 years ago | (#34331960)

I've had 35/35 for a while, and I could have 50/50 if I wanted to pay another $30/mo for it.

Re:50/20 isn't the fastest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34332038)

How much are you paying now? My 35/35 is 42/35 in reality, and it's about $40/month on top of the FiOS TV bill. The 50/50 was $150/month the last time I checked.

Re:50/20 isn't the fastest (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 3 years ago | (#34333056)

I believe my bundle price is $57.99. I actually get more like 40-42Mbit down as well. When I reupped my contract in July they offered me the 50/50 for $89.99. This was, of course, one month before they eliminated the "premium" for no-contract service. Grumble...

Re:50/20 isn't the fastest (1)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332154)

Hmm, I'm actually afraid to say I'll pass. Been pretty happy with the 25/15 service. My WRT54Gv4 router just barely keeps up with that as it is, and only then because I updated from HyperWRT to Tomato [polarcloud.com] . (HyperWRT couldn't push past 20Mbps on my hardware)

Would rather spend money on additional mobile bandwidth for the wife, or maybe even the car :-P T-Mobile's HSDPA on an HTC slide runs pretty sweet at 1Mbps with much lower latency than the 3G connections. Still waiting for a decent Android tablet (or even a phone with a large screen) for the car, though.

Slashdot nigga! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34332010)

It's like a nigga, who's in the hole,
It's like a nigga, he's on the dole!

It's like a nigga, he's made of plastic,
It's like a nigga, he's niggatastic!

So why is my lower tier so expensive? (2, Informative)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332036)

Why does 15 Mbps down cost $50? but 150 Mbps only costs $195?

If speeds don't scale like I think they do, then someone explain it to me please.

Re:So why is my lower tier so expensive? (2, Insightful)

Bagels (676159) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332206)

Part of it is fixed costs - it's expensive to roll out fiber to the home, and that expense doesn't change whether you're buying the 15Mbps tier or the 150Mbps tier. The other part is naked greed; Verizon is a telco, after all.

Re:So why is my lower tier so expensive? (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34333042)

I think by "fixed costs" you mean "fixed profits". Even $5 a month would recoup the cost of your equipment/service to Verizon for cable. $10 would make them a tidy profit.

The only reason they charge $50 is so they can guarantee that the top 1% of employees (read: executives) and their shareholders get that $10 Million bonus they were promised.

This is the problem with the 'Freedom' we get in America, and the way the government regulates business as a whole. It's criminal, but allowed and acceptable.

Re:So why is my lower tier so expensive? (4, Interesting)

devitto (230479) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332310)

Because speeds don't scale like you think they do. If you have lots of little pipes going into a fat one, you can manage contingency and plan easily. If the little pipes are 10x the size, it's harder - especially as the actual point where service is impacted (around 80%) can go from 'ok for next 6 months' to 'upgrade now' due to a single customer changing usage profile.

It's like the difference between driving trucks, and driving cars - yeah, they are 3 times the length, but they cause 10x the traffic slowdown.

Service providers work of graphs that measure peaks (and 95%s), and if a single customer can move the peak from 85% full to 100% full, then it's hard to plan a good service - the only way is to have more contingency, which means more equipment/fibre/lambdas.

Re:So why is my lower tier so expensive? (2, Interesting)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332486)

By your explanation, price for faster service should scale up, not down.

Re:So why is my lower tier so expensive? (1)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332588)

There are fixed costs of operation that will be in place no matter the speeds. For all we know, the lower tier bill could be mostly to cover fixed costs.

Re:So why is my lower tier so expensive? (1)

coryking (104614) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332812)

That is only true if your SLA promises you can saturate that sweet ass gig link you have in your home. A business class account might have that kind of thing, but a residential account does not. If 100 residential people download something at the same time, combined they might saturate the backhaul, but their downloads would each be 1gb/100=10mb. And 10mbit is still better than what most of us shmucks get.

Basically, they charge $200 because they can. It has nothing to do with the actual cost of service.

Re:So why is my lower tier so expensive? (2, Insightful)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332314)

Why does 15 Mbps down cost $50? but 150 Mbps only costs $195?

If speeds don't scale like I think they do, then someone explain it to me please.

It likely has nothing to do with scale, and all about persuading you of the "value" of spending $200/mo for internet service.

Re:So why is my lower tier so expensive? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332710)

Fixed cost? Canle maintenance and repairs, rack space, billing, customer support etc. are all pretty constant. Here in Norway I consider it to be quite decent competition but they all pretty much flat out at 40$/month for the really low end, whether DSL or cable. 60$ is normal and 80$ high-end, often giving you 10x the speed for 2x the cost.

Personally I predict that the usage pattern changes too. My 2 Mbit line was maxed almost 24x7. My 25 Mbit line isn't. A 150 Mbit line would be even better, but my average utilization would be even lower. So it's not even certain that their bandwidth costs scale with the advertised speed.

Re:So why is my lower tier so expensive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34332712)

It is probably $30-40/month for the cost of the connection and the rest is for Internet bandwidth.
Internet bandwidth costs about $10 per month per Mbps

Re:So why is my lower tier so expensive? (1)

Nevo (690791) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332772)

Price has nothing to do with cost. It's all about supply and demand. Verizon, like any other company, will price their products at what they believe the market will bear.

Meanwhile (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34332040)

In Japan they pay like $40 for 100 Mbps. As usual the US is so far behind it's not even funny.

Re:Meanwhile (5, Informative)

MidnightBrewer (97195) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332204)

At my apartment in Osaka it's $20 for 1GB, actually.

Re:Meanwhile (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332424)

That makes me angry. I am paying $60 for 8mbit/1.5mbit

Re:Meanwhile (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34332658)

The cheapest internet I can get where I live in Sweden is about $30 for 10/10.. (Unless I want to sign up for a 3 month period oslt.)
I went for 30/30 @ $40 instead...

Re:Meanwhile (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332700)

At least that's available. I live in Seattle and the best speed I can get from Qwest is apparently 5 Mbps for $50 a month excluding tax. Speakeasy allows for faster connections but it's well over a hundred for the connection you've got.

Our best bet is Google coming in and fixing the situation, it's been years since Verizon and Qwest have supposedly been upgrading their equipment, but they've yet to actually get here. And Comcrap was such a joke when we had them years ago that whatever they're offering we don't want. Qwest might be slow, but at least it's rarely if ever out.

Re:Meanwhile (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332796)

Whyd oes that make you angry.

Would you want a 5% federal tax on all goods to get that service? And this is in addition to current rates, not instead of.

Frankly, if it went into education and digital infrastructure I wouldn't mind a 5% fed tax on goods.

OTOH, I would much rather there was a .006% tax on all financial trades, buying and selling. thats 6 cents for every 1000 dollars. we would have plenty of money to pay down are debt and get a first class world education for all children, and real government health care.

But hey, that's socialism, and a government helping people is bad for some reason.

Re:Meanwhile (1)

countSudoku() (1047544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332964)

I don't get angry, I make my carrier give me a better deal, or I start switching around. I'm in central California and pay about $30/month for 6Mb, which is outrageous, but cheaper than the current alternative. I first had Comcrap, and they had to come out and install a brand new coax line into my house, at CONSIDERABLE expense to them, and I own it so there's no "next customer" at this node. After their deals ran out, I switched to the local carrier SureWest, and when their deals ran out and they wanted to charge $180 for the 3 service package (digital phone line, DSL-delivered IP/TV, and Intertubes), I talked them down to $88 for the whole bundle, and didn't even lose any of the four TV channels I bother to watch. *cough* top gear *cough*

DSL/Cable Intertubes are starting to get better in terms of pricing in the US, but not cell phone services. Fucking completely out of line [sic] for lame slow "3G" and an overpriced phone which will be a brick in two years. Even the highly stylized iPhone is a brick waiting to happen without a customer replacable battery and an OS, and soon your data, tied to a closed service and a single vendor. *sniff* *sniff* I smell lock-in.

Re:Meanwhile (1)

Jaktar (975138) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332568)

And at my house in rural Virginia: $95 for 768k/512k with a FAP of 600 MB/day. Within a year I'll have fiber passed within 1000ft of my yard and I will likely still not have anything better than I have right now...

Re:Meanwhile (2, Funny)

thijsh (910751) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332652)

I thought every uplink came with free FAP.

Re:Meanwhile (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34332874)

Central London: £10 ($16) for 12mbit/1.2mbit.

Re:Meanwhile (0, Redundant)

TheCRAIGGERS (909877) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332502)

Ever compared the size of Japan with that of the US? If Verizon only had to cover the size of, say a single state, I'd like to think it would be a fair bit cheaper and we'd already have it.

Not to mention the population density difference...

Re:Meanwhile (1)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332628)

Meanwhile, Japan is very densely populated, making the roll out of fiber very fast as compared to, say, the US or EU (though the EU, at least the western half, beats the US IIRC).

Re:Meanwhile (1)

jimbolauski (882977) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332864)

It's not about being far behind it about being spread out, Japan has a population density of 336 people per km^2 while the US has a density of 31 people per km^2. It's much cheaper to connect people when their that close together.

Nice (1)

scubamage (727538) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332082)

Now if only I could get 19$/month gigabit ethernet into my house like my boss's mother in South Korea. I know the country is a fraction of our size, but honestly our lackidasical approach to increasing bandwidth is infuriating.

Re:Nice (0, Redundant)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332670)

It's not size, it's population density, and South Korea is king. Just wiring Seoul alone would give them very fast speeds in comparison with the rest of the world.

i get 50/50 as a small business (1)

dalewj (187278) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332084)

with FIOS. jsut saying

Clap clap clap. (1)

coryking (104614) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332088)

Good news for some small sect of the US. Wake me when I can finally get more than 3mbit in the middle of Seattle up on Capitol Hill.

Qwest has been promising "OMG mega-fast Internet" for years now and they have yet to deliver. What gives?

Course I remember it being the same way when DSL was the new kid on the block. Took years before that was deployed everywhere. Remember trying to work out your distance to your central office to see if you would ever qualify?

Re:Clap clap clap. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34332238)

Here in Austin, we have the same bandwidth tiers as we did five years ago, and almost the same as 10 years ago. Only thing different is now it costs more, and paying per bit is going to be implemented soon. Oh yeah... we have Clear 4G, but it isn't faster in bandwidth, and its latency the last time I saw stats on it were horrid. Pretty much, other than a few metro areas, bandwidth has stayed the same, or the same amount has gotten expensive.

Re:Clap clap clap. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332762)

I'm in a similar situation, it can only be incompetence that explains why you can't get more than 3mbit from them. I'm in North Seattle and we get up to 5mbps and you're significantly closer to the CO.

But the reason why it's taking them so long is that they're run by a bunch of incompetent assholes. They sold their wireless unit off about a decade or so ago, and that's where most of the other companies have been getting the pocket change to upgrade their network. The price for life thing isn't doing them any favors either. While the cost of providing service has gone down, it doesn't give them much money to upgrade their network to join the modern era.

Kinda pricy (1)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332094)

I have 1.5/384 because I don't want to pay a bunch for internet. $30/month is pretty much my price limit.

Re:Kinda pricy (2, Informative)

daid303 (843777) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332190)

Damn, internet is pricy for the US people. I'm paying 15 euros for 20mbit/1mbit.

Re:Kinda pricy (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34332236)

10 euros for 10mbit/10mbit here.

Not US as a big surprise for everyone. :P

Re:Kinda pricy (1)

coryking (104614) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332330)

Yes. Because investing in your nations infrastructure is a form if socialism. Well, at least according to enough tea party idiots in the US to block any attempt.

Well, that and the telcos have their hands far up the asses of our government. But doing away with that is messing with the free market, and thus also socialism. Basically, making things better==socialism. The only people who should have it good are corporations, which are also people—anything else is socialism.

Re:Kinda pricy (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332388)

You're talking like they don't also pay by actual usage.

Re:Kinda pricy (1)

coryking (104614) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332608)

I'll pay actual use if it is reasonable. Better would be to pay the same way Internet providers charge each other—95th percentile billing. Charge something like 50/mo for 1mbit. Give me a gigabit port, and 95% of the time I and most people wont go anywhere near that amount.

The problem is anybody but people who buy "real" Internet know what 95th percentile billing is—and even if they did they wouldn't understand it (nor should they need to, honestly). That is why most consumer grade Internet is either flat rate with five pages of small print, or it is charged per gig used.

Re:Kinda pricy (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332800)

That's a good point. But, I'm guessing that they also aren't expected to pay for the sort of lavish lifestyles that our executives expect. Those telecoms probably also put a larger portion of the money to actually upgrading their networks.

Re:Kinda pricy (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332696)

Well, that and the telcos have their hands far up the asses of our government.

Just to beat some American to it:

"blah blah blah TSA blah blah blad"

Re:Kinda pricy (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332920)

Yes. Because investing in your nations infrastructure is a form if socialism.

Verizon was investing billions in their infrastructure using private sector money until the FCC started talking about a nationwide fiber rollout. Then Verizon halted new FiOS deployments. Why spend your own money when the Government is thinking about doing it for you with the taxpayers money? I don't blame them a bit, I'd do the exact same thing if I was in their shoes.

As usual, Government involvement in the marketplace distorts said marketplace to the detriment of consumers.

Re:Kinda pricy (1)

Alarash (746254) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332666)

20/1 Mbps sounds like DSL 2. This is fiber which is a more reliable transport medium because it's much less impacted by typical impairments (road work, noise on the line, rusty copper pairs, etc...). A better comparison would be the 50 Mbps/10 Mbps you get in Paris, with Fiber, for 50€.

Re:Kinda pricy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34332828)

Damn, internet is pricy for the US people. I'm paying 15 euros for 20mbit/1mbit.

thats really not that much different its 7.5 times the download and 20 times the upload you have so if you take your speed and price and just work out what it would cost for the download your paying 112 euro which is $150 dollars. so there is still a price difference but your comparing apples and oranges. i can get a 10/1 dsl connection for $9.95 if i wanted slow internet

Re:Kinda pricy (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332484)

Ouch. I'm paying $35/mo for 6mb/768k on AT&T.

$195 per month ? (1)

psergiu (67614) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332142)

$195 per month ? That's WAY too much.

Move to Romania:

http://www.ilink.ro/rezidential/internet/ [ilink.ro]

100/100 mbps 70 Lei/month =~ $20/month

or even cheaper:

http://www.rcs-rds.ro/internet-digi-net/fiberlink/pachete [rcs-rds.ro]

100/100 Mbps 39 Lei/Month =~ $12/month

And there's no transfer cap.

Re:$195 per month ? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332664)

It's paid through taxes. Just an FYI.

Not that I'm against that, and quit frankly It's as important as roads. SO Inwoudn't mind paying a bit more in taxes for it. That's a different discussion.

$195 a month? (0, Redundant)

MidnightBrewer (97195) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332146)

Pity about the continuation of the 20th century pricing. I live in Japan and my 1GB fiber costs me $20 a month.

231 Mbps down/ 224 Mbps up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34332166)

That is what my Verizon router reports as the WAN link speeds on each reboot.

Looks like those FIOS connections have always had a bit of headroom built in for higher tiers.

South Korea is faster (0, Redundant)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332188)

Why can't we be as fast as South Korea? [speedtest.net]
What's the big hold up?

Re:South Korea is faster (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332520)

Infrastructure, distances, money.

We started first, that means we have previous generation systems still in place. We need to roll out over vast distances, and telecoms don't want to spend money to completely revamp infrastructure every 5 years.

If the government rolled it out, we would have had 150Mbps 10 years ago.

Re:South Korea is faster (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#34333060)

The counter to that is that wireless technology has been taking off so, my guess is that if they hold off long enough, Verizon doesn't have to even worry about hard lines.

Faster Speeds Still in Chattanooga! (1)

pctainto (325762) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332260)

Verizon FIOS has nothing on "Fi-Internet" in Chattanooga, TN. 1000 Mbps to your house for $350/month.

https://epbfi.com/internet/ [epbfi.com]

Monopoly pricing... (4, Insightful)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332284)

$195/month is the sort a price that only a monopoly can get away with demanding. Too bad nobody bothers to enforce the Sherman Antitrust Act these days.

Re:Monopoly pricing... (3, Insightful)

smashr (307484) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332544)

$195/month is the sort a price that only a monopoly can get away with demanding. Too bad nobody bothers to enforce the Sherman Antitrust Act these days.

Take a look at the areas where FIOS competes with the cable companies. I live in such an area, and you will find that prices are down and features are up. Both Verizon and the cable companies try to one-up each other with internet speeds, tv packages and discounts.

While far from perfect competition, FIOS vs Cable really works out in the consumer's favor. In non-FIOS areas, the cable companies have far less of a motivation to compete.

Re:Monopoly pricing... (2, Insightful)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332732)

Verizon vs. Comcast isn't much of a choice. You're still picking between two monopolies, as Verizon holds a monopoly on fibre and POTS, and Comcast holds a monopoly on cable.

Re:Monopoly pricing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34332582)

Monopoly price? Have you ever priced *real* bandwidth? T1 used to cost thousands, now it is $250. T3 still costs thousands, but is better. 150 Mbps downstream is more than triple a T3 and you can get it to YOUR HOUSE for $200 a month? That is the best price / Mbps that you will find in the states.

Re:Monopoly pricing... (0, Flamebait)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332716)

150 Mbps downstream is more than triple a T3 and you can get it to YOUR HOUSE for $200 a month? That is the best price / Mbps that you will find in the states.

Yeah, it's the best I'll find in the People's Christian Republic of Amerika. It's a depraved joke compared to the service one can get in civilized parts of Europe and Asia. Hell, I could probably get more bandwidth at a cheaper price in Canada or Australia.

I really need to get my shit together and emigrate. If I wait until the Bill of Rights is repealed, it'll probably be too late.

Re:Monopoly pricing... (1)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332750)

Yeah! Splitting up telcos into different local monopolies is going to help us. My town just got fiber in some areas, and only after a lengthy fight with the local government telco people over franchise agreements. If you want to help enter the 21st century, kill all of those franchise agreements. It's a start.

Re:Monopoly pricing... (1)

gravis777 (123605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34333128)

Obviously you are not familer with what other companies charge for these speeds. Check around. Many companies charge anywhere from $300 a month up to $1000 a month or more for a business-fiber 100Mbps line (of course, that is 100 up as well). Shoot, T1s cost about that much in some areas. $195 a month for 150down/35 up is going to be a deal for many companies who need a lot of speed.

WWOT!! FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34332288)

it. Do not share bottoms butt. Wipe

All the speed you can't have (1)

kpainter (901021) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332396)

Projected date of availability at my locale: Never

Re:All the speed you can't have (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332902)

Indeed, Qwest has been promising service up to 40mbps for quite a while now, and there's been precisely no improvement in my area. We're still roughly where we were a decade ago, and there's no evidence that Qwest actually cares about the Seattle market. The only reason why they're here at all is that they were allowed to buy US West. If there were any viable competition I think people would leave them, and I suspect they are as cell service is often more useful. Internet wise they're essentially the only game in town that isn't Comcrap.

I've heard rumors that FiOS exists in Seattle, but there's no information about when if ever they're going to extend it to my neighborhood. In fact the only ISPs that I've seen anybody talk positively about lately are Speakeasy and Sonic. Sonic isn't available in Qwest's region and Speakeasy is twice as expensive and not the service it was before they were bought.

Speed is great, but what about coverage? (1)

jbarr (2233) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332420)

The speeds that FiOS provides for the price is really stunning in comparison to many alternatives, and the increases they are rolling out is amazing. But what about coverage? My neighbors, family living in the same subdivision, and I have been requesting FiOS for a couple years now, and I doubt we'll ever see it any time soon. I guess the reality is that increasing the speed over existing an infrastructure is far cheaper than building out the infrastructure.

Not Fair! (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332434)

Small orifices will be able to get it by the end of the year, Verizon said on Monday

Why do they need quicker access to porn . . .?

I just (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332490)

wet my pants.

Triangle? (1)

bucklesl (73547) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332550)

Ironically, living in the Research Triangle area (Raleigh, Durham, Cary, NC) means some of the slowest choices available for home internet access. There are some places that can get AT&T Uverse here, but otherwise it is all DSL or Cable. I would definitely sign up for this access if I could get it. Then again, Time Warner cable has been buying legislators to pass laws restricting municipal broadband plans like the recent one in Wilson, NC [stopthecap.com] .

Huge disparity in up/down speed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34332554)

Why do we still have such a huge disparity between up and down speeds? Is this helping to destroy the end to end nature of the internet that made it so successful? Discuss...

Re:Huge disparity in up/down speed (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332776)

Because most people only want to download (watch TV, listen to music, read emails, browse the web) and most uploads are comparatively small (game data, emails, photos, requests).

Yeah, some people do big uploads (home-mad music, podcasts or videos), but it is like complaining that 90% of the ticket gates are set to only allow people in to a station during morning rush hour. Yeah, you might not like the delay for being stuck behind someone else when coming out of the station, but you're SOL if you think anything will change and go against the majority requirements.

price (1)

donnyspi (701349) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332612)

I was an early adopter of FiOS in 2006. Had the 5/2 plan for $29.99. Since then the price has slowly increased. Last year they doubled by download speed and started charging me $49.99 for 10/2. If I had it to do over again, I'd have stuck with DSL. I don't need anything faster than 5/2. Now I'm stuck with a minimum price of $50/month. Lame.

Great news for the 1% of the market that has FiOS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34332660)

i'd much rather they work on availablity than speed.

Availability (1)

KagakuNinja (236659) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332704)

Sounds great, when can I get it? I live in a major US city, and it has been unavailable for a long time. Verizon keeps taunting me with FIOS offers in the mail, and then fails to actually deliver.

but... (1)

uncanny (954868) | more than 3 years ago | (#34332980)

isn't this the company that threatened if their customers used their internet too much he would "hunt down and throttle them"?

Keep in mind (1, Redundant)

ddoctorisin (777637) | more than 3 years ago | (#34333166)

Most countries offering 1GB to the home have 4M people in an area the size of Most Small towns in Canada or the States. Most of it is population Density. Not to mention other countries anti monopoly laws or customer protection laws. Some countries have been known to sue Apple or MS or even outright ban GSM locking of cel phones. Some countries believe consumers have rights. Until USA and Canada do the same we will never see "fair pricing" we will see "fair market value" which means whatever they think the market will handle not what the reasonable price for service is
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?