The problem is that companies never "promise" any speeds. They say that a certain plan has speeds of UP TO 50 Mbps. No provider will guarantee that that number will be what you see 24/7.
Exactly. This is the disaster of asterisk* marketing.
* any legality of a claim can be averted by disclaimer or clever language.
Their DSL speeds and service suck. Their support sucks. They have a monopoly in most places they exist. Prices are ridiculous. Etc. Regulatory action is severely needed.
Every survey and test has shown that Verizon FIOS does meet its promise. I can vouch for that in my own installation. I've got 150/150 FIOS. I always get between 145-165 down, and about the same up.
But fios is almost nowhere, no new fios is being rolled out, and Verizon lied about its promised rollout to the US government in order to get government money to do it. They're already under the eye by certain local governments over that topic alone (including New York).
One could legitimately argue that the sales pitch for faster internet connections is misleading since, in the real world, it won't make a difference due to all the other bottlenecks (including your home router).
If your home router is not at least 1 gbps second, you need to replace it.
Exactly. This is the disaster of asterisk* marketing.
* any legality of a claim can be averted by disclaimer or clever language.
Their DSL speeds and service suck. Their support sucks. They have a monopoly in most places they exist. Prices are ridiculous. Etc. Regulatory action is severely needed.
But fios is almost nowhere, no new fios is being rolled out, and Verizon lied about its promised rollout to the US government in order to get government money to do it. They're already under the eye by certain local governments over that topic alone (including New York).
The article is interesting, but this guy has had an ax to grind for years. Verizon said when they began the FIOS rollout that they were limiting the service to larger population areas and connecting paths. This has been known for years. A problem they've had is the signup percentage hasn't been as high as they hoped. That's not good.
My neighborhood has a certain number of copper wires in the trunk, as does every neighborhood. A couple of years ago we has a bad phone. Verizon came and fixed the line. They said that those were the two last copper wires in the trunk, and that we were lucky. We need that line for our house and fire alarm to the station. Putting new copper in is very costly, far more so than fiber. And fiber costs a lot more than wireless. Maintenance is also far higher. Another problem is that Verizon hasn't been successful in getting right of way in many communities. So that limits coverage as well.
This is a complicated problem, and fiber doesn't directly compete with wireless.
Well we stream video everyday while heavy duty OSX updates are a much more infrequent proposition. If you want to buy a connection that lets you download a multi gigabyte update in minutes, feel free. I'd rather optimize for my day-to-day requirements.
ADSL may not have the huge pipe that cable offers, but it's a fast, dedicated line not affected by neighbours. Cable networks are neighbourhood networks. If you have internet via cable, you're buying into a congestion-prone internet connection.
If your home router is not at least 1 gbps second, you need to replace it.
Why would you say that as a blanket statement? Are you saying that you need a 1 gbps WAN connection which would be gross over-kill especially if connected to a 100 Mbps or less ISP pipe. On the LAN side it certainly makes sense to have a gigabit router simply to have the requisite switching capacity but that may not have any impact on your browsing speed. There are many other potential bottlenecks within a home network. For example, I live in a 1931 house with plaster walls on wire lath. The only way I can run a whole house wireless network is by having 6 access points each connected to my WAN router. Rather than running Ethernet to each access point I chose to use power line adapters. My effective connection speed ranges from 30 to 150 Mbps depending on the wiring topology. That would be my bottleneck if I cared to have faster speeds. All I really care about is that I get no complaints as my family streams Netflix, or browses, or downloads photos, etc.
My point is that simply throwing out statements like "you need a gigabit router" is no different than saying you need a 50, 75, or 150 Mbps WAN connection. Your actual mileage will vary depending on many factors.
Why would you say that as a blanket statement? Are you saying that you need a 1 gbps WAN connection which would be gross over-kill especially if connected to a 100 Mbps or less ISP pipe.
I meant as a router for your home network. If it isn't 1 gbps, it isn't 802.11ac either which means it is old. ac gives you a lot more range and better wall penetration. Nobody makes a 100mb wifi router anymore. I have a Netgear cable modem which is gigabit and an Airport Extreme. That said, I have a 100 mbps limitation at home because I have a Sonic Wall 220 which is pretty expensive and full featured but only 100mb out. Since my Internet connection is way less than that it makes no difference. Everything on the lan side including wifi is gigabit except when it faces the internet. When my ISP goes IPV6, I'll replace the Sonic Wall with something better because it is not IPV6 ready either.
Only about 20% of the people in Verizon's footprint have, or can get FiOS. The rest have to rely on DSL/HSI. I'm guessing the 80% is whom the NY AG is concerned about.
I read that it was 40% around the country. But, right now, Verizon has stated that they aren't going to expand the range.
In NYC, Verizon has a deal stating that the entire city has to be wired. It's almost done, behind schedule. The storm, Sandy, delayed matters.
But FIOS isn't the issue, it's their DSL service that is.
This is from an article about this on Arstechnica today:
The FCC's Measuring Broadband America report last year found that Verizon DSL offers 83 percent of its advertised speed during peak usage periods, below the 91 percent average for DSL-based services. DSL speeds vary widely, with homes further away from ISP infrastructure getting lower speeds due to distance limitations.
Verizon's fiber customers, on the other hand, generally receive higher speeds than they pay for, as do Cablevision customers, the FCC said. TWC customers received between 94 percent and 101 percent of advertised download speeds during peak times, according to the FCC data.
Do you think it's fair to increase the rates of 100% of your subscribers and only give 40% the new service?
They're nowhere near finished with NYC. All the backbones are placed but they have not branched out from nearly as much as they claim.
It's been a while since I last tested my speed, so out of curiosity, I just did a quick speed test and the results are exceeding that which I am promised. I'm on TWC and my line should be 100 down, 10 up, and these are the actual results. I have no complaints at all.
The problem is that companies never "promise" any speeds. They say that a certain plan has speeds of UP TO 50 Mbps. No provider will guarantee that that number will be what you see 24/7.
That's because it can't be guaranteed. I can promise my 25Mb/sec connection can download 25Mbit/sec from something on the same neighborhood node, but past that point it's a crapshoot.
ISP's during the "unlimited" phase were promising unlimited in the context of dial-up which only gave you several hours or so to use. When Dial-up went to unlimited, then the bandwidth mattered. So as people switched to Cable, suddenly people would saturate the upstream and downstream bandwidth with Kazaa and later bittorrent because they could.
That's why the switch to "capped" services. I can pay an extra 15$/mo and return to unmetered bandwidth, but when checking the previous bandwidth usage, I've only once come within 10GB hitting the 250GB cap, the rest of the time I'm well under by 30%. Unfortunately the local cable and DSL companies here raise prices and don't grandfather the rates. So you can no longer get reasonable internet access for less than 100$/mo unless you want to settle for a 512Kb uplink. The minimum uplink for a single person now is 3.5Mbit, as that's the rate facetime, twitch, livestream, and so forth run at HD.
It's been a while since I last tested my speed, so out of curiosity, I just did a quick speed test and the results are exceeding that which I am promised. I'm on TWC and my line should be 100 down, 10 up, and these are the actual results. I have no complaints at all.
Cablevision has always exceeded the speed that I was paying for. Never had an issue. The NY AG is notorious for wasting time and taxpayer money looking for problems that don't exist. Testing a hard-wired connection at the computer is the only legitimate test that can be done. Too many variables with wireless.
ADSL may not have the huge pipe that cable offers, but it's a fast, dedicated line not affected by neighbours. Cable networks are neighbourhood networks. If you have internet via cable, you're buying into a congestion-prone internet connection.
Ture but DSL speed is directly related to your distance from your provider. While DSL is a dedicated pipe unlike cable which is a shared pipe, its speed is distance limited. Speed on DSL is also related to line conditions and can vary based on your outside plant.
Do you think it's fair to increase the rates of 100% of your subscribers and only give 40% the new service?
They're nowhere near finished with NYC. All the backbones are placed but they have not branched out from nearly as much as they claim.
I don't know what you are asking in the first sentence.
NYC is mostly finished.
I work for Verizon in NYC, and can tell you from first hand knowledge that it is nowhere near mostly done.
Verizon's rates (at least in NY) are regulated by the Public Service Commission, or PSC. In order to get approval for a rate increase they have to show justification. Verizon was able to get rate increases under the pretense that they would use it to fund the FiOS build out. They raised the rates of 100% of their customers, and have only build the FiOS out to much less than half of them. The majority is subsidizing the minority.
I work for Verizon in NYC, and can tell you from first hand knowledge that it is nowhere near mostly done.
Verizon's rates (at least in NY) are regulated by the Public Service Commission, or PSC. In order to get approval for a rate increase they have to show justification. Verizon was able to get rate increases under the pretense that they would use it to fund the FiOS build out. They raised the rates of 100% of their customers, and have only build the FiOS out to much less than half of them. The majority is subsidizing the minority.
Having just read the audit and the reply, I can say that it's unclear as to who is in the right. Both sides make points that are contradictory. I do agree with Verizon that the audit was proceeded with with an intention of finding Verizon in the wrong.
I can't find, from this, that any case stating that the work is mostly done is incorrect. A difference between signing up customers and laying the fiber are two differing situations. What I see is that both Verizon and the city are at fault here.
Comments
Exactly. This is the disaster of asterisk* marketing.
* any legality of a claim can be averted by disclaimer or clever language.
Their DSL speeds and service suck. Their support sucks. They have a monopoly in most places they exist. Prices are ridiculous. Etc. Regulatory action is severely needed.
But fios is almost nowhere, no new fios is being rolled out, and Verizon lied about its promised rollout to the US government in order to get government money to do it. They're already under the eye by certain local governments over that topic alone (including New York).
Among other articles there's this one: http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?backgroundid=631&fuseaction=background.view
One could legitimately argue that the sales pitch for faster internet connections is misleading since, in the real world, it won't make a difference due to all the other bottlenecks (including your home router).
If your home router is not at least 1 gbps second, you need to replace it.
The article is interesting, but this guy has had an ax to grind for years. Verizon said when they began the FIOS rollout that they were limiting the service to larger population areas and connecting paths. This has been known for years. A problem they've had is the signup percentage hasn't been as high as they hoped. That's not good.
My neighborhood has a certain number of copper wires in the trunk, as does every neighborhood. A couple of years ago we has a bad phone. Verizon came and fixed the line. They said that those were the two last copper wires in the trunk, and that we were lucky. We need that line for our house and fire alarm to the station. Putting new copper in is very costly, far more so than fiber. And fiber costs a lot more than wireless. Maintenance is also far higher. Another problem is that Verizon hasn't been successful in getting right of way in many communities. So that limits coverage as well.
This is a complicated problem, and fiber doesn't directly compete with wireless.
ADSL may not have the huge pipe that cable offers, but it's a fast, dedicated line not affected by neighbours. Cable networks are neighbourhood networks. If you have internet via cable, you're buying into a congestion-prone internet connection.
Why would you say that as a blanket statement? Are you saying that you need a 1 gbps WAN connection which would be gross over-kill especially if connected to a 100 Mbps or less ISP pipe. On the LAN side it certainly makes sense to have a gigabit router simply to have the requisite switching capacity but that may not have any impact on your browsing speed. There are many other potential bottlenecks within a home network. For example, I live in a 1931 house with plaster walls on wire lath. The only way I can run a whole house wireless network is by having 6 access points each connected to my WAN router. Rather than running Ethernet to each access point I chose to use power line adapters. My effective connection speed ranges from 30 to 150 Mbps depending on the wiring topology. That would be my bottleneck if I cared to have faster speeds. All I really care about is that I get no complaints as my family streams Netflix, or browses, or downloads photos, etc.
My point is that simply throwing out statements like "you need a gigabit router" is no different than saying you need a 50, 75, or 150 Mbps WAN connection. Your actual mileage will vary depending on many factors.
Why would you say that as a blanket statement? Are you saying that you need a 1 gbps WAN connection which would be gross over-kill especially if connected to a 100 Mbps or less ISP pipe.
I meant as a router for your home network. If it isn't 1 gbps, it isn't 802.11ac either which means it is old. ac gives you a lot more range and better wall penetration. Nobody makes a 100mb wifi router anymore. I have a Netgear cable modem which is gigabit and an Airport Extreme. That said, I have a 100 mbps limitation at home because I have a Sonic Wall 220 which is pretty expensive and full featured but only 100mb out. Since my Internet connection is way less than that it makes no difference. Everything on the lan side including wifi is gigabit except when it faces the internet. When my ISP goes IPV6, I'll replace the Sonic Wall with something better because it is not IPV6 ready either.
Do you think it's fair to increase the rates of 100% of your subscribers and only give 40% the new service?
They're nowhere near finished with NYC. All the backbones are placed but they have not branched out from nearly as much as they claim.
It's been a while since I last tested my speed, so out of curiosity, I just did a quick speed test and the results are exceeding that which I am promised. I'm on TWC and my line should be 100 down, 10 up, and these are the actual results. I have no complaints at all.
That's because it can't be guaranteed. I can promise my 25Mb/sec connection can download 25Mbit/sec from something on the same neighborhood node, but past that point it's a crapshoot.
ISP's during the "unlimited" phase were promising unlimited in the context of dial-up which only gave you several hours or so to use. When Dial-up went to unlimited, then the bandwidth mattered. So as people switched to Cable, suddenly people would saturate the upstream and downstream bandwidth with Kazaa and later bittorrent because they could.
That's why the switch to "capped" services. I can pay an extra 15$/mo and return to unmetered bandwidth, but when checking the previous bandwidth usage, I've only once come within 10GB hitting the 250GB cap, the rest of the time I'm well under by 30%. Unfortunately the local cable and DSL companies here raise prices and don't grandfather the rates. So you can no longer get reasonable internet access for less than 100$/mo unless you want to settle for a 512Kb uplink. The minimum uplink for a single person now is 3.5Mbit, as that's the rate facetime, twitch, livestream, and so forth run at HD.
That's because it can't be guaranteed.
I believe that is exactly why Internet providers state "up to" speeds, as opposed to guaranteed ones..
Give it another 2 hours and test it again.
Give it another 2 hours and test it again.
It's now been one hour and fifty minutes since my first post, is that close enough?
It's the same, no change really.
Cablevision has always exceeded the speed that I was paying for. Never had an issue. The NY AG is notorious for wasting time and taxpayer money looking for problems that don't exist. Testing a hard-wired connection at the computer is the only legitimate test that can be done. Too many variables with wireless.
ADSL may not have the huge pipe that cable offers, but it's a fast, dedicated line not affected by neighbours. Cable networks are neighbourhood networks. If you have internet via cable, you're buying into a congestion-prone internet connection.
Ture but DSL speed is directly related to your distance from your provider. While DSL is a dedicated pipe unlike cable which is a shared pipe, its speed is distance limited. Speed on DSL is also related to line conditions and can vary based on your outside plant.
I don't know what you are asking in the first sentence.
NYC is mostly finished.
I work for Verizon in NYC, and can tell you from first hand knowledge that it is nowhere near mostly done.
Verizon's rates (at least in NY) are regulated by the Public Service Commission, or PSC. In order to get approval for a rate increase they have to show justification. Verizon was able to get rate increases under the pretense that they would use it to fund the FiOS build out. They raised the rates of 100% of their customers, and have only build the FiOS out to much less than half of them. The majority is subsidizing the minority.
http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/415-15/de-blasio-administration-releases-audit-report-verizon-s-citywide-fios-implementation
Having just read the audit and the reply, I can say that it's unclear as to who is in the right. Both sides make points that are contradictory. I do agree with Verizon that the audit was proceeded with with an intention of finding Verizon in the wrong.
I can't find, from this, that any case stating that the work is mostly done is incorrect. A difference between signing up customers and laying the fiber are two differing situations. What I see is that both Verizon and the city are at fault here.