Verizon Says They'll Deliver 1 Gbps When You Want It - Company Tries to Downplay Google Fiber, 1 Gbps Advancements

	Demand They will never see the "demand" they are talking about at the prices they would charge for such services. If they are willing to offer 1gbps symmetrical connections to homes for the same price Google is, then demand would be overwhelming.

elray join:2000-12-16 Santa Monica, CA

Re: Demand said by aciddrink: If they are willing to offer 1gbps symmetrical connections to homes for the same price Google is, then demand would be overwhelming. Nope. The price is too high, regardless of speed. Google's $70+/month is beyond the desired reach of majority public. They simply aren't interested or willing to pay that much. (I count myself among that crowd, though we've paid much more in the past, and I *am* willing and able to pay whatever amount is necessary to obtain a given level of service - we just don't need FTTH speeds.)

rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO	Re: Demand If you can pay $70/month for 1Gpbs with no caps, you can cut the cord (be that FIOS TV, cable or U-Verse) and use the savings over a typical TV + HSI subscription to pay for some streaming services. I'd drop $70/month on a 1 Gbps link with no limits and cut the cord in a heartbeat.

brad join:2007-09-06 Etobicoke, ON	Re: Demand said by dfxmatt: 100% wrong. majority public pays $150+ for tv + internet. If you think the majority isn't willing to pay $100 for tv+internet via google, you are willingly ignorant and/or blind. There's a reason verizon and TW among others are freaking out, and it's called they don't want to compete and enjoy their monopolies. He is being wilfully ignorant.

Kamus join:2011-01-27 El Paso, TX

said by elray:said by aciddrink: If they are willing to offer 1gbps symmetrical connections to homes for the same price Google is, then demand would be overwhelming. Nope. The price is too high, regardless of speed. Google's $70+/month is beyond the desired reach of majority public. They simply aren't interested or willing to pay that much. (I count myself among that crowd, though we've paid much more in the past, and I *am* willing and able to pay whatever amount is necessary to obtain a given level of service - we just don't need FTTH speeds.) The price is too high? for people like you there's a FREE version.

SunnyD join:2009-03-20 Madison, AL	But are they willing to deliver on pricing... ... how the customer wants it? Didn't think so.

Reviews: ?Insight Communic.. ?Windstream	Re: 1 GbPs speed is not warranted at this time for homes said by floyd007: Then again Google has irresponsibly spent shareholder money on frivolous ventures. Do you have any examples? Other than your clear opinion on Google's Fiber project? Expanding a business foothold and/or branching out is hardly irresponsible, in my opinion (As a prior stock holder).

Gami00 join:2010-03-11 Mississauga, ON

said by floyd007: unless you happen own a small to medium business. Google is losing money each and every time they lay fibre optics to a dwelling. Then again Google has irresponsibly spent shareholder money on frivolous ventures. i'm not sure i understand this one... "irresponsibly spent shareholder money".... umm last year their stock price was $550 or so.. this year it's $700. it seems like their doing fine at meeting shareholder interests..

said by floyd007: unless you happen own a small to medium business. Google is losing money each and every time they lay fibre optics to a dwelling. Then again Google has irresponsibly spent shareholder money on frivolous ventures. It's called capital expenditure. Investing money in the hope of receiving it back plus more over a pay back period. Every network is the same, the difference is only in the pay back period and whether it's achieved.

CXM_Splicer a more sensible view join:2011-08-11 NYC kudos:1Reviews: ?Verizon FiOS

said by floyd007: Then again Google has irresponsibly spent shareholder money on frivolous ventures. This is typical of the 'Give me money for sitting on my ass' shareholder entitlement mentality that is ruining the country. 1 GbPs speed is not warranted at this time for homes unless you happen own a small to medium business. By who's definition? There are plenty of people that would take this service if it were $30/mo like it should be. I know I would. People with the 'not needed' argument seem not to understand the idea of multiple simultaneous connections doing multiple tasks. The real sentiment is 'We aren't done squeezing you so you will wait until WE profit from upgrading you'.

We should have 1Gps fiber I've reached a point where my LTE is faster than my cable internet at home. Verizon has no intentions of deploying 1Gbps fiber in the immediate future. If they were "ready and willing", they would be offering it right now. You would literally be able to call them up and order it. Nice try, Verizon. As for the Google Fiber situation, why be mad at Google? They're the ones pushing this whole fiber thing the hardest. And look what the other ISPs are doing in those areas, they're losing customers because they offer a poor value paired with a crappy infrastructure. The fact that so many ISP's/telco's/cableco's are dwelling on copper is the only thing stopping widespread fiber adaptation. Copper will not be sustainable in the long run, but nobody wants eat the initial upfront costs of deploying fiber... except for Google, who had no fucking copper infrastructure to begin with in any of the towns they deployed fiber to. Then, they decide to modestly start rolling out cheap, fast fiber. $70 for 1Gbit/1Gbit? They're setting an example of how the internet should be. Saddest part: I'll still be using bullshit cable with no upstream and marginally faster downstream in 5 years. And my bill will have gone up! -- QUAD!!!!

Reviews: ?Insight Communic.. ?Windstream	Re: We should have 1Gps fiber said by Elite: I've reached a point where my LTE is faster than my cable internet at home. It's funny you say this because my cell phone gets about twice the download speed as my home internet, and 4-5 times the upload speed. Granted, it's under extremely restrictive usage caps.

brad join:2007-09-06 Etobicoke, ON	Re: We should have 1Gps fiber said by aciddrink: Granted, it's under extremely restrictive usage caps. Exactly, making the connection practically useless for much of anything.

Dear Verizon, If you can provide synchronous 1gbps for $70/month, then feel free to go ahead with that. (Given that's only a few dollars more than your 3/1 offering, I won't be holding my breath.) Do I demand it? Do I need it? Do I even want it? No, not especially, not for the speed anyway... the speed isn't really the point, is it. Internet access with no caps and at a fair price... yeah, that's the point. -- "Face piles of trials with smiles; it riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave."

Reviews: ?Atlantic Broadband

Verizon: Cheapskates The network will handle anything they want to throw at it, but they have no interest in having a product significantly better than what cable companies are offering. Outside of upload speeds, they've sacrificed every advantage they had. The download speeds of Comcast and Cox have caught up. And very few people really value high upload speeds, and those have caught up too, at least at Comcast. With the Quantum speed increases (and price increases), I don't know why they didn't keep upload symmetrical to download. When it comes to TV offerings, they've maxed out their HD channels, and they're falling behind the other providers there too. Their only advantage left is premium movie channels, and that's really only against Comcast who seems to hate them. FiOS increasingly looks like a flash in the pan, even starting with so much promise. Verizon's plan is little different than what Frontier is doing in the divested markets, keep things the same, increase prices, and get whatever cash you can from it instead of really marketing something better.

Re: Just give me fast FIOS! maybe because you don't understand that how they define demand is "however we want to"? Not by actual, real demand. they agreed to not compete with comcast for example, so all the areas that demand better than comcast (as comcast sucks), are now not provided. Those are enormous markets with millions of potential customers, all who have LTE at the same time. try not to be so ignorant.

Re: Just give me fast FIOS! try not to be so ignorant... Your talking to me? Who the hell needs a 1gbs connection? People are still on >3mbps in the country. If the demand is there in their footprint they said they would provide it. You don't build a house, install all the upgrades and then say to the person who buys the house "well it's there if you want it" I work for Verizon as a craftperson, so I think I know a little about this.

Reviews: ?Insight Communic.. ?Windstream

Re: Just give me fast FIOS! Oh ok, now your statements make more sense. At first I thought you were just trolling by trying to raise arguments that make no sense.said by pittpete1: If the demand is there they'll provide it. No they wont. You know it. I know it. To say otherwise is being willfully ignorant. If they (Verizon) were able to provide 1gb symmetrical connections to homes, they would attach a price tag so ungodly high that nobody would ever purchase it. Then they would simply say "Well, we offered it, and nobody wants it therefore there is no demand". I could try to sell my Honda Civic for $7 million, and when nobody buys, it go around saying there is no demand for a Honda.

working for verizon makes you defending verizon in this post even more questionable. By the way, I'm the Verizon CEO! Clearly, this must be just as factual of a statement and cannot be refuted. *crosses arms* Yes, people are still on greater than 3 megabits per second. That's what we are in 2013. Yes, a few people are on less than 3 megabits per second in 2013. None of them are signed up with Verizon either, that's for damn sure. Just because people live rural doesn't mean they're stuck with ISDN speeds anymore - satellite is a lot faster than that. Your implied message is not only inaccurate, but a lie straight up. Satellite's problem is still speed and usage cap, but it's not dialup speeds anymore for those who can afford it. go away ignorant troll.

CXM_Splicer a more sensible view join:2011-08-11 NYC kudos:1Reviews: ?Verizon FiOS

said by pittpete1: Dont know why people are so po'd about this statement. If the demand is there they'll provide it. Makes sense from a business standpoint. Probably because the demand for expanding FIOS is well known and they are deliberately ignoring it. Their false statement amounts to salt in the wounds of people who they are already denying ANY FIOS to. It is nothing but PR spin to further ignore customers.

Kamus join:2011-01-27 El Paso, TX

gib "We've already demonstrated we can deliver 1Gbps and even 10 Gbps speeds over the same fiber to a home. As consumer demands and needs grow, we can increase our speeds. But offering a high speed connection to the home does not tell the full story when it comes to delivering the best possible and most capable broadband service. A high number of bits-per-second-connection alone isn't sufficient, because other factors aside from speed affect the quality and capability of a connection." I DEMAND 1gbps. there, now give it to me. Care to explain the "full story" then? and it's not like the two are mutually exclusive.

	I want it NOW!! Oh, wait, they elected to bypass my subdivision when deploying FiOS not more the 200' down a main 4 lane highway.. So how again are they going to deply this when I want it?

Source: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Says-Theyll-Deliver-1-Gbps-When-You-Want-It-123111

toure patti smith lottery winners lottery winners april fools day pranks ohio state vs kansas daniel von bargen