[1st-mile-nm] Verizon | FiOS Internet Packages and Prices

[John Osmon]

I buy a *lot* of Qwest services.  I think that the services they supply
work as they should.  I also happen to think that under different 
market forces their prices and service offerings would be different.
Overall, I'm pretty happy -- but I'd like to have a lot more choice.  

With that said, I'll add a bit to the points below -- not to defend
Qwest, but to get the right story out...


On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 04:00:33PM -0600, Gary Gomes wrote:
> I certainly understand Verizon's intent, but there are a few problems with
> the Qwest "open access" model:
> 
> 1) The price for the layer 2 Qwest DSL connection (i.e. without ISP) is
> virtually identical to their bundled (DSL+ISP)price - meaning one can only
> select an alternate ISP by paying a significant premium.

Yep -- that's the FCC's fault for telling the states that they couldn't
regulate DSL.  The DSLAM locations aren't published anymore either.

The premium could be worth it.  I run a network where we won't ever
touch (or look at) you packets unless there is a performance problem
of a court order.  Will you pay extra for that privilege?  Or perhaps
you should get your network subsidized by the folks that are looking
at your packets and using them for market information?

 
> 2) The price for the layer 2 DSL connectivity and the capacity of that
> service is set by the monopolist - "trust me, you'll love it".

Actually, anyone can setup shop and use the copper in the ground -- so
it isn't a complete monopoly.  The barriers to entry aren't as high
as they were even 2-3 years ago.  It *is* tough to compete with the
sheer *scale* of the ILECs -- but it can be done if you pick the
right niche.
 
> 3) The 896 K limit on the uplink precludes many of the services that "beg"
> for competitive service provision.

Actually, 896 is a limitation of ADSL2+.  ADSL does a pretty good
job of give huge numbers of people access -- even if it isn't
as much as any of us want.  

> There are really only two choices, accept the high prices and service
> limitations of he duopoly providers (ILEC and Cable) or implement a truly
> open access FTTH network.

I'd *like* to see the open access FTTH network -- but it's going to be
slow going to get there in ubiquity.  In the meantime, I'd like to see a
"network neutrality" that concentrates on Layer 2 access to the
house/business.  If that exists, the number of Layer 3 providers will
proliferate.

If the monopolists build to our houses, and simultaneously remove the
ability to use any other Layer 3 provider -- do we gain anything in
the long run?