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

[John Brown]

Open Access FTT* (*=H|B) is under construction in Albuquerque.
87102 has it now, with expansion into 87110

Its available as L1, L2 or L3

John Osmon wrote:
> 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?
> _______________________________________________
> 1st-mile-nm mailing list
> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org
> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm
>