Verizon Speeds Up FiOS To 150Mbps 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."
50/20 isn't the fastest (Score:2, Informative)
I've had 35/35 for a while, and I could have 50/50 if I wanted to pay another $30/mo for it.
So why is my lower tier so expensive? (Score:3, Informative)
If speeds don't scale like I think they do, then someone explain it to me please.
Meanwhile (Score:2, Informative)
In Japan they pay like $40 for 100 Mbps. As usual the US is so far behind it's not even funny.
Re:Kinda pricy (Score:3, Informative)
Damn, internet is pricy for the US people. I'm paying 15 euros for 20mbit/1mbit.
Re:Meanwhile (Score:5, Informative)
At my apartment in Osaka it's $20 for 1GB, actually.
Re:Nice, now why (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Nice, now why (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
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:Meanwhile (Score:3, Informative)
You'd like to think it, but you'd be wrong. Let's look at it from another perspective. The urban centers of the U.S. have a population density about 1/3 that of Japan or South Korea. We're now comparing apples with their cousin the pear. Same area to cover but the US has 1/3 fewer customers trying to push data through the pipes. For $40/month in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metro area you can get 1.5Mbit/384Kbit service. Would you please explain to me what justification one could have for charging twice as much for nearly three orders of magnitude (682 times) slower service.
If we're talking about geographically dispersed rural America we aren't even considering speed. We're talking about whether or not they have service available in the first place. We're looking at satellite based service as the only option in many cases. Cheapest you'll find is $50/month for 512Kbit/128Kbit complete with 750-1500ms latency and 7GB cap--weather permitting of course.
Re:Monopoly pricing... (Score:3, Informative)
Hell, I could probably get more bandwidth at a cheaper price in Canada or Australia.
Uh, no. Canada has a worse population density than the US, and we pay for it. I'm paying $50/mo [cogeco.ca] for 14/3 cable internet. Add 13% sales tax to that. Oh, and don't get me started on cell phone service.
Re:Meanwhile (Score:3, Informative)
And now watch your argument fall to pieces when you compare the size and population density of the cities.
Re:Great - now put FiOS here please (Score:2, Informative)
If you want DSL or fiber how about you pay for the lines to be run
The American people already paid [saschameinrath.com] for a nation wide broadband network that was never delivered.
Re:Great - now put FiOS here please (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Nice, now why (Score:3, Informative)
The parent post is most certainly not Flamebait. This does happen and has been documented many times.
FCC analysis shows that average (mean) actual speed consumers received was approximately 4 Mbps, while the median actual speed was roughly 3 Mbps in 2009. Therefore actual download speeds experienced by U.S. consumers lag advertised speeds by roughly 50%.
Source (Warning: PDF): http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db0813/DOC-300902A1.pdf [fcc.gov]
Finding a place where FiOS is available (Score:3, Informative)
FiOS has always sounded like one of those things I'd love to have. It's not ever going to be available where I currently live.
A couple of years ago, when it looked like I was going to be moving out of state, I thought that, all other things being somewhere near equal, I'd sure like to move to an area that had FiOS service. So, I tried to find out where in the general area of my possible destination it might be available.
No one at Verizon was willing to talk. I could randomly stab in the dark with a street address and get a yes/no answer, but no coverage map. "Trade Secret" or something. That was annoying.
Re:Nice, now why (Score:3, Informative)
If you compare apples to apples (i.e., business FiOS to an OC3), then you're wrong.
Business FiOS is guaranteed speed (both directions), with an SLA. Now, like every other ISP, they'll only guarantee the speed to the edge of their network. Once off their network, they obviously don't have any responsibility.
In my personal experience, though, the limit that Verizon claims as your fastest possible speed for your FiOS line is lower than the actual peak speed you will see.
Re:Great - now put FiOS here please (Score:1, Informative)
http://www.pdamerica.org/articles/news/2010-10-08-09-51-01-news.php
Re:Great - now put FiOS here please (Score:5, Informative)