Fiber Means Cheap Broadband

Hopefully they will broaden their reach quickly. Current installations in Huntington Beach, CA (that were announced last year) are pretty few and far between. :-(

Thing is, these prices are still high compared to other countries. Even France has faster broadband for half this.

The middle level of Fios (what Verizon is calling their fiber optic netowkr) is being installed in my house tomorrow, the optical cable is already sitting a few feet from my office--they do prep work before the final install. It will be a step up from the cable modem :).

Can't wait!

Verizon if you're reading this,
PLEASE COME TO SEATTLE!!!

In Japan, fiber means at the very least 100 mbps, and up to 1000 mbps. DSL can get you close to 60 mbps.

Yes, Tokyo is more dense than most American cities, but Verizon could certainly offer MUCH faster fiber in NYC and other dense cities.

Is there a limit on the amount of traffic you can put through?

Compare that to countries like Japan and South Korea where the "standard" broadband connection is 10mbps for equivalent to $10USD. The broadband quality and pricing here is antiquated and we consumers pay the price.

I agree with some of the other comments, that this is ridiculously slow and expensive.
Today this is possible:

Wireless:
54 Mbps down /54 Mbps up = $0

provided by the city. Look out your window, you will probably see a street light. Each one of them is probably as expensive to install and maintain as a wireless repeater. So why don't all cities do this? They provide roads sewers and other services that are infinitely more expensive.

http://www.walkersands.com/Grand-Haven-WiFi-FAQ.htm

> Wireless:
> 54 Mbps down /54 Mbps up = $0
>
> provided by the city

You don't pay taxes?

I'm about to move to a home that is eligible for fios... I can't wait! As for the last poster, why would you want government provided broadband? Ick. I have government invading enough areas of my life already, thanks.

"Why would you want government provided broadband?"

Because in this country, that's traditionally been the sub-optimal solution when there's a market failure.

Yes I pay taxes, but I would pay less taxes in the long run if this happens because of the ROI for the city. A city that installs wireless will get more tax revenue in the long run because of increased business activity.

Nah, keep it private - much better quality than a beaurucratic monopoly.

I sure hope this comes to my area soon! I am so ready to ditch Bellsouth 512KBPS.

I know I like to beat a dead horse, but my suggestion is pro-business, pro-free enterprise and pro-competition.
The service from the city should be free, and so basic that the question of quality of service doesn't even enter into it. And there would be no beurocracy because there would be no billing or other regulation of this service.
Having private roads doesn't make sense because it's just wasteful to have companies research better road materials in competition, and finding ways to charge and bill for the service.
I say just providing an ip address over a wireless network could already be such a commodity item.
I don't advocate full ISP service from the government, just the infrastructure. Private business can then use the infrastructure to compete in offering net services (email, voip, video,...).

> Having private roads doesn't make sense because it's just wasteful to have companies research better road materials in competition, and finding ways to charge and bill for the service.

Well, a lot of somebodys seem to think they make sense (hence all the toll roads, which I hate).

<wondering aloud>Why is the progress of broadband so glacial and expensive in the US compared to other countries? Regulations? Distances?</wondering aloud>

Given my disdain for Verizon's DSL services, it is difficult to see how the fibre means anything more than more of the crud they try to push on residents of the US.