Damien over on SiliconValleyWatcher writes about Verizon's pricing on their fiber connections.

5 Mbps down /2 Mbps up = $39
15 Mbps down /2 Mbps up = $49
30 Mbps down /5 Mbps up = $199

Need I say more?

Other than "SIGN ME UP!" that is... :-)

Posted by jzawodn at May 23, 2005 03:37 PM

Reader Comments
# Ian Neubert said:

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

on May 23, 2005 04:08 PM
# David Galbraith said:

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

on May 23, 2005 04:15 PM
# Jon Gales said:

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!

on May 23, 2005 04:27 PM
# hotentote said:

Verizon if you're reading this,

on May 23, 2005 04:31 PM
# Gen Kanai said:

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.

on May 23, 2005 06:32 PM
# dt said:

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

on May 23, 2005 06:46 PM
# said:

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.

on May 23, 2005 07:45 PM
# Gudmundur Karlsson said:

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

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.


on May 24, 2005 08:55 AM
# Mike said:

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

You don't pay taxes?

on May 24, 2005 02:43 PM
# Doug said:

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.

on May 24, 2005 02:51 PM
# Jeremy Dunck said:

"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.

on May 24, 2005 03:40 PM
# Gudmundur Karlsson said:

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.

on May 24, 2005 04:44 PM
# Mike said:

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

on May 24, 2005 08:03 PM
# Jake said:

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

on May 24, 2005 09:09 PM
# Gudmundur Karlsson said:

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,...).

on May 25, 2005 06:12 AM
# Mike said:

> 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).

on May 25, 2005 11:46 AM
# Mike said:

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

on May 25, 2005 11:48 AM
# Hasan Diwan said:

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.

on June 1, 2005 09:05 AM
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone. My current, past, or previous employers are not responsible for what I write here, the comments left by others, or the photos I may share. If you have questions, please contact me. Also, I am not a journalist or reporter. Don't "pitch" me.


Privacy: I do not share or publish the email addresses or IP addresses of anyone posting a comment here without consent. However, I do reserve the right to remove comments that are spammy, off-topic, or otherwise unsuitable based on my comment policy. In a few cases, I may leave spammy comments but remove any URLs they contain.