[PuffGussy36]

I’ve been having an ongoing debate with a coworker. He says that Verizon moved too soon on delivering fiber directly to the home. The costs were too great for a demand that wasn’t there. Conversely, it has been said (in an industry analysis) that based on the increase in users, net-capable devices and sophistication of transmitted data, it is an inevitability that current ISPs will be forced to upgrade to fiber in order to maintain quality of service. Comcast’s net tripled for the period ending 12/31/06 but continued heavy spending to increase market share (vs. reinvesting cash flow into infrastructure upgrades) has investors worried.

Is Comcast making a mistake and prolonging the inevitable? Or is the need for fiber still far enough away?
I’m having a very hard time finding a hard answer. Thank you.

[Advertisements]

I think that's a difficult question to answer. I happen to live in a neighborhood that Verizon brought FIOS into last summer. The population density is high and given our geographic location, I'm sure the ratio of tech-savvy people is pretty high (I'm in the Baltimore Washington metro area, and there's a huge concentration of high tech companies here), and there's been a demand for non-satellite competition in this area for a while. A lot of people have made the switch, including myself. As a customer, I was very frustrated with Comcast. We had continuing service issues, especially on the higher channels, that had never been resolved - the picture would frequently pixelate and freeze for seconds at a time. Boosting our signal, changing out equipment, replacing lines - nothing worked. In the meantime, our prices kept increasing. I'm paying $30/mo less for my FIOS service, including one box with DVR, than I did for Comcast's service. The picture quality is excellent, the channels are grouped in a sensible way (sports together, music together, etc.). Comcast has tried all sorts of ways to get me back - phone campaigns, mailing campaigns, special offers. However, they can't guarantee lower prices or better service than Verizon. Everyone I've talked to that's made the switch agrees with me.

From what I've seen, Verizon is targeting the areas that they feel will bring them the biggest payback in a short time period, and it seems to be working. I don't think you can say they moved too soon - they still only have approval in certain counties in this region to provide cable TV service, so Comcast still has a big chunk of this market. They're not making the infrastructure investments until the approval is given, so I think it's a well-thought out strategy at this point. My feeling is that Comcast has been caught flat-footed; they had the majority of the market for so long, they really don't have a strategy for dealing with this competition.

[sari]

I think that's a difficult question to answer. I happen to live in a neighborhood that Verizon brought FIOS into last summer. The population density is high and given our geographic location, I'm sure the ratio of tech-savvy people is pretty high (I'm in the Baltimore Washington metro area, and there's a huge concentration of high tech companies here), and there's been a demand for non-satellite competition in this area for a while. A lot of people have made the switch, including myself. As a customer, I was very frustrated with Comcast. We had continuing service issues, especially on the higher channels, that had never been resolved - the picture would frequently pixelate and freeze for seconds at a time. Boosting our signal, changing out equipment, replacing lines - nothing worked. In the meantime, our prices kept increasing. I'm paying $30/mo less for my FIOS service, including one box with DVR, than I did for Comcast's service. The picture quality is excellent, the channels are grouped in a sensible way (sports together, music together, etc.). Comcast has tried all sorts of ways to get me back - phone campaigns, mailing campaigns, special offers. However, they can't guarantee lower prices or better service than Verizon. Everyone I've talked to that's made the switch agrees with me.

From what I've seen, Verizon is targeting the areas that they feel will bring them the biggest payback in a short time period, and it seems to be working. I don't think you can say they moved too soon - they still only have approval in certain counties in this region to provide cable TV service, so Comcast still has a big chunk of this market. They're not making the infrastructure investments until the approval is given, so I think it's a well-thought out strategy at this point. My feeling is that Comcast has been caught flat-footed; they had the majority of the market for so long, they really don't have a strategy for dealing with this competition.

[PuffGussy36]

I've much the same thing in other forums as well as on Scot Finnie's website (he has the best FiOS blog I've seen to date). Even so, with all that said, there does not seem to be this big overall push to help FiOS along. I understand the TV franchise rights issue is slowing them down but that should have no bearing on providing Interent service. My sister is only 20 miles south of me and she has FiOS in her home. From what I understand, the infrustructure is the same for Internet as for TV service as it is an issue of conduit not content.

I guess Verizon will not invest lighting up their fiber unless they can compete with Comcast's bundling strategy. This is really too bad. A better product at a better price seems a no brainer. Perhaps you are right and it is an issue that the municipalities will have to contend with.

[dsenette]

alot of the problems with switching to a full fibre grid in a major metropolitan issues...don't always lie with the provider..many times it lies with the city itself...there's alot that has to go into laying down fibre en mass in an already built city (digging, closing roads, closing sidewalks, getting out the "burnsomatic sideways drilling company" tools)...it's a VAST undertaking..and no provider will pay the entire cost...they will ALWAYS try to get the city they're trying to cover to pay ALOT of the costs...it can be a daunting task....also alot of the companies that provide fibre servics (such as verison's FIOS) get a strong opposition when they decide to come into a location....

the city where my parents live in LA passed an ordinace to have the entire city fibre capable (i.e. fibre to EVERY house in the city limits) by 2015...Cox cable and bellsouth threw a hissy...and are suing the city for it (the city itself was going to become the ISP/phone company/tv provider)...they've been in court for the past 4 years about it....but instead of saying "wow...this is a really progressive idea...maybe we should jump on the wagon and compete" the phone/tv/internet companies are crying like babies and trying to fight it

[warriorscot]

Some cities here have fibre networks but they aren't common its mostly copper based system here but its a very old and dense system in Britain hard to replace it all they are changing the exchanges first to IP based systems then i think they are going to start changing to a fibre based system but it would be government subsidised just like the original network was. And it will be much easier than it was putting it in than it was to do it the first time round. And they have really concentrated on getting people to use broadband internet services at home and the network is at its limits and people are used to the internet so if it will make for a faster service its doubtful you would here complaints.

Its expensive but allot of these companies and governments seem lazy to me its not like they are having to lay the entire network from scratch without knowing its capabilities and considering that you would recover vast amounts of copper and replace it with cheaper to make and cheaper to repair fibre it seems a good investment especially with copper prices being so high these days. I cant see why anyone would complain but cable TV isn't as popular as satellite based and the cable tv company is also an ISP and phone provider so a fibre network would benefit, i guess we will find out when we get a bigger roll out here if it will be a problem but i doubt it.

[PuffGussy36]

but instead of saying "wow...this is a really progressive idea...maybe we should jump on the wagon and compete" the phone/tv/internet companies are crying like babies and trying to fight it

This kind of BS infuriates me. It is self-serving and short-sighted, the latter of which is death to a business. I hate when corporate manuevering and politics get in the way of progress. I'll be happy when all these stodgy old world CEOs fall to the wayside and let things simply progress for progress' sake. I get the infrastructure challenges that fiber faces; but ultimately (like carbon emmissions) I'm thinking it will become less of choice and more of a necessity.

[olderwhiskeynandfasterhorses]

Thats funny all of this fiber optics, and I'm still on dial up- 29.2Kb/s Blazing fast. Whats really funny is that Consolidated (ND company) pretty much has every one hooked up with DSL and are hooking up most of the small towns (as little as 100 people) with fiber optics hooked up to their houses. Too bad, I live about eight miles from the Consolidated turf. We use West River, and they pretty much suck. We have to buy special phones -900MHz, just so they ring. Just letting a little frustration out because I'm sick of waiting for pages to load