# What keeps FiOS from certain markets?



## 20TIL6 (Sep 7, 2006)

I live in the Houston market, and we just flipped from TWC to Comcast. The service is fine, no problems, and my S3 units are just humming along. There has been no communication/whisper/rumor of SDV in the Houston market at all. At least not to my knowledge.

But FiOS sounds so good. Does anyone know how and why Verizon selects certain markets over others? I would think Houston would be a good one to penetrate, I mean, we are huge with immense urban sprawl. And I think new neighborhood construction is still strong here when compared to other parts of the country.


----------



## osterber (Feb 13, 2001)

Some of it is, I'm sure, calculated. Some of it may just be luck. They've been rolling out FIOS in the Boston area for a couple years, and it's nowhere near complete. Lots and lots of infrastructure to deploy.

I've heard attractive areas include locations where people have money to spend, denser areas (more customers with less backbone distance to pull), single-family homes. From what I understand, there is very little deployment in multi-unit dwellings such as condos or apartment buildings. They don't want to deal with the politics of condo boards or apartment landlords. In single-family homes, there is just one owner/resident to deal with, who can approve anything they want to in terms of running wires, drilling holes, etc.

There are probably considerations to where Verizon has existing network presence. Perhaps also consideration to local union issues... i.e., it may cost Verizon less to install in area X than in area Y due to union rates.

Ultimately, the formula likely is weighted to the locations where verizon can make the fastest and largest profit with the fewest anticipated problems. They're going to try to get the most bang for their buck, first.

-Rick


----------



## Kablemodem (May 26, 2001)

It is also my understanding that it will never be available in areas served by phone companies other than Verizon (AT&T), but I hope I am wrong.


----------



## Gregor (Feb 18, 2002)

Kablemodem said:


> It is also my understanding that it will never be available in areas served by phone companies other than Verizon (AT&T), but I hope I am wrong.


That's my understanding as well. FIOS requires a complete rewiring of the network to the house. If you get FIOS here, the copper line to your house gets replaced with fiber. Unlikely that Verizon will try new markets before completing the rebuil dof what they already have.

It took contractors nearl 6 weeks to run fiber in my townhouse development (450 units). It's only been in the past couple of months they have offered video.

Not to be overlooked is that Verizon has some substantial electric savings here, as your POTS line does draws power from the network, not from the power feeding your house.


----------



## LostCluster (Feb 11, 2002)

Verizon is unique in thinking they need to deliver fiber to the premises, everybody else is fine with delivering fiber to the curb and riding the last mile to the home on coax cable. Afterall, Verizon's solution goes to coax within the home, and coax has a good history of being able to deliver outdoors and longer lengths.

In the Boston area, where FIOS is being rolled out Comcast is actually out-bandwidthing Verizon for top speed plans 16 mbps to 15 mbps. Fiber is actually capable of going much faster than a top speed cable modem, but Verizon isn't offering such a rate plan yet.


----------



## dcpmark (Feb 8, 2006)

LostCluster said:


> In the Boston area, where FIOS is being rolled out Comcast is actually out-bandwidthing Verizon for top speed plans 16 mbps to 15 mbps. Fiber is actually capable of going much faster than a top speed cable modem, but Verizon isn't offering such a rate plan yet.


Huh? I thought Verizon has been at 50 mbps for a while:

http://gigaom.com/2007/01/10/verizon-fios-goes-50-mbps/

According this article, Massachusetts has had 50 mbps since January......if not that then certainly 30 is available, no?


----------



## acvthree (Jan 17, 2004)

Kablemodem said:


> It is also my understanding that it will never be available in areas served by phone companies other than Verizon (AT&T), but I hope I am wrong.


I've heard differently, at least for Texas.

The initial roll out is to areas already served by Verizon. This allows them to replace old copper (high maintainance) with fiber and offer "triple play", that is, telephone, video and data in a single package.

In Texas Verizon has a statewide cable license. I've been told by several people at verizon, techs and low level managers, that once the Verizon areas are built out, that the intention is to start competing in non-Verizon areas for cable and data.

Of course, that isn't immediately useful. It is probably years out, and it was not from the President of Verizon so they could change their minds (or the rumors could change) at any time.

Al


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Kablemodem said:


> It is also my understanding that it will never be available in areas served by phone companies other than Verizon (AT&T), but I hope I am wrong.


I'm wondering what you mean by "Verizon (AT&T)". Verizon is not part of AT&T, nor has it been since the big break-up. It's a Baby Bell (actually a merger of several Baby Bells).


----------



## gwsat (Sep 14, 2006)

I believe that Kablemodem used "(AT&T)" as an example of a phone company "other than Verizon."


----------



## NOD (Aug 26, 2006)

Chances of FIOS ever coming to New Orleans = 0

Then again, we have bigger fish to fry in terms of priorities right now...


----------



## gwsat (Sep 14, 2006)

NOD said:


> Chances of FIOS ever coming to New Orleans = 0
> 
> Then again, we have bigger fish to fry in terms of priorities right now...


Count your blessings, you have NBA basketball.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

FIOS is targeting, even within the towns it operates in, in Massachusetts, specific neighborhoods within each town where it feels it can be more profitable. Here in Burlington, apparently they're only offering their services in the center of town (inexpensive to run cable to their central office) and in more affluent neighborhoods outside the center of town (greater revenue potential). Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it is something to keep in mind if you're looking forward to having that option offered to you in the future.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

At no additional cost, FiOS upgraded its 15Mbps/2Mbps plan to 20/5 and its 30Mbps/5Mbps plan to 50/5 in Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island. _Edit: This should say Maryland, Virginia, California, and other states still have the 5/2, 15/2, and 30/5 plans. Verizon has not yet upgraded those markets to 10/2, 20/5, and 50/5._

Maryland, Virginia, California, and other states still have the 5/2, 10/2, and 30/5 plans. Those markets are slated to receive the upgrades later this year.

The chief difference between FiOS and Comcast is that FiOS sustains its throughput. With Comcast, you get often get 15-18Mbps with PowerBoost, but only for short durations of 15-30 seconds (or the first 10Mb of a file). With FiOS, the speed remains relatively constant 24/7. Of course, all bandwidth is shared at some point, but FiOS throughput isn't limited at the neighborhood level, as is often the case with Comcast service areas where nodes are often oversold.


----------



## snathanb (Sep 13, 2006)

FIOS totally rocks... for now it will be available only in areas where Verizon offers local phone service.

Not to be glib.. but several people I know have actually moved just to be in a FIOS service area... it's that good.


----------



## cableguy763 (Oct 29, 2006)

snathanb said:


> FIOS totally rocks... for now it will be available only in areas where Verizon offers local phone service.
> 
> Not to be glib.. but several people I know have actually moved just to be in a FIOS service area... it's that good.


I moved just so I could be in a Time Warner area


----------



## hdhdliving (May 29, 2007)

gwsat said:


> Count your blessings, you have NBA basketball.


Way off topic but I can't resist. So do we. You can watch our team play this Sunday. Go Cavs!


----------



## cowboys2002 (Jun 15, 2001)

In the Houston Area, ATT is the incumbent monopoly. That said, all we can hope for in Cypress is that ATT upgrades the network to support U-Verse. Blackhorse Ranch is probable closer to getting U-Verse as they are nextdoor to The Bridgelands.

On a side note, I noticed on www.titanttv.com that there are a few smaller broadband providers (entouch) in the Cypress (Houston Area). Has I know this, I would have bought a house in one of these areas just so I had an option other the DirecTV and Dish, vs. Cable.

Back to the original topic, I read somewhere that Verizon Fios was in or coming to Clear Lake and League City in June/July.

IMHO, I just can't see extra phone lines being run (by Verizon) into areas served by ATT/SBC. If SBC won't spend the $$$ to sell me voicemail an U-Verse, why would Verizon spend $600-$1,000 (wild guess) to sell me service at $99 a month? It would take years to breakeven!


----------



## dcpmark (Feb 8, 2006)

bkdtv said:


> Maryland, Virginia, California, and other states still have the 5/2, 10/2, and 30/5 plans. Those markets are slated to receive the upgrades later this year.


I'm not sure where you are getting your info....here in Southern California I have had 15/2 since I got it last year....only $39.95/month since February when I added FIOS TV.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

dcpmark said:


> I'm not sure where you are getting your info....here in Southern California I have had 15/2 since I got it last year....only $39.95/month since February when I added FIOS TV.


Sorry, that was a typo. I meant to say California, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and other service areas still have the 5/2, 15/2, and 30/5 plans. Verizon has not yet upgraded those markets to 10/2, 20/5, and 50/5. A Verizon press release back in January said other markets would receive the upgrades [later in 2007].



> IMHO, I just can't see extra phone lines being run (by Verizon) into areas served by ATT/SBC. If SBC won't spend the $$$ to sell me voicemail an U-Verse, why would Verizon spend $600-$1,000 (wild guess) to sell me service at $99 a month? It would take years to breakeven!


Last I read, every FiOS install cost Verizon somewhere between $1100 and $1600, so it's no surprise they want to serve markets where much of the population that can afford to subscribe to multiple services.

There's talk that Verizon may soon offer incentives for FiOS customers to add cell service -- in addition to TV, Internet, and phone -- i.e. "quadruple play."


----------



## dcpmark (Feb 8, 2006)

bkdtv said:


> Sorry, that was a typo. I meant to say California, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and other service areas still have the 5/2, 15/2, and 30/5 plans....


No problem....I should have guessed it was a typo since you are usually right with your info.


----------



## jwalker2020 (Jun 4, 2007)

I have FIOS now for phone and internet, here in southern NH. I'd
really love to have FIOS TV as well.

One aspect not mentioned yet was dealing with the towns.
The cable companies have to provide access to local community access
stations.

I have had FIOS for internet and phone for 16 months now, but they
are taking forever to roll out TV.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

> I have had FIOS for internet and phone for 16 months now, but they
> are taking forever to roll out TV.


Hows that old song go- "In the year 2525 if man is still alive... " That's about how soon I will see cable or FIOS - consider yourself lucky!!

Thanks,


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

bicker said:


> FIOS is targeting, even within the towns it operates in, in Massachusetts, specific neighborhoods within each town where it feels it can be more profitable. Here in Burlington, apparently they're only offering their services in the center of town (inexpensive to run cable to their central office) and in more affluent neighborhoods outside the center of town (greater revenue potential). Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it is something to keep in mind if you're looking forward to having that option offered to you in the future.


Update: FiOS have finally begun offering service to our block, a full 2 1/4 years after the rest of our town. (Though no one has gotten an install yet.)


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

> Update: FiOS have finally begun offering service to our block, a full 2 1/4 years after the rest of our town. (Though no one has gotten an install yet.)


 Lucky You!

"In the year 2525.." still seems optimistic for me 

Happy Holidays!


----------



## modnar (Oct 15, 2000)

Surely AT&T will start to implement an equivalent service some time.

(disclaimer: I know nothing about FiOS news, history, etc., so sorry if I'm spouting nonsense)


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Surely they won't. Last I heard, AT&T's strategy was to build fiber to the node (with DSL to the home), while desperately trying to convince everyone that fiber to the home is unnecessary, and that Verizon is wasting their time and money.


----------



## lofar (Mar 21, 2008)

Lucky you, no fiber in my stupid town. Probably ever. We have a NIMBY (Not in my back yard) syndrom here. No one will let verizon do the construction they need to do to install FIOS here, we'd rather all live in the dark ages apparently. That and Cox has our local city council by the balls, god forbid we break up their monopoly on cable television.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

wmcbrine said:


> Surely they won't. Last I heard, AT&T's strategy was to build fiber to the node (with DSL to the home), while desperately trying to convince everyone that fiber to the home is unnecessary, and that Verizon is wasting their time and money.


That seems to be the U-verse marketing plan, yes.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

Probably never going to see FiOS where I live.

Our local phone company, Embarq, has been talking about fiber, but hasn't laid out any clear plans as to what they're going to do.


----------



## mindchaotica (Oct 8, 2008)

man. i would love to have FIOS, I had the broadband service in Portland, OR. and I loved the pipe i got. plus FIOS TV is so much cheaper then Comcast.


----------



## modnar (Oct 15, 2000)

wmcbrine said:


> Surely they won't. Last I heard, AT&T's strategy was to build fiber to the node (with DSL to the home), while desperately trying to convince everyone that fiber to the home is unnecessary, and that Verizon is wasting their time and money.


Hmm..interesting. Thanks for the info.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

mindchaotica said:


> man. i would love to have FIOS, I had the broadband service in Portland, OR. and I loved the pipe i got. plus FIOS TV is so much cheaper then Comcast.


I think a lot of what makes FiOS so great isn't the technology itself, honestly, it's the fact that they are being very aggressive in wooing cable customers.

If cable played it smart they'd be more than competitive with FiOS. This means no more than 2 HD channels per QAM, no caps on broadband service, and building out the network to have enough bandwidth for everyone. This means fewer subscribers per fiber node.

FiOS has the advantage of building out a brand new network in a market that has already been primed up for triple play.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Raj said:


> If cable played it smart they'd be more than competitive with FiOS. This means no more than 2 HD channels per QAM, no caps on broadband service, and building out the network to have enough bandwidth for everyone. This means fewer subscribers per fiber node.


I don't know about FiOS, but cable companies often have obligations that they have to meet in order to keep the cable franchise. For example, there was recently a rather big fight between my city and Cox about whether they should be able to drop some of the local access channels, so they could do more with digital channels (they were required to have something like 8 analog local access channels... that barely nobody watches).

Cable often seem to want to have their cake and eat it too - keep the local franchise monopolies, but don't want to meet the obligations that come with it. Not sure if FiOS is in a similar situation.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

At this point, Raj, we have no real evidence that any significant amount of subscribers switch due to bandwidth-related issues. Since 3:1 muxing is related to provision of analog cable network service, there is no clear-cut answer. FiOS' lack of analog cable network service is something that might keep me from switching. We currently use analog service for TWC (mostly) on the bedroom DVR (a TiVo Series 1), and current use analog service for Travel Channel, Food Network, and E! on the kitchen DVR (a TiVo Series 2). Clearly, with FiOS, we'd lose these services, and that, alone, might turn out to be the foundation for a decision to stick with Comcast.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> At this point, Raj, we have no real evidence that any significant amount of subscribers switch due to bandwidth-related issues. Since 3:1 muxing is related to provision of analog cable network service, there is no clear-cut answer. FiOS' lack of analog cable network service is something that might keep me from switching. We currently use analog service for TWC (mostly) on the bedroom DVR (a TiVo Series 1), and current use analog service for Travel Channel, Food Network, and E! on the kitchen DVR (a TiVo Series 2). Clearly, with FiOS, we'd lose these services, and that, alone, might turn out to be the foundation for a decision to stick with Comcast.


Most people I know who switch to FiOS do so for three reasons:

- More HD channels (bandwidth related)
- More internet bandwidth (bandwidth related)
- Triple play deals that are lower priced than cable.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

As I said before, at this point, Raj, we have no real evidence that any significant amount of subscribers switch due to bandwidth-related issues. I appreciate your anecdotal information, but it isn't evidence. What about the people you know who haven't switched? What about the people you don't know? We have no real evidence that Comcast would be better off doing anything other than they're doing now. We have no real evidence that they should do anything differently. Actual evidence is what they have to make their decisions based on, not personal anecdotes. Evidence is the key. Data and evidence. Marketing data. Research. Projections. Forecasts. These things are real tools for managing business. Not anecdotes.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

bicker said:


> We currently use analog service for TWC (mostly) on the bedroom DVR (a TiVo Series 1), and current use analog service for Travel Channel, Food Network, and E! on the kitchen DVR (a TiVo Series 2). Clearly, with FiOS, we'd lose these services


Just get a couple of DCT700's for them.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Does FiOS offer (specifically) DCT700s? 

Regardless, I don't have service on the S1, so I suspect its database doesn't have instructions to drive a DCT700 (assuming I could even find two sets of IR emitters ).

My wife confirms that we really don't need the S1 in the bedroom. All we record is TWC local on the 8s... we can just wait 10 minutes. 

But the S2 we'd like to keep.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> Does FiOS offer (specifically) DCT700s?


Yup.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Raj said:


> Probably never going to see FiOS where I live.
> 
> Our local phone company, Embarq, has been talking about fiber, but hasn't laid out any clear plans as to what they're going to do.


we can dream but I really doubt embarrras ever goes fiber. We can only hope that VZ buys out embarq's NJ assets.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

MickeS said:


> I don't know about FiOS, but cable companies often have obligations that they have to meet in order to keep the cable franchise. For example, there was recently a rather big fight between my city and Cox about whether they should be able to drop some of the local access channels, so they could do more with digital channels (they were required to have something like 8 analog local access channels... that barely nobody watches).
> 
> Cable often seem to want to have their cake and eat it too - keep the local franchise monopolies, but don't want to meet the obligations that come with it. Not sure if FiOS is in a similar situation.


FIOS typically needs to get a cable franchise. They can go town by town and get cable-like agreements (which they hate since it takes forever and has tons of variables) - or they can try to talk the state into giving them a statewide franchise.

Here in NJ they got a statewide license and they are rebuilding like mad (310+ out of ~560 towns in the state now have fios tv after just about 24 months of trying- more places might have fios without tv and some of us unlucky towns are served by embarq).

In exchange for the statewide license they agreed to wire X towns within Y years, and to wire every home in their service area that is within a certain density by another date. (I think 5 years is the deadline- but forget)

At the time they made the deal the head of Verizon got right to the point at hearings and said look, Ive got X dollars allocated to building out fiber in the next few years, states that give me statewide rights will get a disproportionate amount of that money as its easier for us- dont give us a statewide license and well spend out money where they will  Depends on how you read it- either a threat or just being honest.

Additionally the law they go forces them to give each town two public access channels (with more if the town "demonstrates need"), free cable and internet to pretty much all municipal buildings (fire stations, library's, schools, town halls, etc), and towns have to be given the opportunity to broadcast live events like school sports or town meetings. Also they agreed to give double the usual franchise fee- towns usually get 2% the statewide fee is 4% with just a little going to the state- probably to get the towns to stop whining that they were losing control.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

One thing i dont understand is why they dont seem to have any inclination to overbuild on other peoples territories. As above NJ has Embarq in a few handfulls of towns- all surrounded by VZ. They are in the more historically rural parts of the state (not much or NJ can still be called rural) so in many instances they are very wealthy towns.

The central office in my town is embarq. The one to the south and the one to the east are both verizon. My town has cash. I dont understand why they wouldn't overbuild here too. Here they could be busy here building out the towns they are required to by the law. 

But bigger picture they have never publically said they might go after other towns they dont currently server at some point down the road.


----------



## cramer (Aug 14, 2000)

The word you are looking for is "right of way". They put their cable where they can. This is mostly where Verizon already had services... replace the copper with fiber, and *poof* FiOS. In areas outside their traditional telco footprint, they have no access to right-of-way, so they cannot run their cables -- underground or on the utility poles. Getting access to RoW is a complicated process.


----------



## thegeek (Dec 16, 2002)

The franchise rights are actually more annoying than that. If Verizon already has fiber laid and is servicing phone and internet over it, they have to get an additional franchise right to serve TV over that same exact fiber. That's right, just to send an additional service down the same already existing fiber, no digging, just hooking up stuff, they have to go through additional BS.


----------



## Gregor (Feb 18, 2002)

thegeek said:


> The franchise rights are actually more annoying than that. If Verizon already has fiber laid and is servicing phone and internet over it, they have to get an additional franchise right to serve TV over that same exact fiber. That's right, just to send an additional service down the same already existing fiber, no digging, just hooking up stuff, they have to go through additional BS.


Verizon has been able to cut through a lot of red tape on that. I know in PA they were able to get a statewide franchise agreement, rather than negotiating with every township, as Comcast (or it's predecessors) did. I believe they did the same in a few other states as well.


----------



## oViTynoT (May 18, 2007)

I live in Verizon territory (Plano, TX area). They are currently overbuilding in quite a few of AT&T's established markets.

See this  interesting article.


----------



## sinanju (Jan 3, 2005)

thegeek said:


> The franchise rights are actually more annoying than that. If Verizon already has fiber laid and is servicing phone and internet over it, they have to get an additional franchise right to serve TV over that same exact fiber. That's right, just to send an additional service down the same already existing fiber, no digging, just hooking up stuff, they have to go through additional BS.


It's funny... here in Massachusetts, the rights have to be negotiated town-by-town. The town I live in has an agreement, but the neighboring town doesn't. The only way to get to my house, though, is through the neighboring town and that's where the fiber comes from. Folk on my road would love to have TV in addition to phone and internet, but only the last few houses on the road do, because we're over the town line.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

cramer said:


> The word you are looking for is "right of way". They put their cable where they can. This is mostly where Verizon already had services... replace the copper with fiber, and *poof* FiOS. In areas outside their traditional telco footprint, they have no access to right-of-way, so they cannot run their cables -- underground or on the utility poles. Getting access to RoW is a complicated process.


I could be wrong but i am pretty sure they have complete access to right of way- underground access can be given in the franchise agreements.

Access on "telephone poles" can be gotten by paying a fee (that I beleive is regulated by the state) to the owner of a pole. Plenty of times cable and verizon pay the local power company for the right to hang their wire lower down on the power pole. In fact probably the vast majority of "telephone poles" are owned by the power company. Read the steel plate on the pole and you can figure out who owns it usually. It's very rare for a pole to only have telco or cable on it- usually it has power on top and since the power company needs a taller pole they spring for the bigger pole and rent space below for the others to use.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

oViTynoT said:


> I live in Verizon territory (Plano, TX area). They are currently overbuilding in quite a few of AT&T's established markets.
> 
> See this  interesting article.


that's GREAT news.

maybe those of us not currently served by VZ will have a choice.

actually this is really great becuase people in overbuilt areas could then in theory have THREE choices for tel/internet/video- the cable company, the incumbant local phone company, and then verizon.

now THAT is competition for the masses


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

the article mentions a bunch or reasons why it works in texas- but there's 3 good business reasons it works anywhere 1 (from the article)- they already advertise in the area so why not take advantage of adjacent locals- so it's the same as an incumbant market2) (from the article)- it's even easier to build since they just go in clean and dont have to convert any copper- so it's better then an incumbant market. And 3 (my own opinion)- they get to kill the union- in areas where they are the local incumbant they typically have unions to deal with and can't just go all non-union- but they are hiring non-union fiber workers (at least here in NJ) as they argue with the union that it's data and not voice and that it's not regulated like their copper stuff. So in areas where they aren't the local company they can pay their workers much less- advantage overbuilding.


----------

