Verizon Fios (Fiber-to-the-Premises) Internet (Cheap??)

[Tom McKim]

Here's my 2 cents.

By providing this innovation, what will it do to
current DSL/Cable Modems?

If Verizon can provide a 2MB (I assume symmetrical)
connection for $35 what will it do to DSL and Cable
prices. Why would anyone pay the $50/month for Time
Warner/Adelphia, when one can get a better and faster
connection for less money?

Maybe this will actually make the 56 K connections
extinct.  If DSL and Cable stay around they'll have to
drop in price to say $20/month.  Then people will no
longer associate Broadband connections as a Premium
service and finally make the jump to Broadband.

As of now, I can see no need of actually using a 2MB
connection, but I guarantee I'll be the first in line
when it comes to Buffalo so I can say goodbye to
Adelphia tight grip.

Lastly, I vividly remember in 1999 when asked by my VP
of operations "Is a 4 GB Hard Drive sufficient" and I
thought we'd never need that much capacitly. Boy was I
wrong..


--- Ronald Maggio <ron_maggio2004 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> In response to the following, you are correct about
> progress/innovation, but my comment was about the
> average end user, student and home/small business.
> Do we really need it? It is fine for those that
> truly have a need of such resources. Now think a
> minute, regardless of your computing skills or needs
> do you really think that the average end user which
> is the gross marketed target really needs all this
> and more.
>  
> Your speaking from where you see it, as your needs
> as a computer professional might surpass the current
> available resources available to you. The industry
> will produce progress/innovation to be marketed, yet
> does anyone really think it is for the consumers, or
> is it for corporate industry. People will always
> want the latest and the greatest as long as they
> have money to burn, and corporations are ready
> willing and able to exploit their egos. We all know
> that the vast computers sold are targeted for end
> users to email, web browse, gaming, and let us not
> forget the parts on the web that make the most
> money! I need not mention.
>  
> So in conclusion, my comment "fast enough &
> Overkill" are valid points as long as the technology
> used as of now by end users can keep up with the
> Internet, but as trends make todays technology out
> of date the market will always have a guaranty of
> more revenue through the pocketbooks of the
> consumers. 
>  
> Ron Maggio
>  
> "Fast Enough" will always be relative to current
> needs. As more, and
> higher quality, content feeds come online more
> bandwidth will be needed.
> I can still remember people telling me that 56k was
> all you would ever
> need. Then came streaming video, and to get a good
> quality feed you
> really needed to get broadband. "Fast Enough"
> assumes that there will
> not be any progress/innovation in multimedia formats
> or content
> distribution. 
> 
> So, for the long term outlook it is hardly overkill.
> Is it overkill to
> have a 200GB hard drive? Maybe it is today, but in
> 2-3 more years it
> won't. We, as a society, are putting more data
> online everyday, and with
> that comes more need for bandwidth and storage.
> 
> Also, Verizon is talking about using the same feed
> to create its own
> cable network. This just might break the cable
> monopolies that currently
> exist in each city. After all, your only choices
> right now are satellite
> or cable if you want more content than is on public
> airwaves. This would
> also drive the need for bandwidth.
> 
> The downside to this is that they are talking about
> making access to the
> fiber lines closed, unlike the current phone lines.
> They argue that this
> is required because the current cable companies have
> closed access.
> Personally, I would prefer it if BOTH the phone
> company and cable
> company were required to have open access. This
> would be better for the
> consumer in terms of competition and innovation. If
> the cable/phone
> companies have closed access they can then regulate
> what can and what
> cannot be put on the network, thus killing the
> end-toend concept that
> the internet was created on. Innovation would then
> be regulated by those
> companies as well. Anyone remember the time when
> AT&T regulated what
> could and what could not be attached to their phone
> lines?
> 
> Some other alternatives to access may become
> available as well, like
> this one:
>
http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2004/07/16/anik040716.html.
> Granted, it's a bit more expensive, but that may
> change as more
> companies put up similar satellites.
> 
> The more competition and innovation, the better.
> 
> Tim
> 
> On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 01:54, Ronald Maggio wrote:
> > Over kill, unless your running a business big time
> and really need the
> > bandwidth and the speed it gives you, or are into
> interactive gaming
> > over the Internet in a big way!
> > 
> > I have ADSL through Verizon at $34.95 a month, and
> its fast enough for
> > the average user. ie: Student, Home to mid size
> Business, and so on. 
> > 
> > Ron
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 		
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!


=====
Tom McKim, MCSE
Network Administrator
Niagara Chocolates
3500 Genesee Street
Buffalo, New York 14225
tmckim at niagarachocolates.com
mckimt at yahoo.com


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/