Woochifer
03-29-2010, 02:38 PM
Looks like those of us who've been waiting for FiOS' fiber-based internet, voice, and TV service to arrive in our areas will be waiting indefinitely. Verizon's $23 billion fiber expansion investment is coming to an end this year, and they will concentrate on shoring up the service in existing territories where they have been granted franchises. No expansions into new territories are planned.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2011449152_apustecverizonfios.html
Verizon never committed to bringing FiOS to its entire local-phone service area. It has introduced FiOS in 16 states, but the deployment is concentrated on the East Coast, and Verizon is selling off most of its service areas in the Midwest and on the West Coast. Its stated goal was to make FiOS available to 18 million households by the end of 2010, and it's on track to reach or exceed that.
This also means that the competitive pressures on cable and satellite operators will begin to subside as well. Not necessarily a good thing.
http://www.multichannel.com/blog/BIT_RATE/30944-The_FiOS_Finish_Line.php
Does this mean FiOS is becoming a less potent competitor to cable?
Sanford Bernstein’s Craig Moffett thinks so, adding that AT&T’s U-verse expansion is slowing down as well: “As Verizon’s and AT&T’s fiber rollouts near completion, the competitive pressure posed by TelCo video on cable and satellite is likely to meaningfully subside,” he wrote in a note Wednesday.
Understandably, the infrastructure costs for fiber are enormous and FiOS is competing in a labor intensive industry with high costs for customer service and programming. But, as a consumer, I would really like an additional alternative for my internet and TV services.
As these pissing matches between program and service providers have escalated, consumers have been caught in the crossfire. (e.g., Versus going dark on Directv for 7 months, all of Scripps' networks [Food Network, HGTV, etc.] went dark on Dish, Fox and ABC affiliates have had disruptions on various cable services, etc.) And all the while as monthly fees have increased, service quality has declined. A little bit of competition would be a good thing, but it seems that the trend is moving more towards consolidation and territorial horse-trading where de facto non-compete arrangements are the order of the day.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2011449152_apustecverizonfios.html
Verizon never committed to bringing FiOS to its entire local-phone service area. It has introduced FiOS in 16 states, but the deployment is concentrated on the East Coast, and Verizon is selling off most of its service areas in the Midwest and on the West Coast. Its stated goal was to make FiOS available to 18 million households by the end of 2010, and it's on track to reach or exceed that.
This also means that the competitive pressures on cable and satellite operators will begin to subside as well. Not necessarily a good thing.
http://www.multichannel.com/blog/BIT_RATE/30944-The_FiOS_Finish_Line.php
Does this mean FiOS is becoming a less potent competitor to cable?
Sanford Bernstein’s Craig Moffett thinks so, adding that AT&T’s U-verse expansion is slowing down as well: “As Verizon’s and AT&T’s fiber rollouts near completion, the competitive pressure posed by TelCo video on cable and satellite is likely to meaningfully subside,” he wrote in a note Wednesday.
Understandably, the infrastructure costs for fiber are enormous and FiOS is competing in a labor intensive industry with high costs for customer service and programming. But, as a consumer, I would really like an additional alternative for my internet and TV services.
As these pissing matches between program and service providers have escalated, consumers have been caught in the crossfire. (e.g., Versus going dark on Directv for 7 months, all of Scripps' networks [Food Network, HGTV, etc.] went dark on Dish, Fox and ABC affiliates have had disruptions on various cable services, etc.) And all the while as monthly fees have increased, service quality has declined. A little bit of competition would be a good thing, but it seems that the trend is moving more towards consolidation and territorial horse-trading where de facto non-compete arrangements are the order of the day.