Overclock.net banner

[TheVerge]500 Mbps Fios connection(62.5 MBps)

8K views 109 replies 63 participants last post by  Newbie2009 
#1 ·
Don't know if this has been posted

Quote:
t's still not quite on par with Google Fiber, but Verizon today launched its fastest FiOS internet package ever, offering 500Mbps downloads and 100Mbps uploads to both residential and business customers. The new top Quantum tier is initially available "in parts" of every existing FiOS market, with Verizon working to extend availability to its entire high-speed internet footprint through next year.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/22/4546286/verizon-rolls-out-fastest-fios-quantum-tier-500-100

For those willing to speed the money it's 369 dollars a month, standalone.

Just for comparison stake

Comcast 300: Around 300 a month

Google Fiber: 70 a month

Fios 500: 369 a month

Just be careful not to abuse the limits

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/05/fios-customer-discovers-the-limits-of-unlimited-data-77-tb-in-month/
 
#10 ·
I really wished they hadnt stopped their original fios rollout. Ive heard that my town was one of the next places on the list. We are stuck with either CenturyLink or comcast here in spokane, and where i live im stuck with this:
2854771403.png

There is fiber in half the streets in town (any street that gets rebuilt gets a fiber conduit put in it), and there is one 200ft in front of my house. problem is that noone is using it.
Google come liberate me please!
rolleyes.gif
 
#11 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMattes View Post

I wish I had Fios in my area (Connecticut). They stopped at the New York border and all I got here is AT&T, Cablevision, and Dish.

The providers here dont even come close, with Cablevision only going up to 50up and 8down and AT&T pretty close to dialup speeds haha
FIOS stopped expanding about 1 mile away from my house.
mad.gif


I was really hoping that would come in to compete with Comcast. Comcast boosted our speeds to 24/3Mbps last year... and I believe it was to compete against Verizon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemesis158 View Post

I really wished they hadnt stopped their original fios rollout. Ive heard that my town was one of the next places on the list. We are stuck with either CenturyLink or comcast here in spokane, and where i live im stuck with this:
2854771403.png

There is fiber in half the streets in town (any street that gets rebuilt gets a fiber conduit put in it), and there is one 200ft in front of my house. problem is that noone is using it.
Google come liberate me please!
rolleyes.gif
Like I said... hack the line and just run a really long Ethernet cord!
 
#12 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACM View Post

If you can pay for $300 internet a month why not just move to a location with Google Fiber?
This is an ignorant comment.

No one wants to live anywhere removed from anything familiar. For example, I think Denmark is the best country in the world to live in but I'm certainly not packing my bags because I don't have anything tying me to that country.
 
#14 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post

FIOS stopped expanding about 1 mile away from my house.
mad.gif


I was really hoping that would come in to compete with Comcast. Comcast boosted our speeds to 24/3Mbps last year... and I believe it was to compete against Verizon.
Like I said... hack the line and just run a really long Ethernet cord!
And where do you propose i get the equipment and figure out how to make them light the line up at the other end?
tongue.gif
 
#15 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemesis158 View Post

And where do you propose i get the equipment and figure out how to make them light the line up at the other end?
tongue.gif
It's a learning experience!

Just do NOT look directly into the fiber line. It can come out HOT and blind you!
 
#16 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apinchof View Post

For those willing to speed the money it's 369 dollars a month, standalone.
Just for comparison stake
Comcast 300: Around 300 a month
Google Fiber: 70 a month
Fios 500: 369 a month

Just be careful not to abuse the limits
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/05/fios-customer-discovers-the-limits-of-unlimited-data-77-tb-in-month/
Hardly comparable since it's local to Chattanooga only but we have symmetric 1Gbps for $299/month. The 100Mbps ($69.99/month) package is enough for me, though
thumb.gif
 
#17 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkuatic View Post

Pretty proportional if you've viewed their plans. Still sick of the fact they abandoned expansion(agreement with ISPs to stop fios expansion) on fios to expand their LTE services.
Dont know where you got that info but Verizon expanded fios in my business area not too long ago, and I talked to their expansion engineer for the 3 cities near me and got him to modify the expansion plans to extend off some other planned work and add our building into the next round. Also Verizon is adding in another few blocks at some apartments nearby I was considering moving to just last month.
 
#19 ·
The majority of consumers don't need a connection exceeding 100Mbps and so this would be targeted towards a very tiny and fractional minority. The only real benefit of FTTH is the lower latency compared with a VDSL2+ or a HFC network and the symmetrical or higher upload.

I've tried various connection speeds and I've found that past 100-200Mbps it's really unnecessary unless there is sufficient demand to use the connection to it's fullest.
 
#20 ·
LOL, We pay $100 for 4Mbps/1Mbps
 
#21 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Awsan View Post

LOL, We pay $100 for 4Mbps/1Mbps
Ok, you win...I thought $65 for 15Mbps down was bad...sheesh I'll just shut up and go to my corner now..
 
#22 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by 45nm View Post

The majority of consumers don't need a connection exceeding 20Mbps and so this would be targeted towards a very tiny and fractional minority. The only real benefit of FTTH is the lower latency compared with a VDSL2+ or a HFC network and the symmetrical or higher upload.
.
There's a point where the bottleneck is the server the site is on, not the bandwidth at your doorstep. Most people, who just browse the internet and check emails don't need the ability to download @ 5MB/s. Only people how need to download full games or transfer large files. Which is the minority.

Mom & Dad's biggest file they've ever downloaded? Probably a 2mb file attachment from their email lol. (disregarding windows updates)

I get away pretty well with 24mbps down, I can imagine 50mbps being the absolute most I need, considering that's plenty enough to download a game off steam, stream a movie on netflix, and play BF3 online with no noticeable latency.

Don't get me wrong, I'd gladly welcome 300mbps connections (for a good price), but in no way does the majority of people need it.
 
#24 ·
I get 60 down and 10 up with comcast here (Was 30 down and 5 up but recently they doubled my speeds for free for whatever reason)
I pay $200 a month on the dot with my triple play...wife has got to have that HBO. Not sure why we have a hoe phone tho...
 
#25 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonX View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dream Killer View Post

This is an ignorant comment.

No one wants to live anywhere removed from anything familiar. For example, I think Denmark is the best country in the world to live in but I'm certainly not packing my bags because I don't have anything tying me to that country.
Why, because I pay ~$50 a month for a 100% unlimited 50/10 connection?
tongue.gif
500GB-1TB a month proves that it's not a problem for them, but at the same time I'm really sure that they couldn't get further away from selling enough subscriptions to saturate it on paper (e.g. 50 10mbit links for a 500mbit connnection) for the fiber link the local DSLAM has.
What does this have to do with my comment on geographically arranging your entire life just for cheaper internet?

It may "not be a problem for them" but supply and demand applies to internet connections (a product), too.
 
#26 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by EniGma1987 View Post

Dont know where you got that info but Verizon expanded fios in my business area not too long ago, and I talked to their expansion engineer for the 3 cities near me and got him to modify the expansion plans to extend off some other planned work and add our building into the next round. Also Verizon is adding in another few blocks at some apartments nearby I was considering moving to just last month.
Verizon announced that they would stop new FIOS expansion a few years ago. Anything that they were working on or were required to by contact.... they have to complete.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 45nm View Post

The majority of consumers don't need a connection exceeding 100Mbps and so this would be targeted towards a very tiny and fractional minority. The only real benefit of FTTH is the lower latency compared with a VDSL2+ or a HFC network and the symmetrical or higher upload.

I've tried various connection speeds and I've found that past 100-200Mbps it's really unnecessary unless there is sufficient demand to use the connection to it's fullest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lacrossewacker View Post

There's a point where the bottleneck is the server the site is on, not the bandwidth at your doorstep. Most people, who just browse the internet and check emails don't need the ability to download @ 5MB/s. Only people how need to download full games or transfer large files. Which is the minority.

Mom & Dad's biggest file they've ever downloaded? Probably a 2mb file attachment from their email lol. (disregarding windows updates)

I get away pretty well with 24mbps down, I can imagine 50mbps being the absolute most I need, considering that's plenty enough to download a game off steam, stream a movie on netflix, and play BF3 online with no noticeable latency.

Don't get me wrong, I'd gladly welcome 300mbps connections (for a good price), but in no way does the majority of people need it.
That's the short-term view though..... very few people need 10Mbps 10 years ago. However, many people do today.

Most people do not need 300Mbps today.... but who knows about the future? Having limited bandwidth itself may prevent future technologies from developing.

i.e. Why are some companies putting in data caps? It's not due to the reason they state... it is extremely rare that one person eats up all the bandwidth. However, it sets precedent for the future. 200GB a month may sound fine today but once high-bit rate 1080p or 4K streaming is available...
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top