Verizon Pulls the Fiber Alarm
Not that I blame Verizon for trying to defend its $23 billion FiOS fiber-to-the-home network, but the telco’s objection to Comcast’s claim that it delivers services over a fiber-optic network is just plain silly (see Better Business Bureau Refers Comcast ‘Fiber-Optic’ Claim To FTC).
Why is it silly? Because Comcast actually does deliver services over a fiber-optic network — which now spans more than 147,000 route miles of fiber nationwide, according to the cable operator.
The basis of Verizon’s complaint, which it lodged with the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, is that because Comcast’s HFC network uses coaxial cable to connect to subscribers’ homes the MSO can’t claim to employ a “fiber-optic network.”
Well, if that’s the purist definition Verizon is putting forward, it could be argued that FiOS TV isn’t delivered over a “fiber-optic network” either, given that the telco uses coaxial cable to deliver video programming within a subscriber’s home. (This was also pointed out by a reader commenting on my story yesterday.)
Because Verizon uses digital cable/IP set-tops from Motorola, it was ironic that a FiOS TV ad campaign last year slandered cable as somehow based on archaic technology — see FiOS: History Lesson.
Comcast didn’t engage in the NAD’s dispute-resolution process on the complaint, citing concerns that Verizon’s lawyers had access to proprietary information related to some unspecified multidistrict litigation. If an advertiser doesn’t cooperate with the NAD, the group routinely refers the matter to the appropriate government agency (in this case, the Federal Trade Commission).
Meanwhile, Verizon has itself been accused of deceptive and misleading advertising more than once.
Just two weeks ago, Comcast called Verizon’s claims that FiOS TV now offers “nearly twice the VOD” Comcast does “absolutely untrue.”
The New Jersey Attorney General has sued Verizon alleging the telco engaged in “deceptive and misleading” marketing, sales, billing and customer service practices related to its FiOS services.
In November 2008, the NAD — acting on a complaint by Cablevision — recommended that Verizon modify or discontinue certain claims that its FiOS service offers superior sound and picture quality, including that it offers the “the best TV picture, period,” as well as a testimonial claim “it’s the best picture and sound you’re ever gonna get. It’s insane.”
And earlier in 2008, Verizon agreed to discontinue TV ads for FiOS TV quoting a CNET News.com article that included the phrase “a near-flawless TV experience” — which the technology news site said was taken out of context.
BrokeFromComcast commented:
Sick of Comcast Commercials that slam Fios for its
price. When Comcast is $69 a Month for 65 channels
no high def without upgrading your service. I hope Verizon comes to the table and give us what we want a T.V. Provider price war.
digital_dale commented:
Are 10Gb/s networks to the consumer premise going to happen over coax or fiber in the next 10 years? Therefore, what is the advantage to the user if they continue to use coax with its bandwidth characteristics or switch to fiber with its bandwidth characteristics?
The real question is where is the advantage of being fiber actually realized if at all. The challenge to communication applications is they are being aggregated and transmitted over short haul networks using coax or fiber from a central office to the consumer’s neighborhood distribution point and then on to the consumers premise.
This is where the magic happens, coax is trying to maintain a level of performance that meets or exceeds the customer expectation. Fiber by its physical nature is well suited for high bandwidth applications, which is why the cable companies are using it in their backbones, and some metro applications.
Coax is making great strides to increase its bandwidth characteristics in the short haul marketplace but fiber inherent bandwidth capabilities continues to lead in the coax challenge for bandwidth intensive applications. This being stated moving the fiber to coax demark from the central office to the consumer premise means that the individual communication device such as a TV or multimedia computer individual bandwidth requirements are well within the current capabilities of coax cabling.
There is a challenge transporting a multiplex of high bandwidth applications such as a TV or multimedia computer from a central office to a customer premise over short haul coax networks. The coax broadband providers are currently meeting this challenge.
As bandwidth requirements, increase on individual applications such as TV delivered as 1080P or in 3D or the actual number and communication requirements of multimedia computer devices increases within a individual customer premise there will be increased demand to transport even more of these aggregated applications. That said these same applications themselves would become more efficient so the additional bandwidth requirements will continue to remain unknown.
It is the aggregated signal, which itself is composed of multiple high bandwidth signal, that is a transportation challenge to coax not the individual high bandwidth signals so moving the aggregation point from the central office to the customer premise means that no aggregated high bandwidth signal travels over coax for Fiber to the Home networks. And last mile bandwidth bottlenecks are reduced if not eliminated in a Fiber to the Home network.
The competition between fiber providers and coax has led to increased performance to the consumer’s premise, which in turn allows other services to travel also over these broadband networks. Consumers are benefiting during these marketing/technology battles.
Squawk commented:
The MSO argument is ludicrous. When one claims it delivers service of ITS fiber optic network, emphasis should be on "its," that is to the point of demarcation between what is the carrier's network, and what is consider the customers'. It's called FTTH (to the home), not FTTTV/DT (to the TV/desktop) for a reason. The carrier has no control, & cannot be expected to have control, over the physical layer WITHIN the customers' home.
Todd Spangler commented:
Jack,
Were you interested in a real debate, or just name-calling?
The fact is that for FiOS TV, Verizon drops off an RF cable (non-fiber) signal at the customer premises.
Jack commented:
What a suck up to the cable industry you are Todd. The MSO or telco can only control their own plant. They can not ultimately determine what a consumer uses in the home. Further, what's INSIDE a home is the homeowner's network, not the service provider. Comcast has a hybrid fiber network that still has 1990's technology in parts of it. Until they make the commitment to rebuild their entire plant all of their claims otherwise are bogus. Heck, they're even ducking the lawsuit because they know they can't win!
MeanPapa commented:
Not only does VZ use coax inside the home, in a number of cases (where the subscribers are switching from cable to FiOS), they use the existing Coax that the cable company had installed!
