|This is the last time your account was accessed.|
Connect with us
Watch thousands of your favorite TV shows and movies On Demand and Live. Rent or buy your favorites and watch them on any device. Or, check what's on tonight and program your DVR. You can do it all!
Watch Free TV & Movies
Rent or Buy
Set your TV Viewing Experience
12-16-2011 09:57 PM
Are you paying for 35/35 Mbps internet speed but getting less than 25 Mbps wirelessly?
If you are paying for 35/35 Mbps internet service, go to sites like speedtest.net or speedguide.net and see how fast your wireless internet connection is. Is it close to 35 Mbps download speed and 35 Mbps upload speed? If not, then you probably have the same problem that I do. My wireless download throughput has never been higher than 24 Mbps. I decided to pay extra to get 35/35 Mbps service and Verizon is not delivering it wirelessly.
Have you noticed Verizon’s advertising?
Here’s a quote from a letter we just received: “And FiOS internet is the fastest, most consistent and most reliable in America.”
Called them and heard their recording? They brag about how the FCC confirmed their fast internet speeds.
If you subscribe to a plan with 25 Mbps or less download speed you’ll likely get close to that through their Westell 9100EM wireless router. However, if you subscribe to their 35/35 Mbps plan you’ll likely only get 25 Mbps maximum wireless download speed.
I complained about this when the installing technician was still at our home. He said it was probably something on my laptop that was slowing things down. I have a Dell 1558 Studio that is less than a year old. So he brought his laptop in and connected it to the ethernet and got between 38-43 Mbps. Throughput through ethernet is above the 35 Mbps I’m paying for. However, I told him that I use a laptop so that I can use it wherever I want and not have to connect to an ethernet cable. So the technician disconnected the ethernet and checked the wireless speed at a couple different sites. Not once did he get more than 24 Mbps even though both of our laptops were less than three feet from the router. No other electronic equipment was anywhere near the router and our laptops except for the desktop computer.
After complaining to Verizon’s technical department, they sent me another 9100EM router. The results are the same: maximum 24 Mbps wireless download speed. Every time I call customer service they tell me: “You might be too far from the router. Walls, a microwave, a fish tank or a mirror could be interfering.” When I inform them that the laptop is just two feet from the router when I do the speed tests they say “We don’t guarantee the wireless speeds.” This, I discovered, is Verizon’s cop-out excuse that they teach all their representatives to repeat. And they all do it religiously.
I’m not asking for a guarantee. I just want Verizon to deliver wirelessly what they deliver by ethernet. As I found out adequate technology exists to deliver more than 35/35 Mbps.
I decided to research the issue further. I’m paying for 35/35 Mbps service and that’s what I’d like to get at my computer wirelessly and not just by ethernet.
Have you also noticed how Verizon also brags about its advanced fiber optic system? That’s what FiOS stands for. It’s a good system and the throughput is good up to the router and also through ethernet. But how many people use ethernet? The advantage of wireless is not having to run ethernet cables through the house and not being stuck at one spot. Wireless computers are definitely in the majority now with so many laptops being purchased.
So what technology is Verizon supplying with our service? A Westell 9100EM router. Is this state-of-the-art technology? No, it’s out-dated technology. It was first released June, 2008! www.routeripaddress.com/routers/9670/westell-9100e
The problem is that according to the “Verizon FiOS Router Model 9100EM User Guide” http://www.westell.com/docs/support-documents/veri
“I test routers in PCMag's labs, which simulates a "real-world" environment. If the router tests at close to 50% of the theoretical throughput, I am testing a device with excellent speed. Rarely do I see this!”
So when I get 24 Mbps that is 44% of wireless-G’s theoretical maximum throughput. According to testing at PCMag, that is about all that can be expected of this router.
The IEEE approved the 802.11n amendment and it was published in October 2009. But according to Wikipedia “On January 9, 2007, Apple unveiled a new AirPort Extreme (802.11 Draft-N) Base Station, which introduced 802.11 Draft-N to the Apple AirPort product line. This implementation of 802.11 Draft-N can operate in both the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz ISM bands...” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirPort
So, wireless-n devices have been available since January, 2007 - in a few weeks it will have its fifth anniversary and Verizon is still delivering wireless-g routers to go with its state-of-the-art fiber optic system! Verizon has repeatedly refused to send me a wireless-n router that can provide the throughput I am paying for.
While Verizon is five years behind technology, the next generation 802.11ac devices are planned for 2012: http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4231318/Br
Initially a representative told me that Verizon doesn’t have any faster routers. That, however, was a lie. They have faster routers but will only supply them to customers that have 150 Mbps service.
Anybody that is paying extra every month for 35/35 Mbps internet throughput should be supplied with a wireless-n router that will deliver that throughput wirelessly to their computer. We should start a campaign to get Verizon to provide up-to-date routers. Or perhaps we could pay $10 less every month for a year to cover the cost of buying a wireless-n router.
12-17-2011 12:12 AM - edited 12-17-2011 12:17 AM
I'm actually hardwired and my upload speed is still only 6-7mbps. I'm paying for 35mbps, unacceptable.
12-17-2011 09:08 AM
20-30 mb is probably about right for a wireless G connection.
If I were using a laptop and I was only a few feet from the router I'd connect an ethernet cable to it and use the full bandwidth availabe to me.
Actually I do do that every day as I work from home and can't live with the vagaries of a poor wireless connection whoe signal is interfered with by phones, remotes and all kinds of neighbours stuff that I can't control
12-17-2011 11:03 AM
The only wireless device i have connected to my network is my Android phone wich is not that great but i blame the cheap G wifi radio in the phone.as for everything else i am impressed with the 35/35 plan, seeing i got the upgrade for free for extending my contract,
12-17-2011 02:23 PM - edited 12-17-2011 02:29 PM
You sure you're including Overhead in your measurements of 24Mbps? A Wireless G connection is a Half Duplex connection. Unless the lab guys are sending data in only one direction with all Acknowledgements in the other direction disabled, they will by no means see a 54Mbps connection even in perfect conditions. They'll score right where you are hitting. Turn off Acks and at most you'll get 30Mbps in a single direction.
I do agree with the movement to get more up to date specifications in the router, considering how long Gigabit and Wireless N have been out and in formal specs. They don't cost any more than the typical cost of a G/100Mbps unit, either.
As far as not having a guarantee on speeds, to be honest, no one can guarantee speeds on a Wireless connection. Wireless is a whole animal in itself. Think about it this way: I drive up to your house with a laptop and park in front of it in a van. I run a few seconds of data sniffing using the laptop, and notice that you have a Wireless network running on Channel 1. In the back of my van, I have an array of batteries, along with 24 different assortments of Wireless B, G, and N gear each set up to operate on the same channel, with the rest of the settings set to the most optimal settings you could possibly have. I fire up the access points, and then begin to use my laptop to connect to your network (assume that I was given access). Even if I had an Excellent signal, the amount of interference would take the speeds and drop it down to some odd figure below 10Mbps. Link speeds would drop, and due to beacon and "Carrier Busy" signals from the other APs, everything will start to fall. Now, I start to transmit data on a few of the APs in the truck. No know destination, but just as broadcast data meant to saturate the links on the APs of choice. Now we have a case where speeds are falling even farther, as the APs all have to fight for air time as well as the devices operating on the same channel nearby. Additionally, Further away APs creating noise create collisions, further hampering the performance of the network.
See where I'm getting?
Now assume that everything was set up as it should be. I've got several vans located near your home in several key points, an extended wireless site survey was performed and an array of 24 APs are scatters throughout. I have 20 laptops scattered in key locations to be in range of at least 3 APs. Each AP runs on a different channel, 1, 6, OR 11 based on your network's channel as a base. Assume no networks or Wireless devices are in operation from youe neighbors. Each of the Wireless APs are connected to a central network, completely hard-wired and attached is a file server (SAN) meant to serve up 5TB test files over a Wireless link. Assume all APs are Wireless G routers, using 20Mhz Wide channels (spec design). Each AP has a device associated to it, and they all begin to download a 5TB file one at a time. In this scenario, what you will first see is the first device start to download at a rate of 24-26Mbps. As other devices begin to download, but are on different channels, the speeds will remain the same. Once the next device is selected and operates on a channel the first device uses, you will start to see the speeds drop a little bit, as either the device or the access point starts to detect carrier busy signals. As more and more APs fire up, you will start to see speeds start to suffer across all APs, including yours, as noise is induced causing collisions to occur (signal too weak to recognize carrier busy signal). At the same time, your network is starting to suffer performance related issues due to devices in unknown locations and the physics of how radio signals travel.
Now assume we are using Wireless N APs in a mode they should NEVER be set in; 40Mhz wide channels on 2.4Ghz. Each AP is rated for 300Mbps Theoretical in a Half Duplex setup. Same thing as above, as performed, however this time, range and speed suffer at an inconsistent rate due to the amount of noise that is being generated. At the same time, some APs begin to fail to transmit as error counts start to increase beyond an ideal threshold. ACKS fail, the AP stops transmitting data except for keep-alive and broadcast data, and other APs begin to see space freeing up. Speeds go up, and the stalled APs are at reduced link speeds as a result of what happened.
So, now let's assume the APs we use are dual-radio 3x3 Wireless N Access points and our devices support the same setup with two radios. Since a radio can only send or receive data at a single time, this makes a connection half duplex. With two radios, we can now do a full duplex connection. Assume this is your equipment. You'll see if Wireless G could support this setup (N Does), your speeds clocking in around 42-43Mbps assuming some overhead in data in both directions, as each path does not have to wait for another path to speak. Now let's take this same scenario and apply the above. With full duplex connections, we put wireless connectivity to a greater test. Assume everything has been configured to be ideal and work under any situation. We've got the same 5TB file stored on a server, with the proper amount of connectivity to handle the load. So we fire up some downloads from this server. As we download, we'll see the first few devices pull 42Mbps. As other nearby APs start to transmit on the same channels, noise will start to set in. With a full duplex setup, we will start to see a greater amount of collisions occurring, especially as more traffic is put into the air. Speeds will fall sharper, and the risk of stalls further increases.
So, you see why Verizon nor anyone else cannot support a WIreless connection? There's way too much to talk about that can go wrong with a Wireless connection and I don't believe Verizon is in the business of performing site surveys such as those you'd get for an Enterprise environment for the entire country. Verizon Wireless? Well, they pay for their own spectrum, and narturally, they perform a survey of the country in order to ensure they can get coverage to devices but assume that Wireless will have it's downfalls. With Ethernet connectivity, the only factors you have are the gear on either end, and a Cable. The gear on both ends is almost never a factor unless one is defective. From there, you've basically got the cable. A proper cable will be rated to handle 1Gbps (As all Ethernet cables are Twisted Pair, thus noise isn't really an issue), for example. As long as the Cable, and the two pieces of equipment are Gigabit, you will get what you see: 1Gbps all day, all night. If some noise issues do settle in, just add shielding to the cabling or increase the twist amounts. Problem solved. This is how you can see FiOS, being a connection delivered in via a Physical Fiber cable rather than something that comes from the air.
Wireless is a convenience, not a guarantee. If you want speed, you can go for an N router. Yes, it will give higher speeds but you're at the mercy of the radio waves. I pre-wired my home with Ethernet (Two ports per room) knowing the problems WIreless has, and even though 24 other networks show up around me, I get 950Mbps down and up at the same time regardless of what goes on in the air.
12-19-2011 02:58 AM
"If I were using a laptop and I was only a few feet from the router I'd connect an ethernet cable to it and use the full bandwidth availabe to me.
Actually I do do that every day as I work..."
Yes, of course. I have also always connected by ethernet at the office when using my laptop at my desk. But my main reason was that in some cases they had no security enabled.
I'm not sure if my comment that the technician and I were only three feet away from the router while doing our wireless speed tests was misunderstood. That's where he had been sitting to install and setup our service and it was just convient to do the tests where he had been sitting. But I also wanted to emphasize that there had been no walls or distance involved to slow down our connection.
12-19-2011 05:28 AM
“Wireless is a convenience, not a guarantee. If you want speed, you can go for an N router. Yes, it will give higher speeds but you're at the mercy of the radio waves. I pre-wired my home with Ethernet (Two ports per room) knowing the problems WIreless has, and even though 24 other networks show up around me, I get 950Mbps down and up at the same time regardless of what goes on in the air.”
Yes, of course wireless is a convenience. But when we purchase equipment we often pay for wireless technology, so many people want to use what they have paid for. Most current devices with wireless capability and much of what has been produced in the past several years includes wireless-n (802.11n) technology - laptops, phones (my HTC evo 3D), printers/scanners and whatever else people are buying. Since we have paid for wireless-n when we bought our hardware, since wireless-n routers have been available for five years, and since some of us are paying for 35/35 Mbps internet service from Verizon, Verizon should supply us with wireless-n routers. This is not a difficult concept to understand. It is equally not difficult for Verizon to supply the necessary routers for us to get what we are paying for. I believe Verizon 35/35 customers should expect, demand and receive wireless-n routers.
“Wireless is...not a guarantee.” This is the excuse Verizon tells it representatives to give all of its customers instead of delivering current wireless-n technology. That is Verizon’s major deficiency in this context. There should be no problem delivering 35 Mbps three feet from the router. Then educate the customer what can reduce throughput: “Walls and distance reduce the strength of the wireless signal. Put your router in the center of your home, if possible, so that the signal has to go through the least number of walls and the shortest distance.” In this context I really wonder about the relevance of microwave ovens that are cited as interfering with the wireless signal. Does a microwave that is plugged in with just the clock running but is otherwise not in use really interfere with wireless signals? I’m not informed about microwave technology but I don’t see how a microwave that is not currently being used can reduce a wireless signal. Otherwise, microwaves are used so little of the time (often less than ten minutes to heat something) that they would have little overall effect in the course of a day.
What about interference from neighbors? My laptop shows four other wireless routers from my neighbors - two show one out of five bars signal strength, the other two show no bars. My Verizon router and a second router that I just installed are about ten feet from my laptop and both show five bars. Shouldn’t this signal be strong enough to overcome interference from the neighbors’ routers? A test this morning showed that that is possible.
At the end of his long discussion Smith6612 stated exactly what I have been telling Verizon and stated in my original post: “If you want speed, you can go for an N router.” That is the solution! It is available. And it is not at all expensive. PCMag.com has a test of routers and highly recommends one that costs just $60. A Verizon representative told me that Verizon enters a charge of $139.99 for the Westell 9100EM router and then issues a credit for that same amount. Perhaps the 9100EM includes additional Verizon-specific features but my point is that including wireless-n technology is very inexpensive and should be supplied without question to customers paying for 35/35 internet service. This is especially true for a company that continually boasts about the high speed of its internet service. The theoretical high speed is irrelevant for its many customers that connect to that internet service wirelessly. If they are going to brag, then give the customers the speed where they use it - wirelessly on their laptops - and not just at the ethernet connectors on the back of the router. Stop supplying outdated technology: “...802.11g was ratified in June 2003" (that was nine years ago!) http://www.intel.com/standards/case/case_802_11.ht
Smith6612 states: “I get 950Mbps down and up at the same time...” This is obviously a totally different level of service than 35/35 Mbps which is the subject of this thread. As far as I know, the only way to get that level of throughput is with ethernet.
Smith6612 states further: “ I pre-wired my home with Ethernet (Two ports per room)...” Most likely he had to do that to get the throughput being delivered to his home. That isn’t necessary for people getting 35/35 Mbps. It is not easy nor inexpensive to wire a home with ethernet cables. Wireless routers do the same job for less than $100 and provide the convenience of freely being able to use your laptop anywhere in your home or on your patio. This is yesterday’s technology that we want to have and use today.
Speaking of yesterday, yesterday I remembered that Comcast had sent me a free wireless router recently to my home which I hadn’t installed yet. (The Verizon service I have been discussing is at my girlfriend’s home). So I went and got it and installed it this morning. It is a Netgear Wireless-N 150 WNR1000. After installing it at my girlfriend’s home I checked my Verizon throughput at speedtest.net three times - once by ethernet, once with Verizon’s Westell 9100EM and once with the Comcast’s Netgear Wireless-N 150 WNR1000 connected to an ethernet port of the Westell 9100EM. Here are the results:
Dec 19, 2011 5:30 AM
Ping Download Upload
ms Mbps Mbps
Ethernet 48 43.14 15.95
Verizon wireless-G router 45 26.45 14.10
Netgear wireless-N router 56 43.20 15.86
As you can see, the Netgear wireless-N router is just a tad faster than the ethernet connection in download, and just a tad slower in upload.
If Comcast can deliver free wireless routers that provide the same throughput as using an ethernet connection, why does Verizon refuse to do the same? Time to catch up with the competition Verizon!
12-19-2011 10:02 AM - edited 12-19-2011 10:07 AM
I should have clarified the 950Mbps point. That's LAN to LAN interal to my network. Yes, while I work at a Datacenter where everything is all Fiber and Ethernet cabling and we have 40+ mini-APs operational for those who use laptops on carts and are not near a port, I run a measly 1Mbps/384kbps for Internet here at home. I've been waiting for FiOS for years. I might also point out one thing about the DC: It's brand new, state of the art and we had Wireless G installed over N for many reasons. I'm not going to go into it as that is another topic in itself.
My point is, yes, you paid for getting Wireless. Yes, Wireless N has been out for 5 years, yes, it only recently got ratified into a full specification instead of something that was WIP/Draft, and yes, it is an improvement over Wireless G IF properly set up. Yes, it is consumer accepted because it's easy, and yes, it's flexible. What I'm trying to say here is I don't understand why people want to pay for something that has many technicalities as to how it works and yet expect it to do wonders. Wiring up my home with CAT6e cabling cost almost nothing compared to buying decent wireless gear (3x3 N gear, or heck, 4x4 gear that isn't in draft stage, does 2.4/5Ghz bands and doesn't have shoddy drivers). Literally, 1000ft spools of cabling run for no more than $100 and the connectors on either end of the cables cost like a dollar for a bag of 50. Individual cables for the PCs cost no more than 80 cents per cable, and all PCs come with NICs already in them. The tools? Can be any regular household device Decent 24 port switches run for $100 and the wall plates for two network jacks can be bought by the boxload for dollars at most. The work? Yeah, I fished everything through the walls via conduit but you're free to use anything that won't cause problems. Takes a day or two to complete, but man, if it means I can get Gigabit day and night regardless of what is going on with those 24 other APs in my neighborhood, and I'm not dealing with issues with radar detection (5Ghz, baby!) or people sniffing wireless data (even though I use WPA2) then it's so worth it. Want to get Gigabit Internet in my home? Boom, don't need to go out and set up two Wireless APs, then team the wireless radios. It's all just right there. Want 10Gbps? Boom. Swap out the switch, no configuration needed. NICs roll over to 10Gbps if they support it, else they work at 1Gbps without slowing anyone else on the network. Want 9k Jumbo Frames to reduce packet overhead? Go ahead.
The only thing I can say is this to press my point. Think long and hard about it: The Internet runs on Fiber cables for a reason. Not Wireless. Wireless has a future and has it's uses, but it isn't what it is made out to be.
I hate to be blunt but as pointed out since FiOS's inception, the provided router is just a convenience. It's there to give people a feeling of value besides a fast connection. More recent, it's used to deliver interactive services to the television service. Verizon can simply do what big backbone providers do and supply you with nothing more than an Ethernet cable or a fiber cable coming in and make you pay for all the equipment. I'm fine with that as I'll at least be able to use one computer if I had nothing else. Like I said, I do agree that Verizon should provide as a coutesy to customers a Wireless N device, and I've voiced that in many threads but I have a feeling they share my beliefs on how things are. I also believe they are in the works of getting some options out for those who want Wireless N routers with Gigabit, but there's no way to be sure. It's just an internal feeling.
12-19-2011 01:06 PM
I didn't pay for the Actiontec router. It was a freebie and worth every pennie I didn't pay for it.
I did pay for my Cisco, and it gives me N speeds. And I didn't have to spend time and energy argueing with Verizon to either purchase or install it.
12-19-2011 11:52 PM
"Wireless N has been out for 5 years, yes, it only recently got ratified into a full specification instead of something that was WIP/Draft..."
September 14, 2009, 3:24am PDT zdnet.com published the following article from Adrian Kingsley-Hughes:
"802.11n ratified ... finally
Summary: After seven years, the IEEE has finally ratified 802.11n WiFi standard.
After seven years, the IEEE has finally ratified 802.11n WiFi standard.
It’s been a long road to ratification, so long in fact that "draft n" WiFi equipment has been on sale for years. In fact, the WiFi Alliance itself had been certifying wireless gear based on the second draft of 802.11n since 2007."
I wouldn’t consider more than two years "just recently". And the article makes clear that the actual ratification was basically just a rubber stamp on what the Wi-Fi alliance had already been doing for about two years. The only thing that really matters for us is that wireless-n has been manufactured, certified, purchased and used successfully since 2007.
"...yes, it is an improvement over Wireless G IF properly set up." Properly set up? I awoke at 5:12 AM, connected the Netgear router to the Westell router with an ethernet cable that came with the router, connected the second ethernet cable to the Netgear router and my laptop, connected the power supply to the Netgear router, inserted the Netgear CD in my laptop and it installed itself. All of that took 18 minutes. I made no changes to the default settings. Then I went to speedtest.net and ran the three throughput tests I reported in my last post. My download speed jumped from 26.45 Mbps to 43.20 Mbps - an improvement of 63%. Why make people unsure with such comments? Set up couldn’t have been easier.
"I don't understand why people want to pay for something that has many technicalities as to how it works and yet expect it to do wonders." First of all we shouldn’t have to pay extra for this because Verizon is already supplying wireless-g routers for no extra charge. There are a lot of very complex technologies that people use everyday without understanding how they work: many get in a car and drive and have no idea how a car works. The same holds true for millions of people that use computers or even cell phones. Heck, how many people that cook their meals even understand why water boils? Successful and widely accepted complex technologies are those that are designed to be easy to use without understanding how they work. What’s wrong with wanting to get the 43.20 Mbps that are being delivered to my router to make it a few feet further to my laptop or other wireless device? I don’t see why someone would say that that is "expecting it to do wonders."
The costs you describe to install ethernet in a home exceeds the cost of a router. What about the installation time? It took me just 18 minutes to install a router I got for free from Comcast. Compare that to 1-2 days it took you to install ethernet cables. Inexperienced people could take much longer to do the job. Many would be totally incapable of doing that installation. Let’s not forget the time to find the products online and order them. Remember the tenants that aren’t allowed or even want to make that kind of investment of money and time in a home or condo that they don’t own.
I believe the security issue is a scare tactic that rarely affects any of us. How many do nothing more than surf the internet and send and receive personal emails? Most routers certainly are now delivered with at least WEP security enabled as a default setting. Someone would have to be fairly close to my home to even eavesdrop on my information. They would have to be very motivated and savvy to overcome the WEP security. And they would have to have a reasonable expectation of finding something worth stealing to even make the whole job worth their time and trouble. It is very rare that anything worth someone stealing goes through my wireless router.
"... if it means I can get Gigabit day and night..." We’re not talking about Gbps or even 10 Gbps here but rather 35 Mbps. It would be good to keep the comments relevant to our discussion.
It is highly unlikely that anyone driving down our sleepy street has radar detection on. And if they did, how many seconds would it take them to drive by and slow down our throughput?
"The Internet runs on Fiber cables for a reason. Not Wireless." Yes, there is a reason. Data for a lot of people can be sent over fiber cables. But generally there are only a few people in a home using the internet and wireless in a home very much meets the needs for most people and very easily and inexpensively. Comparisons like this are irrelevant.
"Wireless has a future and has it's uses, but it isn't what it is made out to be." Wireless fulfills my needs 100% in my home. In fact, it offers many possibilities that I have no need for. And now with the Netgear wireless-n router from Comcast that I installed today my throughput increased 63%. Verizon kept snubbing its nose at me and refused to deliver the throughput that I’m paying for to my laptop and my phone. Interesting is the fact that I only pay for 15 Mbps with Comcast but they still supplied me with a wireless-n router. I only asked once for the router in a very brief conversation and received it within a few days. I’ve asked Verizon for a wireless-n router several times in long extended discussions on the phone with absolutely no results. In fact, one lady in the Tampa center became belligerent and a man simply refused to talk to me and just hung up. Who is providing better customer service? Comcast or Verizon?
"I hate to be blunt but as pointed out since FiOS's inception, the provided router is just a convenience. It's there to give people a feeling of value..." That is a very poor attitude for a company to have. Companies that respect their customers want to give them real value and not just a deceptive "feeling of value." It just doesn’t make sense for a company to invest heavily in a state-of-the-art fiber optic system only to connect a large portion of its customers with nine-year-old technology when five-year-old technology is much better but not any more expensive.
"Verizon can simply do what big backbone providers do and supply you with nothing more than an Ethernet cable or a fiber cable coming in and make you pay for all the equipment." That is not what Comcast is doing. Comcast provides a wireless-n router free of charge. But if I had to purchase one, I could get a top-performing router for a one-time low cost of $60.
In this context think of Verizon’s policy regarding other equipment. You can’t purchase it. They charge $10 - $20 a month per "set top box". That’s $120 - $240 a year pro TV you want to hook up. Multiply that times the number of years that you have that equipment. How customer friendly is that? How much less would we pay for that equipment in a competitive market?
A similar situation is the Motorola QIP2500-3 set top box they sent me "for free" - it is also outdated technology. First of all we weren’t given a user guide for this equipment but I found one online with a copyright from 2005 so it is at least six years old - once again not exactly state-of-the-art. Second, but more importantly, it doesn’t provide us with all the high definition TV channels that we are paying $30 a month extra for. So Verizon is not just not delivering the internet throughput we are paying for, it is also not delivering the high definition TV channels we are paying for. Verizon has a very poor attitude towards its millions of customers that pay every month for its services.
I find it intriguing that Smith6612 has posted 2,150 messages here and seems to be in agreement with a lot of Verizon’s attitudes and policies. That is 5.8 posts per day, every day since 12-15-2010.