Verizon is aggressively deploying fiber-to-the-premises here. Because
> I use a local independent ISP there has been a lot of concern about
> the consequences of this action.
> What has now been confirmed by calls to Verizon is that
> - Once the fiber connection is established all services, including
> voice, are moved to the fiber and the copper wires are pulled,
> making it impossible to return to standard DSL in spite of the
> supposed 30-day trial period.
> - The lowest cost package for the fiber connection is 30% more
> expensive than their standard DSL offering
> - They will absolutely NOT allow connections to other ISP's over
> the fiber connection, essentially limiting ISP's other than
> MSN to dialup customers.
> - The lowest-cost package from Verizon that will allow me to
> continue to run my own servers and host my own domain (something
> my local independent ISP actively supports) will cost $99/mo.
> So, while the landscape today includes a diverse collection of local
> and national ISP's with a range of services and cost options, the
> future will be dialup at $10-15/month or Comcast or Verizon/MSN at
> ~$50/mo. No more local businesses, no more local customer service, no
> choice of services.
If accurately described here (and I have no reason to think it isn't) this is absolutely criminal -- and probably entirely typical of what most or all "broadband to the premises" types services (copper, cable, fiber or wireless will try to impose on us).
Has your local government no way to control what comes to your premises over the publicly owned rights of way?
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But what the cableco will _claim_ is that the 'right of way' is not publicly owned; and telco will claim that municipal ownership of the right of way gives unfair competition to them in providing ISP services. Or so they will all claim. PAT]