Originally Posted by
st1575
It seems like it would have been relatively straightforward for Verizon to offer FiOS in a place like Manhattan where they already had tons of fiber running right into the buildings (and had for many years). I always wondered why they started in a place like Staten Island where the customer base is so much less dense and the service delivery seems more complicated (although negotiating with any NYC landlord or coop board is probably hell). Of course, this is also the company that bullied the PSC to grant state-wide franchises so it didn't have to negotiate with each municipality as is traditionally done for cable. They promised widespread availability, but largely haven't been delivered.
The story of cable operators and ISPs everywhere in places where there's no competition. They fight like hell to stifle competition (look at how vociferously they oppose municipally-led solutions, for example) and then do nothing to improve service while jacking up prices. I have Spectrum at home (the only option for >20Mbps in my area) and they charge me 3x what they charge in places with Fios or Google Fiber for the same speed. Because they can.
I agree that it seems like it should have been easy to offer Fios throughout Manhattan. I don't know why they don't. I think dealing with coop and condo boards is probably the reason, or at least a big part.
A former colleague told me that when he was at Verizon the VP in charge of Fios deployment knew it was going to be a money loser and canceled the buildout in Rhode Island just after they finished building the network past his house...