Verizon FiOS reveals new 500 Mbps download speed tier

While only a few places in the U.S., including Kansas City, currently have ways to sign up for a 1 Gbps Internet service, a lot of cities in the country can sign up to use Verizon's FiOS service. Today, the company announced a new top speed tier that, while not up to the 1 Gbps speeds that Google Fiber offers, is still much faster than what other ISPs have available.

Verizon's new stop speed for FiOS is 500 Mbps for download, with a still speedy 100 Mbps for upload speeds. While Verizon's announcement does not reveal the pricing for this new speed, DSLReports.com has a post from a customer on their message board who managed to find out that it will cost a pretty penny; $299 a month.

In its announcement, Verizon tries to show that faster Internet speeds will help both consumers and businesses. It states:

While these speeds may not be standard for most (today!) let’s look at the bigger picture: the evolution of technology and the importance of broadband. The average U.S. household currently owns 7 internet connected devices, according to The NPD Group and that number will only continue to grow. By 2022, the average household with two teenage children will own roughly 50 Internet-connected devices, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

With Verizon now offering this faster speed tier, even with its premium price, you can expect other ISPs like Time Warner, Comcast, Charter and others to follow suit in the near future.

Source: Verizon | Image via Verizon

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

More Nokia Lumia 625 details leak out; will likely be revealed Tuesday

Next Story

Flaw in SIM encryption leaves millions of old phones at risk

35 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

With Verizon now offering this faster speed tier, even with its premium price, you can expect other ISPs like Time Warner, Comcast, Charter and others to follow suit in the near future.

Doubtful. I live in one of the 25 largest metro regions in the US. My top-tier residential ISP options are: Time Warner Cable at 50 Mbps down/5 up, and AT&T U-verse at 24 Mbps down/3 Mbps up. And both have a 250GB/month cap. They aren't even close to matching the old FiOS tiers of 75+Mbps down, let alone their upstream speeds. If FiOS was available here, I'd switch even if it meant paying twice what I am now for Internet. Unfortunately, none of Verizon's competitors offer anything like it.

Currently I have Clear. Since I pay $45/m for what averages out to less than 300kps down (in the middle of a major city), it is clear to me that their CEO is Satan the Devil.

In 2-3 months, though, I should have Google Fiber and then have 1gig down for $70/m. Then, I will be able to point at those that purchase this service from Verizon and laaaaaaaauuuuuuuugh!!!

I don't get why is Verizon so expensive.. I was looking at the pricing for Gigabit Google Fiber and it was around the same price as Verizon's 50/25 Mbps plan. Some third world countries have at least 100 Mbps symmetrical for a fraction of what Verizon charges for their lowest tier Quantum plan. It would be nice to extend service to some rural areas. The mobile home park my parents live at which is only 8 miles outside the city I currently live in that gets Fios service doesn't get any kind of cable or fiber service. They have to rely on high latency satellite, dial up or capped Home Fusion and it's not certain yet if Home Fusion will cover their place of residence.

With how much their customers pay them why not extend their network a bit further in some areas. It bugs me now that I've heard they won't be doing any more build outs. A Verizon tech kept telling my parents that Fios would be coming out that way but either the guy was lying or didn't know what he was talking about. There was supposedly funding in NYS to extend high speed broadband internet to rural areas, I wonder what happened to that?

There is also substantial resistance to Verizon's buildout, even in existing areas - by everyone from smart-growthers/anti-growthers to preservationists. Then there is the reality that initial costs to replace copper are still expensive - unlike HFC, which is a hybrid technology used by cable companies, or FTTN, which is the backbone of AT&T's plant, FiOS is all-fiber (identical to that used by Google Fiber, in fact) from premises to customer (hence the other nickname for FiOS and Google Fiber - FTTP, or fiber to the premises). I live in a county (Prince George's County, MD) where FIOS and Comcast compete heads-up (and have been for years), and the rollout of FIOS here was indeed similar to FIOS (or Google Fiber) rollouts elsewhere. I've used FIOS (not at home, but where family or friends have it) and, while it IS admittedly solid from a technological standpoint, the question has to beg if it is great enough to overcome understandable inertia to making any changes at all. The bigger problem with bandwidth in terms of file-transfer (regardless of what method is used) is bandwidth at the source - not the target. Here's a reality check - less than ten percent of ALL source hosts (regardless of transfer method) can fill up a residential bottom-tier cable-modem, let alone FTTP (or FTTN, such as U-verse, for that matter) connection. Notice that I said bottom-tier - as in the cheapest economy-level broadband connections. Case in point - I have CHSI Performance (just above the old Economy/Lifeline CHSI tier), and *used* to have CHSI Blast (next tier above) - I was comfortable letting Blast go because I was bottlenecked at the source. I had a wireless router with a wired connection for our desktops - both desktops have wired connections to said router. There is absolutely ZERO bottleneck at the router, or even at the desktop. (Mom's desktop has 100 mbps, while mine, which is the admin box, has a gigabit adapter; I replaced the original wireless router with a gigabit adapter *after* letting CHSI Blast lapse back to Performance - even then, the router upgrade was more about wireless connections, though it did include wired gigabit. If anything, it will be wireless clients, not wired ones, that will be bottlenecked at the client.) Even Google Fiber is basically cherry-picking where to roll out the service - more so than Verizon ever did; Verizon's original plan was to roll it out across the entire footprint. (The objections came, in point of fact, from both Verizon's board AND Verizon's bondholders - fiber rollouts aren't cheap. It's why even AT&T chose FTTN.)

Meph said,
Gosh. And I thought 80 Mbps at £35/month (inc. line rental) was expensive.

Mobile phone and internet services are a robbery here in the US....

There's on-line graphics editors now. As far as performance graphics like 3D animation, latency is usually the problem and not bandwidth. The speed of light puts are a hard cap on the minimum latency.

Spicoli said,
There's on-line graphics editors now. As far as performance graphics like 3D animation, latency is usually the problem and not bandwidth. The speed of light puts are a hard cap on the minimum latency.

Having a higher bandwidth usually reduces latency. % of network use can be more important then other.

Spicoli said,
Nothing has really changed service wise since the early days except the media files are bigger. Super-mega-HD video?

4K WAV audio @ 7.1 Chan Uncompressed video without lagging .

Couple of TB XD

Shadowzz said,

Having a higher bandwidth usually reduces latency. % of network use can be more important then other.

The two are independent. You have to pay more for a prioritized low latency service. You still have the speed of light limitation which is noticeable with a server any significant distance away. A loop from coast to coast in the US is going to be around 25ms. Local network latency is usually a fraction of a ms and even then graphics are pretty jumpy.

Edited by Screw this Nazi Site, Jul 23 2013, 11:07am :

They are not independent. Sigh

Go clog up your bandwidth 99% and go check your latency.

Either clog the isp connection or your home connection, pick one. Your latency won't be <10ms like before (if it was).

The speed of light is basically instant for us on such "short" distances like we use them on earth.
300.000km per hour on a planet only 8000km wide. Its not the speed of light causing low latency with anything EXCEPT space craft out of earth's gravitational pull.

That 25ms loop isn't caused cause of lightspeed delay.
In 13ms the light signal can travel a loop around the earth.

Edited by ShadowMajestic, Jul 23 2013, 12:26pm :

Comcast at 500mbits... haha. Verizon will crush the competition. 300$ a month is a bit much, I would have liked to see them drop the price of their 150mbps package. I have 75/35 right now myself. With the lovely fluff verizon provides, I end up getting 85/40.

The only thing stopping cablecompanies from doing 500 down is the cablemodems. cablemodems only bond 8 channels which is only 304 down. ones that can bond 16 and 24 channels are coming out.

FiOS has always been unlimited. I think the only case of Verizon setting a limit was when that guy was running a VPN service using his FiOS connection (which is understandably against their ToS).

source: I have FiOS.

TruckWEB said,
$300/month for Internet?? Serious?

That's nothing. We currently pay $2000/month for 100Mb/100Mb for our school. Hopefully things like this will bring the cost down

farmeunit said,

That's nothing. We currently pay $2000/month for 100Mb/100Mb for our school. Hopefully things like this will bring the cost down


Usually schools pay for a SLA.

TruckWEB said,
$300/month for Internet?? Serious?

Is it at least unlimited?


Pffft. In my country, to get 20 Mbps you need to pay 500$ a month.
I pay approx. 100$ and have 4 Mbps.

Jose_49 said,

Pffft. In my country, to get 20 Mbps you need to pay 500$ a month.
I pay approx. 100$ and have 4 Mbps.

Sorry for sounding rude