how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
530 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
AJ023
join:2001-12-25
Forest Hills, NY | Let the competition BEGIN! According to what I heard apartments in NYC will only get fiber to the building if they dont already have it so even though Im looking forward to fiber, I honestly dont think that the buildings will pay the thousands of dollars necessary to outfit new equipment. I guess if the tenants really and I mean really want it, we could take a vote on it with the co-op board and such cost to run cable though would mean extra money per month on our maintanence bills for upgrades.
I think this ruling is in all of our interests however. In my area we have 3 broadband options, RCN, Verizon and Time Warner and all 3 will be triple play options with voice, video and data now that Verizon will be doing FIOS with TV. Also let us not forget, home owners and apartment owners with balconies and the like (I dont have such) will be also able to still get TV through DIRECTV and Dishnetwork and even 2 way satellite internet and the like. So on the TV side we will have competition, and on the broadband side, we will have competition although not as good due to latency issues at this time. Higher revenue per user means we get fiber and we have competition especially in NYC Metro. Time Warner will have to increase speeds and be more competitive on pricing to compete. And RCN will have to figure out a way to profitability whether it be with a takeover, or whatnot. Infrastructure is there and in place and will definitely be used even if RCN does not emerge from bankruptcy because the big cost was rolling it out which increased RCN's debt load. 3 options for us for wired broadband/CATV is excellent. Unfortunately most areas will have 2 providers and some may only lucky to have 1. And some areas will have a competing municipal fiber company as well.
This will not entrench the companies providing our broadband because there will be competition for something that is REALLY EXPENSIVE to roll out and deploy. As prices come down, we will have new entrants gradually come in. Companies can also come outside of their own territories and compete as well. So if SBC wanted to they could also come into play in NYC for fiber although likely only after they built fiber in their own markets that was profitable.
This news is WIN WIN for all of us and its the only way to lead us to fiber and newer services and will encourage the incumbent cable cos to move/build out more fiber.
Now let the COMPETITION BEGIN!  Right now Im on RCN whos bankrupt and service quality is bad (For users in my community at least) . However they are bankrupt and are competing solely on price to retain their existing customers.
With competition on RCN, Time Warner or Verizon, who would you choose? Now we will finally after years of having a forced cable + telephone company have REAL choice! | |
|  Reviews:
 ·WOW Internet and..
| Re: Let the competition BEGIN! you can put a dish inside a window as long as the window does not have lead in it and the screen is fiber glass or no screen there. i'm gonna have this done to my dish. already had the local dish company here great view from the window and now the install after i'm back from vacation. | |
|  gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | How the hell is anyone going to compete with fiber >??!!?
I dont think anyone can at this time.
Do you think that multiple companys will run fiber to your home? I dont.
We arent going to have a choice, take the fiber or settle for inferior service. | |
| | AJ023
join:2001-12-25
Forest Hills, NY
2 edits | Re: Let the competition BEGIN! All three wont have fiber to the home at first, but remember copper to home is fine for our needs now. The Cable companys usually sell 3000/384k while cable can handle much faster speeds. Eventually all competitors will get to fiber to the home, but Verizon starts it first. And remember, Time Warner has loads of fiber already in their system and has been expanding their fiber further. They will all have to compete on price and quality and speed. And dont think for a minute that the higher speeds will be cost effective for consumers either at first. Fiber will be moving closer to residential homes and apartments. Speeds will be going up, competition will be fierce. Thats a good thing. With Verizon coming into the market, Time Warner will have to speed up deployment of faster products and move more fiber in our communities.
Verizon just starts the ball first. But do you care if the system is on coaxial or fiber if you are getting the TV you want and the internet and phone service you want? Nope you dont. As long as it works and works well.
RCN is now Fiber to 900 feet. Time Warner has moved fiber closer as it splits nodes. Verizon will be FTTH first. Thats all.
| |
| | | gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | Re: Let the competition BEGIN! I guarantee you my county will not let more than one company (SBC) dig up the streets to lay fiber.
SBC already ran the fiber 10 YEARS ago and it was a massive traffic jam project that took years to complete. | |
| | | | AJ023
join:2001-12-25
Forest Hills, NY | Re: Let the competition BEGIN! NYC has no problems with fiber and broadband competition and the laying of it. The city wont hold up broadband because of such. Work is constantly done all the time by multiple players for fiber. Usually it wont require a road rip up because it can be run through manholes and the like. A road rip up could be required if the company were to get its own manholes though or whatnot. But that wont be an issue in terms of broadband deployment. In a local community could they block broadband deployment because of traffic concerns? I guess the local community could fight against it. But in NYC the traffic is so heavy anyways, noone will complain and people want their broadband. I was not here when RCN was deployed and RCN got their own manholes here and you can see road patch where the road was ripped up when they placed the cables. Also keyspan is ripping up the roads all over as well.
We almost had another player that wanted in, called Urban Transport Communications which actually went through the process to get an OVS franchise. So the truth is we almost had 4 companies here. But now that RCN went bankrupt, the 4th player wont go in and it wont get any financing. Issue is definitely not road ripups for deployment, at least not in most areas. Heck, when any area got the fiber pipes during the telecom boom, usually it was multiple cables that went in from various companys.
If the citizens want it and they do and if the company is willing to do it, they will. | |
| | | | | gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | Re: Let the competition BEGIN! They have to go through the local communities to get a contract for any service.
It has to be voted on and so forth, takes time and money.
They made the cable co (PCI>ATT>COMCAST) put thier lines on tele poles when the fiber was already in the ground at that time. | |
| | | | | | AJ023
join:2001-12-25
Forest Hills, NY
1 edit | Re: Let the competition BEGIN! Yep everything takes time and money and yes new entrants need to be approved by the community for a new franchise. But existing franchises are always expanding their fiber footprint consistently and moving it closer to the home.
And every community will have their own requirements. A community could say no to new entrants. My comments were for my community of NYC which will allow new entrants and has allowed for such including 1 that hasnt deployed due to funding and the like.
But in responce to: Do you think that multiple companys will run fiber to your home? Absolutely. But not right away from most companies. Plenty of more life left in existing copper pipes. It will be a constant extension of fiber/node splitting/higher docsis specs till it gets to fiber to the home by all the providers, first started by Verizon.
Thank goodness we dont have the days of dialup modems and only a regulated monopoly. And time time, we will have a competitive environment so that technology wont be stagnant like what happened with the copper phonelines.
| |
| | | | | | | gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | Re: Let the competition BEGIN! Good news for NYC, not for where I live.
SBC is the only phone co, comcast the only cable, and pg&e the only power. We have no competition for any local services here and it doesnt look like we will ever. | |
|
| | AJ023
join:2001-12-25
Forest Hills, NY | Re: Let the competition BEGIN! In NYC Metro, WiMax will not be a factor for residential broadband in homes. While I am aware that AT&T and other companies are committed to using WiMax, we have significant competition for wired deployment coming from Time Warner, RCN and Verizon respectively. And while all 3 players will not have entire fiber to the residential areas, the backbones are all fiber and the last mile is moving to fiber on a constant basis so the transition is always being made. WiMax is great for rural areas where there are no municipal fiber options and as a backbone for wifi access points and other uses. But as for the last mile in metro areas which already have 3 major carriers for residential, it wont be a factor. The bandwidth is lower than what we can get on verizon's fiber (when deployed) or even on coaxial cable. | |
| |  DrTCPYours trulyPremium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX | said by John Galt:
I would bet that WiMAX will be the wave of the future.
Well not exactly. Over those fiber lines telcos will start offering Digital TV services etc.. WiMAX is not capable of offering such services. The bandwidth is much more limited. Guess what if you bundle your TV services with broadband you will get 50% discount so that you will not want to go to WiMAX for broadband either. Leveraging of monopolistic powers to crush competition! | |
| | |  John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:3 | Re: Let the competition BEGIN! My point was that the costs of the infrastructure replacement WILL severely limit the amount of penetration that fiber can achieve. And THAT is what drives the decision to provide services by ANY means...it is called ROI, return on investment. And that means, in a practical sense, what is known as 'pass-by' in the industry. The more 'homes' (or other potential customers) that you pass-by per installed foot of cable, the better.
I install this type of equipment for a living...I KNOW what it costs and how difficult it is, especially in the big city urban environment. The cost PER FOOT (and that is how we measure it) is high, and unless the 'investor' can recover their costs in a reasonable manner and appropriate time frame, it just won't happen.
(Just so you understand, it costs $87,000 a week to run my crew, and that is for 40 hours, no OT and no weekends, and doesn't include materials).
I am always amazed at the number of 'experts' on the boards here who say that 'all you have to do is...'. It is one thing to sit and type that, and quite another to actually do it, and still another to pay for it. I'll install the infrastructure for you, but you're going to pay...
I will agree with AJ023 that in the big city WiMAX will not be as big a factor as in the 'burbs and rural areas, because the pass-by in those areas is very high, typically. The problem there, however, it the disruption of the area during the installation. In a developed city such as NYC you almost ALWAYS have to install new conduits and such for the fiber because there are issues regarding pull tensions and bend radius that MUST be considered, and installing fiber in conduits with other existing systems is virtually impossible, if cost is a consideration (and it most always is).
The issue of the pass-by/installed cost ratio becomes increasing important in the 'burbs as the density goes down...we are now getting fewer potential customers per foot than we were in the big city. Now, if you are building NEW subdivisions, this is where you can make some headway on getting fiber installed, because you are doing the installation anyway, and it really doesn't matter to me (the installer) if we are putting in copper or fiber, it all pays the same.:)
If you are talking retrofit in established communities, then there is a whole different set of circumstances...whether the infrastructure is underground or overhead on poles, on the street and I don't EVEN want to talk about working in subdivisions where the services are located in the backyards along the common lot line...!
And as far as our friends in the rural communities...I hate to be the bearer of bad news but it just isn't, in all likelihood, going to happen for you (the installation of fiber, that is). I live in Oregon and there are PLENTY of rural areas here so I get to see that and know what it takes. No investor is going to to pay (for example) $150K to run fiber out to 4 or 5 houses way out in the country so they can recover their investment at $200 a month. That's a 62.5 YEAR payback, THEN we start making a profit. See what I mean? That is why you don't even have cable TV, because the returns do not justify the costs involved.
Now, that being said, I would like to offer a bit of hope by providing you with an example of an actual rural system that is fiber, truck and drop. There is a small (population-wise, it actually covers a large area) town here in Oregon called Scio (pronounced "sigh-O") that rebuilt their entire plant in fiber. Now the difference here is that they are a locally-owned co-op and they made the decision that they wanted to future-proof their plant and have the most up-to-date system that they could afford, and that's what they got. Now they have a 'fat pipe' in the idyllic countryside. You get all your services via fiber.
So, while WiMAX will not have much of an impact in the big city, it is in these other two areas where it WILL have a major impact, because the INSTALLED COST will be very low, comparatively speaking, and in 97% of the cases it will function great. Deployment is a snap...call me today and I will have you hooked up tomorrow. It is about the same level of difficulty as installing DirecTV or Dish Network.
The issue of bandwidth that DrTCP (and AJ023) raises is specious. It is one thing to say that you want infinite bandwidth, it is quite another to actually be able to use it, or in fact, even need it. Sure, it would be nice to have enough bandwidth to run 300 HDTV sets at once, all on different channels...or to download that 300GB file in 0.00023 seconds, but really now...is that necessary?
In reality, you only need a comparatively small (in relation to the theoretical infinite bandwidth of fiber) amount of bandwidth for most uses. Add to that advances in data compression technologies and the 'limited' 75 MBPS that WiMAX will offer will be more than sufficient.
I would take fiber...if it was available. But I would be willing to bet, in fact I AM betting, that in 10 years the amount of penetration that fiber has will be about the same as it is now, probably a bit more in reality, but WiMAX will be huge in terms of penetration and number of households served.
--
A is A | |
| | | | DrTCPYours trulyPremium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX | Re: Let the competition BEGIN! said by John Galt:
My point was that the costs of the infrastructure replacement WILL severely limit the amount of penetration that fiber can achieve.
I agree with your points. That is why I do not see multiple providers each laying their own fiber. That is not going to happen. The most viable option is sharing the infrastructure but making sure the owner is properly compensate during this process.
quote:
I install this type of equipment for a living...I KNOW what it costs and how difficult it is, especially in the big city urban environment. The cost PER FOOT (and that is how we measure it) is high, and unless the 'investor' can recover their costs in a reasonable manner and appropriate time frame, it just won't happen.
This is another reason why CLECs will not be able to lay fiber. By the time they raise money, get right of way permissions and do the project the incumbent has already captured the market and they will not be able to recover the costs (when multiple fiber is in service only one will be active to a particular house meaning the other investment is wasted and there is no way to recover the costs) and so they would go bankrupt.
quote:
(Just so you understand, it costs $87,000 a week to run my crew, and that is for 40 hours, no OT and no weekends, and doesn't include materials).
I am always amazed at the number of 'experts' on the boards here who say that 'all you have to do is...'. It is one thing to sit and type that, and quite another to actually do it, and still another to pay for it. I'll install the infrastructure for you, but you're going to pay...
I totally agree with you. A large number of people (incl. politicians) do not understand the costs and difficulties.
quote:
In reality, you only need a comparatively small (in relation to the theoretical infinite bandwidth of fiber) amount of bandwidth for most uses. Add to that advances in data compression technologies and the 'limited' 75 MBPS that WiMAX will offer will be more than sufficient.
75Mbps of WiMAX will be shared across customers unless more channels are used. Wireless spectrum is much more limited than a cable so the over subscription of bandwidth will not allow services like TV to be offered over WiMAX.
I am not trying to belittle wi-max. I think it would be great to have that option. It will be an opportunity to provide services for less densely populated areas as well. But, it will not be able to provide services that could be provided via fiber (or even cable)
quote:
I would take fiber...if it was available. But I would be willing to bet, in fact I AM betting, that in 10 years the amount of penetration that fiber has will be about the same as it is now, probably a bit more in reality, but WiMAX will be huge in terms of penetration and number of households served.
You will be probably right... Wi-max does not have political arm wrestling problem that fiber (or even ADSL) has. | |
|
| |
|
