bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA | wha?
What? ATT would never do FTTH when it would be cheaper to do so than run FTTN/FTTC. Everyone here's told me that! |
|
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
 ·Comcast
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Notice how it took Ed leaving to get FTTH plans even started at the company?
Me thinks At&t may have seen the light. Yes pun was intended and yes I am sure that big Ed waited on this so he could get a huge stack of stock paper , he could sell before the investors smacked them down for fiber.
Oh one more thing , didn't At&t claim FTTH was to expensive for them ? Oh must have changed. We will be seeing another case of redlining and the articles to follow I suppose.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA | AT&T already has FTTH in some areas. FTTH is too expensive also...unless it's in a greenbuild. Soemthing they've always said. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
 ·Packet8
·Cox HSI
| said by bogey780  :FTTH is too expensive also...unless it's in a greenbuild. Only if you buy that bullshit line... And the only people who seem to be pushing for that from ATT are ATT's asshat short term investors. For a company that makes hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars a year in profit, FTTH build outs to existing subs are NOT too expensive.
--
Prove it... |
|
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Atlanta, GA
| said by bmn :said by bogey780 :FTTH is too expensive also...unless it's in a greenbuild. Only if you buy that bullshit line... And the only people who seem to be pushing for that from ATT are ATT's asshat short term investors. For a company that makes hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars a year in profit, FTTH build outs to existing subs are NOT too expensive. That's a rather, umm...unique financial theory. "Hey, we're profitable, so it doesn't matter if we throw money down the drain on a losing project"?
The profitability of a project isn't determined by how much money the entire company makes. And companies that make money didn't get that way by wasting it on projects that don't make more money for them. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
·Cox HSI
| said by RJ44 :said by bmn :said by bogey780 :FTTH is too expensive also...unless it's in a greenbuild. Only if you buy that bullshit line... And the only people who seem to be pushing for that from ATT are ATT's asshat short term investors. For a company that makes hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars a year in profit, FTTH build outs to existing subs are NOT too expensive. That's a rather, umm...unique financial theory. "Hey, we're profitable, so it doesn't matter if we throw money down the drain on a losing project"? Right, upgrading from copper is money losing project... Not. It is called reinvesting dividends, something companies don't seem to do anymore.
--
Prove it... |
|
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Atlanta, GA
| said by bmn :Right, upgrading from copper is money losing project... Not. Apparently you've seen the comparitive financials involved in AT&T's strategy vs running FTTH in overbuild situations? You seem mighty definite about what is best for their bottom line. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
·Cox HSI
| said by RJ44 :said by bmn :Right, upgrading from copper is money losing project... Not. Apparently you've seen the comparitive financials involved in AT&T's strategy vs running FTTH in overbuild situations? You seem mighty definite about what is best for their bottom line. Like I've already said, ATT's current strategy is makes sense if you want to operate purely based on the pressure from idiot short term investors.
What they spend on the initial roll out can be saved in maintenance and labor costs over time and can be recouped in new services (home automation, mutiple HD streams, on-demand/PPV, etc.).
--
Prove it... |
|
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Atlanta, GA | And I'm asking if you've actually seen the financials that prove this, or is it simply your opinion of how the world should be? |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA
| reply to bmn
Bellsouth did reinvest money into the latest and greatest fiber technology in the late 90s. It was called IFITL. It got passed up and abandoned by new tech. You can't keep racing the tech bandwagon or you'll never turn a profit. AT&T is looking at advancing their network without making it prohibitively expensive and unprofitable. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
·Cox HSI
| reply to RJ44
said by RJ44 :And I'm asking if you've actually seen the financials that prove this, or is it simply your opinion of how the world should be? Considering such a report has never been released, no.
However, I've read enough trade articles for network engineers that discuss the cost reduction in maintenance associated with switch from copper to fibre... Additional articles talk about the ability to offer more services over fibre than are possible over copper, much the same way that coax can offer more services than copper pairs.
--
Prove it... |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
·Cox HSI
edit:
June 18th, @05:48PM
| reply to bogey780
said by bogey780 :Bellsouth did reinvest money into the latest and greatest fiber technology in the late 90s. It was called IFITL. It got passed up and abandoned by new tech. You can't keep racing the tech bandwagon or you'll never turn a profit. AT&T is looking at advancing their network without making it prohibitively expensive and unprofitable. Yeah, I know about how that is turning out to be a train wreck today, but with the PONs standards and the fact that you now have an upgrade path with them, using PONs makes sense for Bellsouth and ATT. Additionally, future PONs standards are expect to allow you to migrate up from the current standards, even though no major discussion has started on them because it seems the standards that exist now should work for at least several decades IF deployed properly.
PONs networks are the FTTH networks that are the most reasonable upgrade path for both ILECS and MSOs alike... Starting to upgrade now doesn't hurt either.
--
Prove it... |
|
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Atlanta, GA
| reply to bmn
said by bmn :said by RJ44 :And I'm asking if you've actually seen the financials that prove this, or is it simply your opinion of how the world should be? Considering such a report has never been released, no. However, I've read enough trade articles for network engineers that discuss the cost reduction in maintenance associated with switch from copper to fibre... Additional articles talk about the ability to offer more services over fibre than are possible over copper, much the same way that coax can offer more services than copper pairs. Ah. And somehow you've come to the conclusion that AT&T's strategy is financially unsound. It's a shame their people haven't read all those trade articles... |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
·Cox HSI
| said by RJ44 :said by bmn :said by RJ44 :And I'm asking if you've actually seen the financials that prove this, or is it simply your opinion of how the world should be? Considering such a report has never been released, no. However, I've read enough trade articles for network engineers that discuss the cost reduction in maintenance associated with switch from copper to fibre... Additional articles talk about the ability to offer more services over fibre than are possible over copper, much the same way that coax can offer more services than copper pairs. Ah. And somehow you've come to the conclusion that AT&T's strategy is financially unsound. It's a shame their people haven't read all those trade articles... You're expecting business majors with MBAs to know about network engineering ? Puhleeese. 
Considering Verizon is pulling it off, well, yeah. And considering a local telco near here pulled it off recently, yeah, something seems amiss here.
ATT claiming they can't do it is looking like a lot of smoke. Apparently they just don't have the drive to do it, that's all, and it is going to hurt them.
--
Prove it... |
|
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Atlanta, GA
| said by bmn :You're expecting business majors with MBAs to know about network engineering ? Puhleeese. No, I'm expecting business majors with MBAs to know about making investments pay off. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
·Cox HSI
| said by RJ44 :said by bmn :You're expecting business majors with MBAs to know about network engineering ? Puhleeese. No, I'm expecting business majors with MBAs to know about making investments pay off. And I expect networking experts to making the decisions about networks... If the network guys had been left to do what makes sense from a technology standpoint, this discussion would be done. But no, the MBAs had to stick their nose in and now the network is going to suck for another 10 or 20 years.
And I wouldn't be arguing the position of a lot of IT professionals and you wouldn't be parroting the company line at us...
--
Prove it... |
|
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Atlanta, GA
| said by bmn :said by RJ44 :said by bmn :You're expecting business majors with MBAs to know about network engineering ? Puhleeese. No, I'm expecting business majors with MBAs to know about making investments pay off. And I expect networking experts to making the decisions about networks... If the network guys had been left to do what makes sense from a technology standpoint, this discussion would be done. But no, the MBAs had to stick their nose in and now the network is going to suck for another 10 or 20 years. And I wouldn't be arguing the position of a lot of IT professionals and you wouldn't be parroting the company line at us... I'm not parroting anything. I'm merely questioning your ability to make better financial decisions for AT&T than AT&T can make for themselves. Unlike you, I look at their track record, see their profitability, and believe they know how to make money. Apparently you see their profitability and believe they should let network engineers make strategic financial decisions, believing what...that they'd make even more money?
I believe you need to learn the difference between an engineer and a finance person. Neither one does the other's job very well. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
·Cox HSI
| said by RJ44 :Apparently you see their profitability and believe they should let network engineers make strategic financial decisions, believing what...that they'd make even more money? No, what I'm saying is that they should let their network guys make the network decision and do what is technologically the most sound decision - fibre upgrades instead of the UVerse design in phases (a la Verizon) and fibre in greenfield deployments.
I believe you need to learn the difference between an engineer and a finance person. Neither one does the other's job very well. I already know the difference, thank you. Which is why I think UVerse is a mistake - it is the finance guys overriding the people who know what a network should be. UVerse is a finance guys solution to a technical problem of how does ATT compete with DOCSIS 2.0 and, eventually, 3.0.
--
Prove it... |
|
spg
Grrrr
join:2001-10-31
NOT Texas!
| reply to BosstonesOwn
My crew has been deploying FTTH for well over a year now. In fact, it's been almost two years. What's the criteria? Affluent areas? Nope, it's whether or not the new housing development has over 50 units.
This story is not news, it's old information. |
|
spg
Grrrr
join:2001-10-31
NOT Texas!
| reply to RJ44
Dude, he can't even spell fiber, yet he's an expert on it. If he really knew what was going on, he would know that FTTN is an intermediary step along the way. The cash flow will help pay for the future deployment of FTTP.
He also does not know how the individual Utilities Commissions feel about replacing something that is working just fine, and how capital improvements must be paid for by the shareholders and not the rate payers. Apparently he does not understand that without the dividends he wants to re-plow back into the network, the investors will go bye bye.
In a perfect world, investors would understand the concept of "long term". We don't live in a perfect world and must please the investors of the real world. |
|
