bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to RJ44
Re: wha?
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
Nashville, TN
| 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
| 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
Nashville, TN | 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
Here
| 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
| 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
1 edit | 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
Nashville, TN
| 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
| 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
Nashville, TN
| 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
| 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
Nashville, TN
| 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
| 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 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. |
|
cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX
| reply to bmn
Since your the expert, lets hear some expert answers from you.
Given the much of ATT copper plant is being replaced with fiber, they probably get 2/3-3/4 of the saving that verizon is getting. And they are getting it at 1/3 the cost of verizon. Which is the better investment.
Does verizon get any cost savings by having to maintain their copper network for all those that do not switch to fios?
If verizion and ATT geting similar market share with their video products, who has made the better investment?
What will it cost verizon in lost video sales as it is going to take 2-3 years longer to deploy to 50% than ATT to reach the same milestone.
What will it cost verizon in lost customers if they lose customers to cable since it is going to take them longer to get a triple play.
You have to let network engineers do their job, but you also have to let bean counters do theirs. Every system ever built is collection os compromise on cost, quality and speed. And every compromise or lack of compromise is not without cost. There are more to long term thinking going on than you think. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| said by cwh :Since your the expert, lets hear some expert answers from you. As long as you ask technical questions, not bean-counter questions...
Given the much of ATT copper plant is being replaced with fiber, they probably get 2/3-3/4 of the saving that verizon is getting. And they are getting it at 1/3 the cost of verizon. Which is the better investment. Very short term, ATT gets the win. Long term, Verizon gets the win. ATT will be relying on copper for at least another decade, extending their reliance on high cost last mile technologies. There are the associated costs of loop conditioning and loop repairs since VDSL is even more finicky than ADSL. Verizon, as it adds more FIOS users, will have a reduction in costs as less copper is in the network overall.
Does verizon get any cost savings by having to maintain their copper network for all those that do not switch to fios? Ideally, you would replace all of the copper with fibre in an area, including your voice users and make everything packets. Packet switching has won.
What will it cost verizon in lost customers if they lose customers to cable since it is going to take them longer to get a triple play. What will it cost ATT in customers due to their video offering being subpar (problematic HD, single HD, quality) based on the user feedback I've seen ? From some of the reviews I've read, ATT continues to have issues (some seem to be software related, others design related - ie can't watch DVR recorded shows if your connection is down ?!) and when customers see issues, word of mouth will work against them.
Additionally, I hope most customers are smart enough not to buy into triple play packages... Relying on a single provider for ALL of your services is NEVER a good idea, cable OR telco.
You have to let network engineers do their job, but you also have to let bean counters do theirs. Every system ever built is collection os compromise on cost, quality and speed. And every compromise or lack of compromise is not without cost. There are more to long term thinking going on than you think. There is a point at which compromising quality for cost goes to far... That is what ATT has done here. They are rolling out a product that lacks the power and features of FIOS in order to cut corners and keep their myopic investors happy. ATT is going to be kicking themselves over UVerse in a few years, especially when DOCSIS 3.0 and SDV come out. Pair bonding will only work if there are available pairs and even then, that creates issues like interference in line groups.
UVerse is a nice try... However, UVerse is WAY too short term an upgrade for a company like ATT to be deploying. They need a much better long term strategy.
--
Prove it... |
|
cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX
| FTTP is their long term strategy. U-verse works over FTTP right now. THey are rapidly deploying the service and will likely pass verizion this year with the number of homes passed for fios. They will finish their initial deployment 2 or 3 years ahead of verizion. They then will be able to upgrade to fttc/fttp where needed. It is very solid strategy. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| said by cwh :FTTP is their long term strategy. U-verse works over FTTP right now. THey are rapidly deploying the service and will likely pass verizion this year with the number of homes passed for fios. They will finish their initial deployment 2 or 3 years ahead of verizion. They then will be able to upgrade to fttc/fttp where needed. It is very solid strategy. What do you mean "where needed"? The need to upgrade to fibre is going to be across their entire footprint if they are going to want to even be remotely competitive. It is a sound strategy in the short term only (2-3 years). In the long term (5+ years), ATT it isn't a sound strategy.
--
Prove it... |
|
cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX
| said by bmn :said by cwh :FTTP is their long term strategy. U-verse works over FTTP right now. THey are rapidly deploying the service and will likely pass verizion this year with the number of homes passed for fios. They will finish their initial deployment 2 or 3 years ahead of verizion. They then will be able to upgrade to fttc/fttp where needed. It is very solid strategy. What do you mean "where needed"? The need to upgrade to fibre is going to be across their entire footprint if they are going to want to even be remotely competitive. It is a sound strategy in the short term only (2-3 years). In the long term (5+ years), ATT it isn't a sound strategy. Pair bonding is going to give them the ability to deliver around 60 megs are 3000 feet. This is going to be enough to easily satisify >95% of the customers out there. Add in increased vdsl speeds and decreased bit rates and there should plenty of capacity for the short term. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| said by cwh :Pair bonding is going to give them the ability to deliver around 60 megs are 3000 feet. This is going to be enough to easily satisify >95% of the customers out there. Add in increased vdsl speeds and decreased bit rates and there should plenty of capacity for the short term. Pair bonding has all sorts of other issues. Pair availability, etc. Then you have the crosstalk issue which is the same type of stuff that we had to deal with when we was deploying early 100Mbps and 1Gbps ethernet, only much worse. You also have the issue of plant quality, etc. I've lived in areas that had horrible loop conditions, so how are they going to handle VDSL, which is more finicky than ADSL, and then, on top of that, pair bonded VDSL.
And you see, you stress short term at then end there... A good planner tries to future proof his network for more than three years out. Recently talked with an engineer at a local plant. They could have gone the low quality, cheap route like ATT and run copper for their data network, but instead they went with fibre. They estimate, now, that they won't have to upgrade the physical layer for at least 15 years.
--
Prove it... |
|
