bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
 ·Packet8
 ·Cox HSI
| reply to RJ44
Re: wha?
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 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
·Packet8
·Cox HSI
| 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
·Packet8
·Cox HSI
| 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
·Packet8
·Cox HSI
| 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... |
|
cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX
| You continue to ignore key points I making. SO let me make them again, only this time pay attention.
It is future proof as it is built to use fiber. This aspect has not been left out.
It is rapid to deploy. This is fairly key point giving the land line business is going away.
Worst case ATT is getting 60meg on a pair bonded copper. I think it would be foolish to say they have not considered crosstalk.
If the copper plant is so bad they cant use VDSL, then they can rehab it with fiber, but every node is not going to need such care.
Short term VDSL is the answer. However the defenitiion is short all depends on the demands being put on it. Not every neighborhood is going to have everyone wanting or needing 20 meg internet and 4 HD streams. This is why VDSL is a smart way to get the job done. FTTP is not a one size fits all solution, due to its expense. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
·Cox HSI
| said by cwh :You continue to ignore key points I making. SO let me make them again, only this time pay attention. All you are doing is parroting the ATT company line... Do you work for them ?
It is future proof as it is built to use fiber. This aspect has not been left out. No, it is not, because the have to rip out copper and replace the final last part of the last mile still. Copper and future proof don't belong in the same sentence.
Short term VDSL is the answer. However the defenitiion is short all depends on the demands being put on it. Not every neighborhood is going to have everyone wanting or needing 20 meg internet and 4 HD streams. This is why VDSL is a smart way to get the job done. FTTP is not a one size fits all solution, due to its expense. And ATT will find themselve at this point in 10 years again, trying to find a short term upgrade path that doesn't cost them a fortune, complaining that fibre costs too much then... ATT, we never deliver.
--
Prove it... |
|
cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX
| You continue to the miss the point. Uverse has upgrade paths and they can be implemented as needed. Fiber is the future, but copper will continue to get faster as well.
I guess you would deploy fiber even if there was no ROI on it. Fair enough. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
·Cox HSI
| said by cwh :You continue to the miss the point. No, I get your point. You seem to be reading from ATT's talking points about how they supposedly know better than everyone else in the networking work by believing that copper can be stretched for decades more.
Fiber is the future, but copper will continue to get faster as well. And ATT will continue to waste resources on that path instead of doing it right the first time. And that is going to bite them in the ass. Cable is going to eat them alive.
I guess you would deploy fiber even if there was no ROI on it. Fair enough. Well, if we use ATT's time frame of an ROI within one or two years of deployment, hell yeah I'd deploy someplace that isn't going to show a return that quickly. Sorry, but ATT expects an ROI far too quickly. The ATT management and the the majority of the investors are morons thinking that they should expect an immediate ROI on everything otherwise it isn't worth building.
--
Prove it... |
|
cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX
| You quite simply fail to understand the economics of the situation as well as the technology aspect. Fiber is better, but more costly. It really is that simple. U-verse can easily deliver the services people demand today and can be upgraded to deliver future needs as well. It is that simple.
In short, copper is not a dead technology. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
·Cox HSI
| said by cwh :You quite simply fail to understand the economics of the situation as well as the technology aspect. That is perhaps the funniest thing you have posted yet. Nice one. If anyone has a lack of grasp on the technology here, it is you. As for the economics... Hate to tell you this, but it is always makes more sense the first time. Any engineer worth his salt will tell you that.
Fiber is better, but more costly. As they say, you get what you pay for. ATT and their customers are going to get what ATT pays for - left behind.
U-verse can easily deliver the services people demand today and can be upgraded to deliver future needs as well.
I think, based on the reviews out there, it is barely doing that. When they start to try things like multiple HD streams, the complaints are going to increase. I don't have the same blind faith that you do. I've learned the limitations of copper, clearly some people don't.
In short, copper is not a dead technology. Nope, the only thing keeping it alive are the antiquated telcos, the cable companies and UTP LANS. As it stands, though, it is already in the coffin and the undertaker is putting the last nail into the coffin. No truly new technologies have come out for copper in quite some time.
And this, world, is what an discussion between a Nethead (cutting-edge technology, packet switched mentality) versus a Bellhead (the old way, circuit switch mentality) conversation looks like. The Bellhead POV is an indoctrinated, Bell cultural concept as opposed to the Nethead POV that grows out of using technical data and specs to forms ideas and opinions.
--
Prove it... |
|
cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX
| So far you have only posted posted opinions and no specs. You have blind faith that the service will fail, yet I have been a u-verse customer for a year. It appears you are neither as technical or as well informed as you claimed to be. And considering u-verse is completely IP, i will just ignore you circuit switched comment...
You still fail at economics of the situation, because you are too wrapped up in the technology. Superior technology does not always in the market place, but cheap enough, good enough and available soon usually does. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
·Cox HSI
| said by cwh :So far you have only posted posted opinions and no specs. And all you have done is parrot ATT's corporate line... I've already posted about PONs and how PONs would make sense now since upgrading even to BPON now would allow uprades to GPON later and, if the discussions continue, to the next generation of PONs technologies. In otherwords, you can get cheap fibre with a good upgrade path AND have it done RIGHT the first time instead of this half assed attempt.
said by cwh :You have blind faith that the service will fail, yet I have been a u-verse customer for a year. You have blind faith because your experience has been good. Your ONE good experience does not a trend make. I've read enough reviews that say plenty of people are having issues and there are a good portion that aren't willing to put up with them.
It appears you are neither as technical or as well informed as you claimed to be. See, now you are spouting bullshit. Its probably a good bet that I have more technical knowledge and experience than you. Perhaps, instead of playing ATT armchair spokesman, you have an independent thought for once.
And considering u-verse is completely IP, i will just ignore you circuit switched comment... If you actually read and understand the context of the circuit switched comment, you might have actually been able to comment on it. Go back and reread it and you might eventually get it.
You still fail at economics of the situation, because you are too wrapped up in the technology. Superior technology does not always in the market place, but cheap enough, good enough and available soon usually does.
Sorry. Technically speaking, U-Verse is mediocre. There is nothing spectacular or fantastic about it. If ATT wants to be cheap and put out a half ass product, that is their choice. Cable will eat them alive.
--
Prove it... |
|
