dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | reply to danclan
Re: World's Biggest Douche.... said by danclan:Its only a matter of time before Comcast and others will have to deploy FTTH. They may come up with some magic bullet in the mean time but they are just biding time. That may be true, but if so- letting someone else be the guinea pig and work out the bugs isn't necessarily a bad thing. The longer you wait, the lower the deployment costs become (as Verizon has witnessed). Waiting until there's a high demand also decreases the time it takes to get a return on your investment.
Remember- about 75% of people who could get FiOS... don't.
Who's smarter- the one who rushed out and installed Windows Vista on the day it was released, or the one who waited a bit to see how it worked out? |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| said by dynodb:Who's smarter- the one who rushed out and installed Windows Vista on the day it was released, or the one who waited a bit to see how it worked out? The one who waited for all the hacks and DRM to be stripped out and then installed it for free. 
Heh, j/k'ing but I get your point.
Still though, long term the Cable co could be rushing to play catch up while bleeding customers to FIOS.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | reply to dynodb
When Vista SP1 was released, then the person who had installed it first could fly ahead having experience already with the system, while the person who waited to upgrade would still have the difficulties of being used to the XP environment and have to undergo those shifts as well?
The big cost of FTTH is deployment. After the system exists changing technologies on the system is much easier than having to rebuild the system from scratch- when CMCSA/TWC/Cox decide to migrate to an all-FTTH system, they'll have to deploy, while Verizon will have a deployed system already.
The big problem is that this results in massive shortterm costs and a landline division that is falling apart and is propped up only by the runaway success that is Verizon Wireless. The real benefits won't be seen in the future... as bandwidth needs grow, more people will want the kinds of speeds that VZ is ready to provide, but right now it's very shaky, and patches on the cable system like DOCSIS 3 will extend the shaky period. |
|
 tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5
·Fairpoint Commun..
 ·Hollis Hosting
| reply to dynodb
said by dynodb: letting someone else be the guinea pig and work out the bugs isn't necessarily a bad thing. The longer you wait, the lower the deployment costs become (as Verizon has witnessed). Waiting until there's a high demand also decreases the time it takes to get a return on your investment. There are risks being too early as well as being too late.
Too early there is not enough market demand and implementation cost is high.
Moving too late and your competitor is established in the market place. How are you going to justify massive investment to be the number two or number player in a competitive market?
I think Verizon has opted to roll out fiber at about the right time. Installation costs are reasonable, fiber allows triple play services that DSL does not, and operating costs for fiber are much lower then copper. Once Verizon has fiber in place they will be in a virtually unsaleable position.
Ten years from now they will likely be reaping the benefits of today's investment. Today's naysayers will be congratulating Verizon on their foresight.
/tom |
|
| said by tschmidt:I think Verizon has opted to roll out fiber at about the right time. Installation costs are reasonable, fiber allows triple play services that DSL does not, and operating costs for fiber are much lower then copper. Once Verizon has fiber in place they will be in a virtually unsaleable position. Ten years from now they will likely be reaping the benefits of today's investment. Today's naysayers will be congratulating Verizon on their foresight. /tom Does this reduced operating costs for fiber take into account maintaining those ONTs? You know, 10 years is a long time, and who is to say that 10 years from now that Verizon may need to replace those ONTs en masse with all the costs and customer complaints that entails? |
|
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| reply to EPS
said by EPS:When Vista SP1 was released, then the person who had installed it first could fly ahead having experience already with the system, while the person who waited to upgrade would still have the difficulties of being used to the XP environment and have to undergo those shifts as well? The big cost of FTTH is deployment. After the system exists changing technologies on the system is much easier than having to rebuild the system from scratch- when CMCSA/TWC/Cox decide to migrate to an all-FTTH system, they'll have to deploy, while Verizon will have a deployed system already. The big problem is that this results in massive shortterm costs and a landline division that is falling apart and is propped up only by the runaway success that is Verizon Wireless. The real benefits won't be seen in the future... as bandwidth needs grow, more people will want the kinds of speeds that VZ is ready to provide, but right now it's very shaky, and patches on the cable system like DOCSIS 3 will extend the shaky period. And most businesses (regardless of what business they are in) hate capex runups (which is what any major longterm infrastructure improvement generates) because they impact dividends (which are the only growth measure important to institutional investors, such as bondholders and pension plans like CalPERS). FTTH/FTTP is a capex monster (to a large extent, Vista SP1 deployment is a capex monster also, because it requires wholesale replacement of all those systems that date back to 2000 and 2001, most because they don't meet the processor-power requirements of even a system from 2004 would have, let alone a modern system; despite how much cheaper PCs or Macs are today, when you buy several hundred at a time, that's a rather large item on the liability side of the ledger). Maximizing dividends and keeping costs down looks good for the debtholders and short-term investors (and most bears are very much short-term investors). But as cable's required annual capex catches up to VZ's FTTP/FTTH-related per-customer capex hits (and as the economies of scale that VZ is starting to reap kick in, that will happen, and not in any way favorable to cable), the FTTP strategy will prove out. 2010 was a major number in the NYT articles regarding VZ's FIOS strategy; it's also a major point in the VZ FIOS deployment timeline here in Maryland. VZ will actually have FIOS deployed and available to over two-thirds of their Maryland customer base (by population) by that magic 2010, and three-fourths of the customer base (by area) by 2020. (Pretty much the only areas that won't have seen massive FTTP/FTTH deployments will be Washington County/Hagerstown and points west, and the Eastern Shore; basically the far east and far west of the state.) |
|
jca2050Premium
join:2002-02-04
Hacienda Heights, CA Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to dynodb
said by dynodb:Remember- about 75% of people who could get FiOS... don't. Is that a fact? I highly doubt that. |
|
