Search:  

 
 
   All ForumsHot TopicsGallery






how-to block ads


 
Forums » AT&T To Offer Three HD Streams » What a waste
Search Topic:
Share Topic:
RSS topic:
toggle:
flat / full
normal / watch
Post a:
Post a:
Laughable »
« Hooray!  
AuthorAll Replies


morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
·AT&T Southwest

reply to NewMariner
Re: What a waste

fiber to the node is the easy part. it's wiring customer residences that's the most expensive and time consuming part. so, yeah, AT&T will eventually have to wire every household for fiber. at x2 cost. possibly 3 if you factor in the wasted $ on u-verse deployment.


en102
Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME

I tend to agree.
FTTN is 'relatively' inexpensive (compared to FTTH) and much faster to deploy.

FTTN upside:

Low(er) initial cost of deployment
Higher speed of deployment
Easier to fund (due to above), as noted, investors want quicker return
Able to cherry pick next gen upgrades easily.
TV/Internet/VoIP can run over this infrastructure today, and upgrade to FTTH or other can be paid for by existing FTTH/Uverse deployment.

FTTN downside:
Band-aid approach (i.e. doesn't get it all in one shot)
Requires infrastructure upgrades (pair bonding)
Limited reach (3000')
Will eventually require a complete rework (FTTH or other from FTTN)... swapout last mile of copper, and the last mile is the most expensive.
--
Canada = Hollywood North


djrobx

join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
·PHONE POWER
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable

I don't think FTTN was a bad choice. The bigger problem is AT&T's 25mbps, 3,000 foot target.

Had they placed the nodes closer to homes, they could easily have 50mbps or more per home. That would have given them much more wiggle room for more advanced internet speeds, better HD quality, and more streams.

The physical size of the nodes could have been a lot smaller if they were serving fewer homes, too.

I would love have to have 3 HD streams, but count me in as being skeptical about the quality implications of reducing the bandwidth.
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.


en102
Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
I don't think FTTN was a bad choice either.
FTTH is very slow and expensive to deploy.
FTTN can subsidize FTTH as needed. FTTH as a first round needs huge $$$ from nervous investors.
--
Canada = Hollywood North

Tigerpaw509
Premium
join:2006-07-15
Huntley, IL
reply to morbo
they only bring fiber to the home,Inside wiring remains the same
-
Forums » AT&T To Offer Three HD StreamsLaughable »
« Hooray!  


Monday, 09-Nov 16:45:50 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.republican-creole
page compression OFF
Most commented news this week
· [60] VoIP Over 3G Still Not Working For iPhone
· [35] Verizon Keeps Swinging At AT&T
· [26] Bill Would Force ISPs To Block Financial Scams
· [14] Mediacom Hints At 50, 100 Mbps Speeds
· [10] Clearwire To Get Another $1.5 Billion
· [8] 15 States Have Now Gotten Broadband Mapping Money
· [3] AT&T Launching New 7.2 Mbps 3G Modem
Most people now reading
· Framed for child porn 151; by a PC virus [Security]
· Divorce advice... [General Questions]
· My cat is reluctant to exercise. [General Questions]
· Google Has Acquired Gizmo5 [VOIP Tech Chat]
· Windows 7 boot manager editing questions [Microsoft Help]
· 60 Minutes piece on cyber security last night [Security]
· A fishy CRTC tarriff filed by bell? [TekSavvy]
· Is Gear Score now the new requirement to get pug invite? [World of Warcraft]
· Blown out Ballasts [Home Repair & Improvement]
· 3.x Feral Druid - Bear Tanking Guide [World of Warcraft]