 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to morbo
Re: What a waste 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
kudos:1
 ·Verizon Wireless..
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·VOIPo
·PHONE POWER
| 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.
|
|
en102Canadian, 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 |
|
