how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to BF69
Re: What a waste said by BF69:In the end at&t will have not choice but to that and it will cost 2X-3X or more per household that what it cost Verizon by doing it the half-assed way they are doing it now. Everyone laughed at Verizon and idiotic short sighted investors got pissed off but in the end Verizon made the smarter move when it came to deploying fiber. Going "cheap" in anyhting hardly ever ends up being cheaper in the long run. You are talking through your ass.
Your 2x-3x figure for "FTTN first, FTTP later" vs. "FTTP first" is just made up.
Verizon right now is spending 2x more per subscriber than AT&T ($2K vs $1K). And AT&T's per-passed-house cost is way, way lower than Verizon (well below $400) specifically because they are reusing copper.
Do you really think that incrementally adding FTTH is going to blow their costs up that far ahead of Verizon? No, it won't. All the costs of running the fiber to the neighborhood are completely re-used when you run it the last mile.
In addition, by doing FTTN, AT&T has the ability to stage their brownfield FTTP rollout, rather than being forced to run fiber just to get a subscriber up and running.
And, AT&T has lots of headroom to increase speeds BEFORE running FTTP. They can use VDSL2, and deploy more VRADS closer to the homes, and crank the speeds up by a factor of 2-4x, without running FTTP. | |
| I agree FTTN is that bad when it comes to cost and time required to get a significant speed increase to the customer. When ATT starts to roll out ftth, they can look at the problems verizon faced in rolling out their fiber, never mind the cost of fiber and new fiber technology in the future. Also who says the huge VRAD cabinents are wasted money? Someone how I doubt they will just 'throw' them away, I would think they would just ship them off to a location where FTTN is being deployed once FTTP is deployed. This also assumes that the VRADs are only caple of the VDSL fiber interfacing.
I read so much FUD and crying when it comes to fttp here. You'd figure that the only people here are 3 year old spoiled brats that think they deserve everything first or people pulling numbers from you know where in an attempt to downplay something (just like this 2x-3x factor). | |
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
Verizon's upfront costs are much more than 2x AT&T.
Actually, I've come round to the view that FTTN isn't such a bad strategy. They are now managing 2 HD streams (a must) and decent Internet speeds (10 mbps) right now in 2008. They have a killer multi-room DVR ... and they are competing with cable companies, and satellite, not Verizon.
AT&T's number one goal is to ensure they still have wireline customers left and U-Verse provides another hook to entrench existing customers and slow the face to black of twisted pair households.
At some point, of course, 50 mbps Internet with simultaneous 4 HD streams will become table stakes but that is quite far down the road yet and AT&T will have the opportunity, in the meantime, of holding on to a large customer base and delivering more advanced services when there is a genuine, economically rewarding reason to do so.
Make no mistake: U-verse FTTH is a defensive move and, based on the rollout these past 18 months, reasonably successful. Again, compared to most cable U-Verse directly competes with, AT&T has a very good story to tell consumers. | |
|
