Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | reply to Eat Me
Re: No choice really
I have no doubt that is cheaper, but by how much? If it is only 30% cheaper then it would be more cost effective to go with fiber (again for fresh areas). |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
 ·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
 ·Comcast
 ·Embarq
1 edit | said by Lazlow  :I have no doubt that is cheaper, but by how much? If it is only 30% cheaper then it would be more cost effective to go with fiber (again for fresh areas). With no home visits required for D3 upgrades I'd wager that the costs could be 50-60% cheaper overall, even if you have to upgrade all of the amps and nodes in the HFC plant.
It really only makes sense for cable MSOs to do fiber in new infrastructure installs where they will already be trenching to individual homes anyway. |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
| Here in Charter land in the areas that they have upgraded to 60Mbps(very limited) they have had to replace a lot of lines (and presumably other hardware). Now admittedly a lot of that probably should have been replaced years ago just for general maintenance. That is why I was asking for the price difference ON FRESH AREAS(no upgrades), so that we could see apples to apples. There is no doubt that limited upgrades would be significantly cheaper. |
|
jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10
Youngstown, OH
| reply to espaeth
said by espaeth :With no home visits required for D3 upgrades I'd wager that the costs could be 50-60% cheaper overall, even if you have to upgrade all of the amps and nodes in the HFC plant. What about D3 modems? I'm sure 90% of customers are not going to know how to install it. I may know that all it takes is hooking in a few wires, but most are not technically inclined. Also, my co uses a line filter that I am sure is designed for D1 or 2 and will need replacing. No home visit? Think again.
--
- "Techie" Jim |
|
maartena
Super Grover
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Lazlow
said by Lazlow :I have no doubt that is cheaper, but by how much? If it is only 30% cheaper then it would be more cost effective to go with fiber (again for fresh areas). Fiber cable by itself is a lot more expensive to produce then copper cable. Also with deployment you need to be sure that fiber can never bend at more than a certain degree corner, which makes turning the corner at a pole a little more challenging. Doable no problem, but deploying copper is cheaper by far.
The only reason to deploy fiber now to those new areas is so that they don't have to in 10, 20 years from now and incur the costs twice. |
|
Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
·Time Warner Cable
·Time Warner VOIP
| said by maartena :said by Lazlow :I have no doubt that is cheaper, but by how much? If it is only 30% cheaper then it would be more cost effective to go with fiber (again for fresh areas). Fiber cable by itself is a lot more expensive to produce then copper cable. Also with deployment you need to be sure that fiber can never bend at more than a certain degree corner false
ever noitce the fiber that is coiled up on power poles |
|
