| AT&T is smart, IMO... I'm no LEC lover, and that includes AT&T, but on this issue... I think AT&T made a wise decision to opt for a FTTN instead of a FTTH plan. FTTN is like 1/5 the cost of FTTH, and works just fine. Their UVerse product is among the highest rated in customer satisfaction. As well, by waiting, they let Verizon take the hit of initially high fiber equipment costs, and by the time they plan on going FTTH, unit costs on average will be considerably lower.
And lastly, since they will already have lots of already fiber-fed neighborhood UVERSE VRAD boxes close to residences, they're already about halfway there to deploy FTTH when they need to. As things stand now, they have the most competitive TV offering, and among the best overall value propositions out there... and great customer satisfaction.
It will be awhile before there is great pressure for more speed than 18 Mbps down / 1.5 Mbps up, and by then, they will either have good pair bonding options ready OR they will start deploying FTTH from their many neighborhood nodes.
Also, even if they get a late start to upgrading to FTTH, and their Internet speed competitiveness is substantially lacking, they can simply drastically under-price their Internet speeds to see them through until the FTTH is built out, since their wholesale bandwidth costs are quite minimal. That way, they could still keep most customers that have a keen eye on total value of their package TV, Internet, phone deal will provide compared to the competition.
As one commenter said, it really all simply comes down to value, and they can simply price appropriately to keep the competition at bay, especially since they have a cash cow of wireless to see them through any short-term competitiveness issues. |
|
 TechnogeezAgape in amazement.Premium
join:2007-01-20 | You don't happen to work for Comcast, do you? |
|
| reply to Brandon1979
It will be awhile before there is great pressure for more speed than 18 Mbps down / 1.5 Mbps up Yeah, that's like, weeks away. |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to Brandon1979
said by Brandon1979 :
Also, even if they get a late start to upgrading to FTTH, and their Internet speed competitiveness is substantially lacking, they can simply drastically under-price their Internet speeds to see them through until the FTTH is built out, what in at&t's past has indicated they would ever do that? |
|
stonecrd
join:2001-08-04
Fort Lauderdale, FL
2 edits | reply to Technogeez
I'm kind of confused by this article it was my understanding that VDSL2 and pair binding are completely different solutions, although I assume you could pair bond VDSL2 if you can do so for VDSL. Also it states there are problems with maintaining 25mb lines using VDSL2 and as we all know AT&T is using VDSL and is maintaining 25Mb sych out to 3000' in most cases and that VDSL2 like pair bonding is expected to double distance and bandwidth. So some inconsistencies for me.
Now as for their strategy only time will tell whether FIOS, VDSL or something else wins. I am a UV user, I don't need more than a 6Mb Internet connection but I would like 3-4 HD streams. I like UV because while the AT&T infrastructure might be a limitation I think IPTV is the correct delivery mechanism.
In the end the market will decide, UV has to be competative or they will loose to satellite, cable, FIOS or something new. In the end more choice helps everyone. |
|
|
|
| reply to Brandon1979
Apparently, Brandon1979 is sucking up ATT Prozac by the hand full. His world view is just a wee bit too rosy... not to mention illogical, illusionary and delusional.
I live in an ATT monopoly area, five miles or less from Verizon land. It is like living in East Berlin looking over the wall to the free world. It is the juxtaposition of the efficacy of well-funded modern western medical pharmacology (Verizon) vs a slimy snake oil salesman's (ATT) preposterous, ineffective and likely poisonous concoctions. As the industry is presently constructed, as in the world of Highlander, in the end, there can be only one. Unless, territorial distinction and monopoly area based competition is eliminated in favor of true competition. |
|
djeremy
join:2004-07-12
San Francisco, CA | reply to Brandon1979
How do you figure AT&T has the most competitive TV offering? We have 3 HDTVs in our house each with a Directv DVR that is able to pull 2 HD channels at the same time. Cable can do this, satellite can do this, Uverse cannot and probably won't be able to until they go fiber. |
|
cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX | And how often do you actually have all 6HD streams going? How often do you think the average joe has all 6 going? While such a limitation may be problem for yourself, for the vast majority it is not even an issue.
U-verse is currently limited to 4 incoming streams and they still have no problem getting customers. ATT has spent 1/3 to 1/2 of what verizon did and they are both attracting customers at about the same rate. |
|
djeremy
join:2004-07-12
San Francisco, CA | Actually, being that 3 of us live here and all watch different prime time shows, quite often. And remember, anyone buying a new TV or even a second or third TV for their house will be buying an HDTV.
I thought that AT&T was only able to push 2 HD streams and 2 SD, or 4 SD at the same time. |
|
cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX | said by djeremy:Actually, being that 3 of us live here and all watch different prime time shows, quite often. And remember, anyone buying a new TV or even a second or third TV for their house will be buying an HDTV. You are quite correct on that. And it is still going to take a decade or so to replace every SD tv out there.
I thought that AT&T was only able to push 2 HD streams and 2 SD, or 4 SD at the same time.
That would still be 4 total. |
|
| reply to cwh
said by cwh:U-verse is currently limited to 4 incoming streams and they still have no problem getting customers. ATT has spent 1/3 to 1/2 of what verizon did and they are both attracting customers at about the same rate. That's because customers don't have a choice. Kill off the territorial contracts and AT&T would be in a world of sh*t. |
|
