how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
1 edit | reply to MyDogHsFleas
Re: At&t vdsl said by MyDogHsFleas:It's not an either-or. The U-verse investment, running fiber all the way to the neighborhood node, will not be lost. Going full FTTP is not a rip and replace, it's an extension of what they've already done. They would replace or extend the current VRADs with fiber distribution boxes in order to go FTTP. And, they can do that incrementally as they wish, rather than being forced to invest in FTTP for every subscriber, as Verizon does. Its never going to be a Verizon FIOS like system. Even if they run fiber from the VRADs to each house, they can never run a PON network because there are too few fibers from the VRAD to the CO. They will have to resort to something like Utopia with the "VRAD"/"FDH"/"fiber node"/"CCC" being a 120v powered fiber optic ethernet switch. Not sure if they will ever be able to do RF over glass, since they would need a fiber amplifer in the cabinet. They will probably be stuck with an intranet IPTV system forever, even if they upgrade to FTTP.
The FO ethernet switch active FTTP system will be needing traffic management alot more than a FIOS PON system, since the backhaul FO ethernet links will become overloaded, and internet traffic will have to be deprioritized in favor of Uverse IPTV. Upgrading the FO uplink line cards in the switch might never pay off since they cost $10000s
»www.cdw.com/shop/search/results.···d+it.y=0 | |
Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| I never said it'd be "Verizon FIOS like". That is not the way AT&T is going. They prefer active/managed over passive hubs, active IP networks over passive RF signals like Cable, and incremental network upgrades over rip and replace. Are you trying to argue they're doing the wrong thing with this strategy? Yes, getting to the end goal will eventually cause more capital expense than what Verizon did, but the investment is spread out over time, they can choose where to make the investment for business reasons rather than being forced to invest in FTTP just to get subs, and they can get started quicker and cheaper than Verizon did and be resident on customer sites.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but I'll comment on a couple of your statements.
"Stuck with an IPTV system forever?" You say that like it's a bad thing. There are huge advantages long-term to moving to IP, like being able to leverage a single managed backbone IP network. This is where they have the lead on Verizon.
"Internet traffic deprioritized in favor of IPTV" ?? I think the point you're missing is that the IPTV stream is a single stream to the node, not one video stream per user like the Internet-streaming-video model. Therefore there's plenty of room to carry the IPTV streams on the backbone, they will not be bumping up against the Internet packets. | |
|
