Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to verolom
Re: Ethernet over copper You all insist on viewing fiber/copper as an either/or thing. The correct way to view it is that AT&T adopted a different route to fiber than Verizon did.
Verizon decided to spend a ton of money on laying fiber cabling to the home, but use old technologies on top of that (PON, RF signaling). So they get the raw speed, but their cost per subscriber is far higher than AT&T's, and their speed of growth is slower. Verizon still has copper (DSL) too and are neglecting it because they are focusing on fiber.
AT&T decided to focus on the technologies on top of the physical network. They went straight to Video over IP, which caused them to start up slower because they were using new technology, but now allows them to integrate all their traffic over their IP backbone network. They decided to run fiber to active, powered boxes (VRADs) so that they can manage their network effectively down to the neighborhood, and put intelligence out to the edge of the network. And, they have both fiber and copper to the home -- fiber in new neighborhoods, copper to existing. So they can grow faster than Verizon and have a much lower cost per subscriber.
AT&T has incremental steps they can take for their FTTN segment. As pointed out in this article, VSDL2 and Pair Bonding will increase both speeds and distances. In the future, AT&T can lay new fiber to the home incrementally as needed, and upgrade the VRADs to support a managed, active, powered fiber interface.
AT&T does have a path forward to faster speeds including FTTH. Don't be fooled by the rhetoric. |
|
| "So they can grow faster than Verizon and have a much lower cost per subscriber."
And yet they are growing slower. So hypothetical advantages that don't bring the service to more consumers are uninteresting to consumers. |
|
cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX | As of right now they are adding customers at about the same rate. I think ATT currently has slight lead over verizon customer adds. ATT is covering much more ground that verizon as far homes passed goes. |
|
1 edit | reply to MyDogHsFleas
https://uma.att.com/general/856-AMSS-X-DMA1-IFRAME.html
A link to a support page for the ONT backup battery, just like the ones Verizon uses in some installs. Proof they have some FTTH systems live.
As for FiOS vs. U-Verse, both systems have some upgrading to do. AT&T has to complete their FTTH rollout, and FiOS has to go all GPON and make the transition to IPTV, because their current RF system will limit them from adding more HD channels in the long run. |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by ravensfan55:Proof they have some FTTH systems live. AT&T calls it "FTTP" for Premise -- I guess they don't want to limit themselves to "Homes".
My proof is that FTTP users post to the U-verse dedicated forum sites all the time -- uverseusers.com and utalk.att.com.
Also the neighborhood next to mine, which is currently being built out, is AT&T FTTP. I missed it by a couple of years, my neighborhood was started 7 years ago. Everything since about 5 years ago is all fiber. |
|
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
The problem of new technologies is that they are not as mature as the good old proven ones. In the long run they may prove just as reliable if not more. These days when cost is such a major factor and technology does not have time to mature I doubt that.
Regardless of the higher level protocols used, if the foundation of the network -- the physical plant is old, unmaintained, unreliable, corroded copper or poorly deployed (bent or hastily spliced) fiber, then regardless of the complexity of the transport protocols, you are going to end up with unreliable service and unhappy customers. |
|
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas:AT&T has incremental steps they can take for their FTTN segment. As pointed out in this article, VSDL2 and Pair Bonding will increase both speeds and distances. In the future, AT&T can lay new fiber to the home incrementally as needed, and upgrade the VRADs to support a managed, active, powered fiber interface. But what they don't tell you is pair-bonded DSL only inceases loop-length by a couple thousand feet AT MOST (and that's in the strictly controlled lab, not field trial). You sill need to put up multiple nodes in each neighborhood that is not situated next to a CO. On the other hand I think fiber only needs notes every 10-15 miles (usually about 5-10/per mile in neighborhoods where the fiber goes off in all directions). Pair-bonded (from what I have seen) offers only about 50mb/s... maybe 70mb/s if the CO or RT is in your back yard. I have also heard that the upstream speeds are still atrocious. Fiber can do what... 1+gb/s? (thats gb not mb). I just think that there are two problems with copper: 1. Research is not going fast enough and 2. Simply by it's physical shortcommings will probably never be able to compete with light.
--
- "Techie" Jim |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by jimbo2150:Simply by it's physical shortcomings copper will probably never be able to compete with light. Yes, absolutely correct. And prop airplanes will never be able to compete with jets. But that doesn't mean there's not a market need for props.
It's all about cost vs. benefit, and how best to meet consumer needs and expand your base.
AT&T's on a particular path. They chose to innovate in the layers above the physical connection first, to build fiber out to the neighborhood, to reuse existing last-mile copper not rip it out, and to leave themselves a path for upgrades to meet market needs -- including an eventual upgrade to FTTP in existing neighborhoods (they already have FTTP in new developments).
Hey, their strategy may fail miserably. We'll see. All I am trying to do is to counterbalance the knee-jerk reaction I see here: "AT&T sucks! They are stupid! They will have to rip everything out and start over again with fiber!" AT&T actually does have a strategy and a plan for the future. |
|
|
|
| said by MyDogHsFleas:Hey, their strategy may fail miserably. We'll see. All I am trying to do is to counterbalance the knee-jerk reaction I see here: "AT&T sucks! They are stupid! They will have to rip everything out and start over again with fiber!" AT&T actually does have a strategy and a plan for the future. I think a big part of what is trying to be shown here is how competition fails when competition does not exist. When AT&T and Verizon directly compete with one another, then we can all see who will come out on top. But as long as there is this "I don't invade your areas, you don't invade mine" pact there will not be any true competition, not in this corporate-dominated age.
--
- "Techie" Jim |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by jimbo2150:I think a big part of what is trying to be shown here is how competition fails when competition does not exist. When AT&T and Verizon directly compete with one another, then we can all see who will come out on top. But as long as there is this "I don't invade your areas, you don't invade mine" pact there will not be any true competition, not in this corporate-dominated age. This is a load of crap.
First, there is no "pact". AT&T and Verizon have historical DSL/landline territories that they have their hands full trying to build out with their advanced triple-play offerings. Verizon is building out in a very few AT&T terrories now. As their buildouts mature, expect to see more and more direct competition.
Second, there is a HUGE amount of competition from cable. In my town, there are constant TV ads and billboards on the highways from AT&T and Time Warner Cable, each directly attacking the other. There are salespeople knocking on doors. There are special switchover incentives.
Third, what do you mean "corporate dominated age"? The whole idea of corporate capitalism is competition! What would you rather have.... government dominated? Yeah, that'll really add to competition and provide better service. That usually works out well, doesn't it? |
|
| said by MyDogHsFleas:This is a load of crap. First, there is no "pact". AT&T and Verizon have historical DSL/landline territories that they have their hands full trying to build out with their advanced triple-play offerings. That's a load of crap. Sure decades ago they had their hands tied when they were smaller and small companies spread across the country. Now, some of the largest national corps in the country and only today I have heard of only one area they recently are competing in. They have had DECADES to start competing with each other in many areas. They don't because to these corps 'competition' is as taboo a term as 'regulation'.
said by MyDogHsFleas:Second, there is a HUGE amount of competition from cable. In my town, ... I always stop reading when I hear "my town". Bull! Your town does not span the entire country and competition is not anywhere near the level they are in the few areas (mainly only in larger cities though).
said by MyDogHsFleas:Third, what do you mean "corporate dominated age"? The whole idea of corporate capitalism is competition! What would you rather have.... government dominated? Yeah, that'll really add to competition and provide better service. That usually works out well, doesn't it? Bull. See my first response above for the explanation. I want to see REAL competition. Not a couple or one company dominating the majority of the market. Here there is two companies AT&T or local cable co. Just a couple of miles away there is one: cable (no DSL). Why can't we have the best of both worlds I always say. Use Utopia as a base. Let munies or gov build out the last mile fiber then PROVIDE NO ACTUAL SERVICE. Let any company offer service to any customer over the network at a fair price. Letting the current cos. charge massive fees to provide service is not competitive. Letting them stomp out any small business that tries to offer service to the point where most do not want to is not competitive. I am not against capitalism. I am against greedy corporatism. Having a choice is what matters, without which the consumer no longer has any control of the market.
--
- "Techie" Jim |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Your bias against telcos warps your judgement. I'm not saying that telcos are angels, but they are not demons either. They are what they are, and it's useful to see them for what they are, not make them whipping boys for your favorite cause.
Just to address your points:
1) No there is no non-compete pact. But you have to realize that it's extremely expensive to overlay someone else's terrority with brand new physical copper/fiber, and you'll get a limited return. As I said in my original post, the telcos have plenty of places to spend capital to get customers to buy more services without expanding out of their historical areas.
What are you going to do? Force them by regulation to build competing physical plants? That's not a good idea.
2) A huge majority (almost 90%) of the landline installs also offer DSL. An even huger majority (96%+) of the cable TV installs offer HSI. So it's highly likely that anyone in a population area with cable and landline available also has a competitive choice on broadband.
3) Your idea of "competition" is one that says that you use taxes to pay for the vast majority of the capital cost of entry to the market, then make that market available to all.
Do you really think this is an efficient way to get goods and services to the public? Do you really think the government will do this in a fair and innovative way? I don't. Every congressperson will be lobbying for the infrastructure funds to be localized to his/her district's benefit. It'll be massive waste, kickbacks, and fraud. |
|
| said by MyDogHsFleas:Your bias against telcos warps your judgement. I'm not saying that telcos are angels, but they are not demons either. They are what they are, and it's useful to see them for what they are, not make them whipping boys for your favorite cause. I am not biased solely toward telcos. The cable cos are in the same boat. We were simply discussing telcos at the time.
One phone company per area, one cable co per area. That does not sound like competition.
Cable and phone companies attempting to block potential competitors using caps, preventing or limiting access to such services. Does not sound like fair competition.
said by MyDogHsFleas:1) No there is no non-compete pact. But you have to realize that it's extremely expensive to overlay someone else's terrority with brand new physical copper/fiber, and you'll get a limited return. As I said in my original post, the telcos have plenty of places to spend capital to get customers to buy more services without expanding out of their historical areas. I know that there is no actual pact (that would be illegal), but noone will even try to put in physical equipment not just because of it's cost (or it would already be happening) but also because they know that incumbents would easily lower prices and destroy their business before they could even get going. In a sense that pact silently exists.
What are you going to do? Force them by regulation to build competing physical plants? That's not a good idea. Read the last part of my last post. What would you do? Leave everything as is: incumbents preventing decent competition over their own network so in turn no or little competition should exist?
said by MyDogHsFleas:2) A huge majority (almost 90%) of the landline installs also offer DSL. An even huger majority (96%+) of the cable TV installs offer HSI. So it's highly likely that anyone in a population area with cable and landline available also has a competitive choice on broadband. Ok, not even going to go into stats. Too many issues with them. I never believe statistics, especially not ones from the companies trying to protect their profits.
said by MyDogHsFleas:3) Your idea of "competition" is one that says that you use taxes to pay for the vast majority of the capital cost of entry to the market, then make that market available to all. Do you really think this is an efficient way to get goods and services to the public? Do you really think the government will do this in a fair and innovative way? I don't. Every congressperson will be lobbying for the infrastructure funds to be localized to his/her district's benefit. It'll be massive waste, kickbacks, and fraud. Why not? Use part taxes (part investment -- I'm sure many businesses and residents across the country would be willing to throw in a few bucks to get access to a selection of companies providing internet access) to pay for last-mile connections to everyone which can be paid back gradually (and eventually profit from) through a fairly set wholesale of bandwidth to any company who wishes to provide service. The gov. does not actually produce any competition. It eliminates individual companies preventing access to specific ports/services/etc. It could quickly settle the whole 'caps' and 'network neutrality' issue through direct competition instead of eventual legislation. It could easily be set up as a variable-rate pricing if deemed necessary. It would solve the already occurring 'digital divide'. It also preserves capitalism but takes out the issues of having a one or a few or no companies providing last-mile access through restricted and solely owned equipment.
Also, what do you mean fair and innovative? Fiber is innovative. Fair? Like if I want to start a business now I couldn't because I know they would easily put me out if I tried to build out my own. If I tried to resell their bandwidth over their equipment they set their prices just high enough that I cannot compete with their pricing. Many consumers have one, maybe two and some no choices of broadband. That is fair competition?
Sorry, but I would take my suggestion over leaving everything 'as is'.
--
- "Techie" Jim |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| OK I see. When I give you actual statistics proving competition is widespread you just ignore them, or denigrate them by saying "well that's not REAL competition" (whatever that means). BTW my stats are from the FCC, you can look it up.
You are simply on an agenda. You want the network taken away from the corporations and you want the government to fund and run it (up to the last mile at least). You want to define the word "competition" to mean your idea of how things should be run. This is simply Brave New World newspeak.
I prefer to see things as they really are before deciding what the solution should be, rather than deciding on the solution first then setting my fact filters accordingly. |
|
