patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: Verizon going to FTTN-like those they deride in commercials said by fAcEtIOUs:I mentioned it. It is the logical interim step. It is easy and much less costly to run FTTN deployments for now. And then build out FTTH later when capital dollars are once again available. And they can continue to roll out TV to FTTN deployments - just like AT&T. The depreciation on the FTTN DSLAMs would make it impossible to upgrade them to FTTH for atleast a decade. FTTN isn't financially worth it in the "performance and features/price" figure. Residential FTTN install, I would guess its 50-100% of a FTTH install. I'll guess the passing per house for FTTN is only 1/4 of FTTH passing per house.
Also the saturation marketing Verizon does wouldn't work with FTTN looking at Uverse. Many homes are too far from the VRAD down the tree of copper trunk lines. Many trees are too small to place a VRAD on (1 cross connection serving a 1 block long aerial trunk, 30 families I guess, 1 end of the block is an underground mega-conduit feed serving the whole quadrant of the city going back to the CO). And cable can/will/has easily performance beaten FTTN/Uverse with DOCSIS 3. If cable beats telco TV and next gen telco internet on performance, telco TV can only compete on price, WHICH IS NOT WHAT VERIZON EVER DOES. Verizon does not compete on price against cable cos. Putting in telco TV for diehard cable co haters is foolish, they are too small in numbers, and they are already probably on satellite (time for telco to buy DN or D* lol). |
|
| Fiber is ~4 times cheaper in cost than the same line in copper. I'm actually surprised that the telco's don't look at ripping their aerial copper out and selling it and replacing it with glass as the cost of the copper is so outrageous right now and fiber just keeps getting cheaper. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | But the copper is already there, and USF pays for it. Fiber has installation labor costs and no USF support. |
|
| Fiber has significantly less maintenance. It's not susceptible to EM interference, water or heat related issues. It has almost no value as "scrap". As you say the USF is preventing innovation, that's a reason to do away with the USF so the companies aren't inclined to keep making bad business decisions in the interest of government mandated fees. |
|
| reply to patcat88
said by patcat88:The depreciation on the FTTN DSLAMs would make it impossible to upgrade them to FTTH for atleast a decade. FTTN isn't financially worth it in the "performance and features/price" figure. Residential FTTN install, I would guess its 50-100% of a FTTH install. I'll guess the passing per house for FTTN is only 1/4 of FTTH passing per house. Actually the difference between FTTH and FTTN has narrowed significantly. Verizon is forecasting a $650 per house pass by cost for 2010 and FTTN runs about $300 per house passed. However over the longer term if you take all the costs into consideration and not just capex it comes out that they are about the same. |
|
