Frontier CEO Pretends DSL Is Fiber > For the record

For the record

You're missing something, though.

VDSL, at least in the case of Uverse, is fiber from the CO to the vrad. And then, there is copper to the home from the vrad.

So it is fiber - just not to the premise but to the node; would you want your yard ripped up for a neighbour to get fiber (let's say you didn't need it) ? Even if you're ok with it, keep in mind there is the cost of easements, getting them approved by the neighbours, and then... distance. And some lucky souls, as my understanding is, can get all the way to the premise.

Semantics ? Maybe, but it is using fiber, where adsl is copper all the way.

reply to dogtem

It's copper here, last I knew. Unless of course, they somehow swapped it in the past 12 years, without me knowing it. Yet I've not been disconnected for long enough for that to happen. Wonder why.

And frankly, whether or not they use copper anywhere, they're still using fiber for Uverse, and they never said it's :

FTTN or FTTP or anything but "fiber" (from what I've seen).

So yeah, call it what you want, but it's still not lying, and definitely not by the legal definition.

Edit: Also, the fact they used to provide it more often with FTTP I guess means little to you, but I'll make a point of that anyway. Again, it is still using fiber but due to costs it's obviously not all the way at the times. Want true fiber at home? Why not just go get an OC line then ? Rhetorical question, obviously. And it's making my point: costs is a big issue too.

I mean there's two sides to it, there is still fiber. And not all DSL uses fiber. That's the point, whether you agree with it being pure, or whatever else, Uverse has fiber.

But you know ? I know you can refute this as much as you like - feel free, 'cause my point remains the same and doesn't change the fact I was trying to get across (somehow, I had a feeling some would miss it though - and probably still do).

reply to dogtem
I beg to differ. 500 feet of copper to a VRAD or 1500 for my ADSL loop - doesn't really much matter - its still subject to the limits of copper and "X"dsl

To be fair, Frontier and ATT and the cable companies usage of "fiber" is legally and technically correct. For me, I want glass right into my house into my Procurve 2650 switch on a little SFF module. Anything else isn't real fiber to my home (to me).

That's exactly what I'm saying: legally and technically correct.

I understand, of course, the desire for fiber directly to your house. I'd love that, too. But costs is one obstacle, and it's certainly not the only one.

I'm well over the limit (distance) of the speed of dsl I have; thankfully I I got dsl when they didn't have lower profiles and the equipment manufacturers made the equipment for longer distance.

But see, you at least get what I'm saying. It's not the nicest but it is still the hard cold reality.

Of course, one could also say, who cares as long as you can get as fast as possible ? But I do understand both sides, actually, hence my reply to begin with.

reply to dogtem
When AT&T VRADs were installed in my neighborhood, they still had to dig up many yards and sidewalks to install the fiber to the VRAD in the first place.

So it wouldn't take too much more to just to the FTTH.

reply to dogtem

reply to skuv
"Too much more" ... what? Effort is one thing, capital is another thing, entirely.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

reply to NormanS

Yeah, figured it was about right (didn't remember the % of overhead however).

WRT your point:

I know, and I know what you're saying. I also respect it. I was just saying from a technically speaking point of view (not to mention the places they do indeed go 'all the way' - but as you also mentioned to someone, there's the cost and other things, which is very unfortunate).

It would be nice, in some ways, if it could be like it is in Europe. In other ways not so I'd guess. (A friend of mine from the Netherlands mentioned not too long ago they're rolling out VDSL2+ [think that was it] and up to around 100Mb/s). But then on the other hand, they are able to do more without the customer having a say so in it. Best would be the better of both sides of the pond, but that'd be only in a dream world, for now, I suppose.

Anyway, thanks. Also interesting about the distance - I wasn't aware [never actually checked] of how far or short AT&T supports 3.0 Mb/s). I'm even more lucky, then. I checked my on AT&T's site and my neighbours can only get 1.5Mb/s, so while I am lucky, I'm still mighty curious how it happened - and at same time, quite happy too, that it's me.

reply to dogtem

It's the costs to the company; not to the customer.

It's the cost of say, ripping up yards. Sure, for new homes, that's easy enough. But you have to remember there's a lot of obstacles for the company. Another one is, for example, distance (not best example but it is one). Then costs of labour. Etc. And while some may be small, they add up, and do add complications in some form.

A bit more of an example, unrelated to this except for the fact it's defending some company - even a company I'm not fond of in many respects:

I'm also a defender of MS despite not liking their products. To me, when people complain about the 'monopoly' - and at the same time, don't want to (or indeed can't) learn anything else, that's just wrong to call it a monopoly then. If you have a problem with a product, don't use it. There's plenty of alternatives. I don't use any MS products. And those that then argue, well the computer came with it. All I can think of is: go make your own computer - you'll learn something new, you can save money, etc. Or just get another OS and install it over. If anything, the monopoly would be the companies that say if you install anything else (different windows, different OS) then we revoke your warranty. Sure, I started out on text based interfaces, but if someone just cannot be bothered to learn something, but then bicker about what options they don't or do have, then maybe they should shut the computer off.

And while I never had a problem with AT&T service, it's the same idea - they aren't doing anything illegal or wrong by saying fiber (and yes, I realize what others were saying too - and I even understand the frustrations).

Or more to the point, I'm trying to say: I don't like anything that is even close to defaming of anyone or anything. Back to MS, sure they have plenty of issues (security as one example), but then security does come down to the user, too - it's not just Microsoft's fault. So at best, I would say : MS has issues, but that doesn't mean they have a monopoly.

Perhaps this is partly because of a rather abhorrent school district I went through, but I don't find that bad, to have an issue with people saying wrong things.

And yeah, no company is perfect, I realize that. I mean, no one is perfect. Anyway, that was the whole idea behind my original post - there's a lot more than just what it appears to be, with everything usually.

Otherwise, agreed, the cost to the customer is quite fine (well, ok, maybe not OCs or even a DS1/DS3, but those are rather .. different ?).