http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Makes-Sense-26970256 en Fri, 24 May 2013 09:09:22 EDT Fri, 24 May 2013 09:09:22 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Makes-Sense-26972437 digital395.com/
-
--
--- To have ambition, was my ambition.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Makes-Sense-26972437 Tue, 06 Mar 2012 02:17:57 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Makes-Sense-26970932
FTTP is 100% more expensive UPFRONT, however over time it will cost less, and TQI is much higher on FIOS than Uverse seeing that att will have to eventually run new lines and replace the vrad w/ GPON. Also bandwidth is potentially an issue and scalability, environmental, and electrical. There is more to the equation than capex, there is opex and infrastructure costs too. Latest vrads are much more energy efficient and smaller than say 2 years ago, and I am sure cheaper. That is the joke network deploy is constantly getting less expensive and my bill does not...

Both AT&T and Verizon are sinking a fortune into LTE so that is defocusing them from building out prem solutions but as the competition wakes up (cable) they will have to respond or they will start losing customers. Cable is pretty much done w/ docsis 3 and that didnt cost squat, so they are in good position.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Makes-Sense-26970932 Mon, 05 Mar 2012 17:56:06 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Makes-Sense-26970595
Anyone can give some confirmed soruced study whether or not, att's plan jump to all they way to FTTP would be cheaper in the long run than going incrementally via FTTN? Also let not forget in new areas they already have FTTP.

So here is analysis of cost of upgrade dealing with cost of putting on VRADs and later replacing last mile with fiber vs fiber all the way down to the premises.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Makes-Sense-26970595 Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:43:18 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Makes-Sense-26970414 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Makes-Sense-26970414 Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:07:08 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Makes-Sense-26970379 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Makes-Sense-26970379 Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:06:25 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Makes-Sense-26970256
In my area you cant even order DSL anymore, only FIOS. The only issue I see was that DSL was $29 (DL) a few years ago and would get 6Mbit in my area (you can stream), whereas 15/5 is the lowest now offered in my area and if you just want internet that is pushing $60.

So to even come close to a reasonable DSL package you will need the double play at a minimum net/phone and that is around $75.

Now if I did PAYG voip.ms + DSL I would pay in the $40s, now this is in the $70's which is a good 60-70% more.

So while the technology is glittery better, the costs also skyrocket. I would assume VZ to coerce the users off the platform at a 1:1 cost and maybe provision a new tier to deal w/ the issue. Then they can always upsell on the triple play, and of course if you want the TP you go to 15/5 and can never go back :)

At least VZ is being smart about this and upgrading as necessary. My pops in San Ant had to deal w/ AT&T raising their tele rates every few months, so that basic was almost pushing $30/month and there was some grounding issue that AT&T didnt want to fix (nor would they). So I moved him to voip.ms, now he spends under $5 and sound is crystal clear over cable (TWC).

As companies milk their copper infra there will become a point that upgrading cost less than leaving and either they sell it off (a la VZ, others) or they upgrade. AT&T is going to have a massive issue w/ uverse on their hands over the next decade. It looks like VZ has found that point. This is also good, because if they upgrade to FIOS then they are less likely to sell off that territory and will eventually upgrade their entire area. I mean you could have Frontier that will never upgrade :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Makes-Sense-26970256 Mon, 05 Mar 2012 15:32:07 EDT