dslreports logo
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery


Search Topic:
share rss forum feed
« BULL SH!TDumb users »
This is a sub-selection from Makes Sense


San Jose, CA
reply to elefante72

Re: Makes Sense

I think it was in at&t's budget to upgrade most areas to FTTN and later to FTTP as necessary, rather than spending all cost upfront for FTTP.

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.


East Amherst, NY
·Verizon FiOS

1 recommendation

Its a matter of investment and customer service. Many people are very happy w/ uverse. My pops tried it out and the line quality was so poor the service suffered. That is the problem w/ copper. So he has 50 year old copper that has some issue between the vrad and him, and at&t isnt going to run a new line, so he goes w/ TWC.

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.