SunnyD
join:2009-03-20
Madison, AL | Economically viable? I live in a 2 year old neighborhood. The AT&T tech that rolled out to me two years ago to run the line to my house said that my neighborhood was already wired for and completely capable of UVerse... all that was needed was to swap the cards out in the node across the street. He also told me that that wasn't going to happen any time soon - AT&T wasn't providing the cards to him for my address.
Of course, I also am privy to know that Bell South had south Huntsville already run with FTTH and was starting trials when AT&T re-acquired them. Since then, AT&T has shut everything off in terms of FTTH other than a select few (likely employees).
It's really sad when a company refuses to think of anything but profits. |
|
| said by SunnyD:It's really sad when a company refuses to think of anything but profits. My understanding is that the management of a corporation has a fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders to do exactly that. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| But to think of short-term profit as the only goal is...shortsighted. You may be able to make a buck now with wireless but eventually you'll run out of ways to make money. There is a limit to how much people will pay for wireless service, even if the number of devices they can use it on grows. At that point you have to start looking at the wireline side of things, which is best served by FTTH (low maintenance costs, very high speeds). |
|
BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH | reply to CharlesH1
Verizon's doing it with FIOS. |
|
| reply to SunnyD
AT&T is 'large enough' to spin off its own separate company for the 'unprofitable' (rural) sites, and find a method of making it work and profitable. It just can't fit rural (less profitable) + urban (profitable) under the same corporate umbrella. |
|
cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:7 | It's *ALL* immensely profitable. All of the legacy DSL gear has been installed and paid for for a long time now. (so long, most of it has likely been completely depreciated.) The biggest problem I can see is one of vendor support... the vendor either doesn't support the aging gear, or they no longer exist at all. "Uverse IPDSLAM" is the technology refresh here -- which as another poster points out, is a linecard swap. This "upgrade" is a rounding error compared to the billions the idiots have wasted putting a VRAD on every street corner and front yard in the country in order to get a short enough loop. And it's ALL already obsolete; copper loop DSL is a dead end. |
|
BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH | Yup. They should have put fiber in instead. |
|
|
|
 Doctor OldsI Need A Remedy For What's Ailing Me.Premium,VIP
join:2001-04-19
1970 442 W30
kudos:18 | reply to SunnyD
said by SunnyD:I live in a 2 year old neighborhood. The AT&T tech that rolled out to me two years ago to run the line to my house said that my neighborhood was already wired for and completely capable of UVerse...
Of course it is, just like my 50 Year old neighborhood. Uverse is just higher speed xDSL over traditional POTS.
--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time? |
|
