dslreports logo
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery


how-to block ads

Search Topic:
share rss forum feed
« Meh
This is a sub-selection from If the Future is Wireless?


Saint George, UT
reply to nunya

Re: If the Future is Wireless?

said by nunya:

No I'm not "putting my reputation" behind AT&T. Apparently you skim read my post. I said "for all that it really matters", which was in reply to another poster acting as if tenure at AT&T gave magical powers.
No, quite the opposite. I think AT&T has done it all wrong, if you would take the time to actually read and comprehend.
You have to stop thinking of "wireless" as cellular. Wireless cellular or even any current wireless company.

I really didn't retire from AT&T, but from Pacific Bell a totally different Company. I was with them for 31 years, working my way up from a Frame Person to a Second Level Service Manager. Mostly in Operations, so I have an understanding in Telco's. I really enjoyed my work, especially after Divestiture in '84 when Ma Bell was split up. Then PacBell went into the Golden Years, and we ran heavy with The Big Boys in The Silicon Valley. So to me Wireless is Wireless, no matter how you cut it and it will never have the Bandwidth of Fiber. You did make some valid points, The Average Person doesn't know any better. So if it works most of the time and not expensive, why not Wireless!

LXI 483
O Fallon, MO
Don't get me wrong, I do not want to see AT&T go away. Obviously I have a vested interest in them remaining a profitable and viable company.
But, with the advancements in technology and, and the changing customer demographic, I'm not sure how long they will last unless they change their evil ways quickly.
You know as well as I do that the Bell System used to be very proactive in almost every aspect (contrary to what most people think). R&D, safety, routine maintenance, continuing education, etc... That all went away and TA96 was the nail in the coffin. Everything became "reactive" as the whole industry started to spiral into a "race to the bottom", as I like to call it.
About 10 years after divestiture, all the RBOCs could think about was long distance. They cast everything else aside and focused on long distance as their "panacea". They should have been thinking about OSP upgrades and how to rule the bandwidth market.
Today the ILEC's all have long distance, which is a totally irrelevant product. The cable companies have DOCSIS 3.
U-Verse was the last project I worked on. I never actually got to see it come to fruition (I left before it went live). The whole time, I couldn't help but think what a horrible "stop-gap" solution U-Verse was to just doing it right and replacing all the plant with fiber. All the wasted man-hours conditioning U-Verse areas was sickening. Trying to milk 50 year old plant to provide enough bandwidth for HD streams.
...because I care.


Chesterfield, MO
reply to alchav
Wireless is wireless? I disagree. IMO, one of the most interesting things that could be done RIGHT NOW with CURRENT technology is make the last mile wireless with incredibly small, fixed-wireless, highly directional RF devices. When I say last mile, I mean, 5,280 feet. OTS tech could easily deliver symmetrical 100Mbps at which point it jumps on FTTN. In rural areas you could probably go much more than a mile by using wider spectrum since there's less congestion. Since the telcos are working to fiber-connect the cell towers, you might even be able to use a portion of the spectrum for wireless back haul to the closest tower.

IMO the kind of copper we have buried in the ground for POTS isn't worth what it takes to maintain it. Either invest in FTTH or go wireless for the last mile. I predict that a lot of spectrum will become available in the coming years when we realize that a fast network is everywhere and there's little or no need for broadcast-style spectrum. We should use all of it to create "the network" and make sure there's lots of competition or federalize it and fund it with taxes and then allow competitors to deliver services on top of it. I probably prefer the latter since it's already half-ass funded with tax payer dollars in the form of corporate USF welfare and whatever other tax-breaks and incentives we provide firms to deliver what some even go so far as to misrepresent as a constitutional "right" right up there with free speech. Of course that's B.S. but that never stops the misinformed from screaming about how unfair their existence is.