dslreports logo
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery


how-to block ads

Search Topic:
share rss forum feed

reply to Simba7

Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once

I didn't say you were making crap up. You are not the one I was replying to. And challenge me all you like. Not going to change anything.

I know the internet is vital. Hence is why I was arguing that it was. Skippy is the one who said it wasn't when he told me to "Proof it!" :S

The cable can support future technologies. That doesn't mean the hardware can. Obviously the fiber cable is future proof (although now we are already talking about have nanotube fiber in the future). But that doesn't make it a good business decision for At&t 15 years ago. They would still have to operate their copper network. Operating 2 networks for 15 years would have been extremely uneconomical, regardless of how future proof fiber is. Waiting a while longer makes deployment not only cheaper, but saves over having to maintain 2 networks as required by the FCC.

I didn't buy the equipment, and to be honest, I am not positive on what brand it was. But I am positive that it was not cheap nor shitty equipment. Hence is why they switched to copper. This wasn't done yesterday. It as done quite a while ago actually, back when fiber in the business didn't make sense for many reasons including reliability. But they did it anyway, because it was supposed to be future proof. Technically it is still there and they could still use it. But they won't for some time.


What about all that dark fiber laying around the country that WAS laid 15 years ago... Heard of Wiltel? Paying pretty well now! Companies need to think LONG term as well as short term.