dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
17
share rss forum feed

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

1 recommendation

reply to TechnoGeek

Re: Long ago past subsidies irrelevant

said by TechnoGeek:

Um, Asia has significant wired services (Korea, Japan). Some of it much better than ours.

LTE is not going to match cable's performance in the foreseeable future, so how is it the future if the performance is the same as what its replacing (DSL)? And I'm not even talking about the new problems that come with wireless (interference, etc). How does LTE handle wireless congestion? I certainly don't think it will do as good of a job as a wired facility, but I am not a network engineer, so I don't really know.

One more point is that AT&T (and other cell providers) are aggressive cappers, saying that caps are needed to reduce congestion. LTE is going to be the same story I think.

If consumers are willing to pay for "significant wired services", including those that are "better than ours", then someone will install them.

If they aren't, it won't happen.

Verizon has demonstrated the willingness to take the risk on FTTH, and has spent huge sums chasing it. But the majority of customers aren't buying it.

With fixed-LTE looming, wired providers are foolish to risk capital on products they have to price at $70+/month, when the subscribers are looking for a $30-40 product.

While it is difficult for wireless to beat wired for performance, when you consider the cost to deploy (and therefore monthly pricing), and when you consider the ongoing maintenance requirements for wired, add in consumer choice (to do without wired), and wireless rules the day.

Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
said by elray:

While it is difficult for wireless to beat wired for performance, when you consider the cost to deploy (and therefore monthly pricing), and when you consider the ongoing maintenance requirements for wired, add in consumer choice (to do without wired), and wireless rules the day.

It is impossible for wireless to beat fiber to the premises for performance just as it is impossible for fiber to beat the mobility of wireless. Unless we want to become a third world country both will be needed in the future and fiber is the logical replacement for the public switched telephone network. Long term maintenance costs are much lower for fiber than for copper and probably even lower than for wireless. In a country that put man on the moon and built the interstate highway system saying that fiber to the premises is too costly shows a lack of will.


a333
A hot cup of integrals please

join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
reply to elray
said by elray:

said by TechnoGeek:

Um, Asia has significant wired services (Korea, Japan). Some of it much better than ours.

LTE is not going to match cable's performance in the foreseeable future, so how is it the future if the performance is the same as what its replacing (DSL)? And I'm not even talking about the new problems that come with wireless (interference, etc). How does LTE handle wireless congestion? I certainly don't think it will do as good of a job as a wired facility, but I am not a network engineer, so I don't really know.

One more point is that AT&T (and other cell providers) are aggressive cappers, saying that caps are needed to reduce congestion. LTE is going to be the same story I think.

If consumers are willing to pay for "significant wired services", including those that are "better than ours", then someone will install them.

If they aren't, it won't happen.

...

Hard to create a wired fiber network from scratch if incumbents are willing to go to great lengths to sue you down to the ground before you even start, don't you think?
--
Physics: Will you break the laws of physics, or will the laws of physics break you?
If physicists stand on each other's shoulders, computer scientists stand on each other's toes, and computer programmers dig each other's graves.

WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX
reply to elray
"If consumers are willing to pay for "significant wired services", including those that are "better than ours", then someone will install them."

DEFINITELY. I will pay $50 for symmetrical 100 Mbps with no caps as in South Korea and Japan.

Spare me the population density argument and explain why NYC does not have it.

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

1 recommendation

reply to Sammer
said by Sammer:

said by elray:

While it is difficult for wireless to beat wired for performance, when you consider the cost to deploy (and therefore monthly pricing), and when you consider the ongoing maintenance requirements for wired, add in consumer choice (to do without wired), and wireless rules the day.

It is impossible for wireless to beat fiber to the premises for performance just as it is impossible for fiber to beat the mobility of wireless. Unless we want to become a third world country both will be needed in the future and fiber is the logical replacement for the public switched telephone network. Long term maintenance costs are much lower for fiber than for copper and probably even lower than for wireless. In a country that put man on the moon and built the interstate highway system saying that fiber to the premises is too costly shows a lack of will.

The "logical" replacement for the PSTN is wireless. People have already voted so with their wallets.

There may be no means to match fiber's performance, but no one actually NEEDS fiber performance, they only want it - and the majority aren't willing to pay for it when it is so offered.

Installing FTTH isn't going to grow the economy, or prevent us from becoming a third-rate nation; we're already well on our way, given our spending/borrowing habits, welfare state, open borders, socialized medicine, and general lack of morality.

It is indeed, too costly. Consumers are saying "No, thank you."
When Dane Jasper of Sonic, Google, Surewest, and others figure a way to deliver FTTH at DSL prices to everyone, they will. But please don't project your own personal desire for a luxury service and expect the rest of us to subsidize it.

cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9

1 recommendation

reply to elray

If consumers are willing to pay for "significant wired services", including those that are "better than ours", then someone will install them.

That's the thing, you can't! Municipal networks were buried in red tape, and outlawed. Totally private investment in fiber networks have met with exactly the same battles -- the *monopolies* already there don't want the competition; even in markets they don't want to serve, they don't want anyone else going "behind their back".

Wireless is *not* the future; wireless has numerous problems wired networks do not have and never will. Wireless cannot match the performance of wired networks, side by side. Wireless, even the mythical "fixed-LTE", will never be the preferred option when a wired connection is available. They want to drive people to the inferior experience at significantly higher costs (more profit for them) by making sure you have no fallback. If you think wireless is so great, tether your house to your cellphone and use NOTHING ELSE for a month -- you'll scream uncle in under a week. Your speed will be randomly unpredictable and slow, with much higher latency, and your bill will be insane.

Yes, the old twisted copper pair PSTN wired network has been a dead horse for decades. One simply cannot get the speeds needed for modern networking over the distances needed -- hence the Uverse "VRAD every half mile" deployment plan... that only works in high density areas, which is why they are so hot on dropping their "old" POTS network / low density, rural areas. They're the incumbant require by law to maintain that infrastructure right now. They would VERY much like to abandon that "cost center" for the much more profitable (in every way) high density areas. Mark my words, they take away that law and vast portions of the country will be left out in the cold with no landline services and slow, spotty cell coverage, if any at all. (and they *still* fight tooth and nail to keep anyone else from filling the void.)

cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9
reply to WernerSchutz
*cough*unions*cough*

(also, politics, land owners, etc.)

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to a333
You mean suing to prevent potentially unfair competition from a government entity?

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to WernerSchutz
Come to Japan with it's relatively high cost of living. It's a double edged sword when people want to claim how low cost broadband can be in country X. Sure, you can pay $50/mth for 100 Mbps connections, but that residence that you're living in will cost you several thousands of dollars. Add in obscene utility costs and the expensive food, and it's not necessarily such a great deal any longer.

Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:

You mean suing to prevent potentially unfair competition from a government entity?

How is it unfair competition when the incumbent phone company is unwilling to provide the service?

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
reply to WernerSchutz
said by WernerSchutz:

"If consumers are willing to pay for "significant wired services", including those that are "better than ours", then someone will install them."

DEFINITELY. I will pay $50 for symmetrical 100 Mbps with no caps as in South Korea and Japan.

Spare me the population density argument and explain why NYC does not have it.

You don't represent the majority of consumers, who are disinterested or unwilling to pay $70+/month for FTTH, which is the current bar. If Sonic, Surewest, Verizon, Google and others *can* offer your 100M symmetrical for $50 in NYC, not just a few cherry-picked towns, they will, and more people will subscribe, and this debate will be over. But the last-mile simply isn't that cheap.

NYC is not South Korea or Japan.
Uncle Sam doesn't own telco, nor should they.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to Sammer
Where is the incumbent not providing service that municipalities, or any private entity for that matter, have been sued and prevented from deploying infrastructure.

More importantly, I was clarifying a333 See Profile's post that lawsuits have been against municipalities not just anyone that wishes to compete.


jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
reply to WernerSchutz
said by WernerSchutz:

Spare me the population density argument and explain why NYC does not have it.

Because S.Korea decided early that everyone would need/want broadband so rather than commercialize the infrastructure they built only one. Infra is public property, all services running on it are private/competitively operated. At least that's what I read somewhere on the interwebs. Needs verification.

Socialism = bad,bad,bad.

WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX
said by jap:

said by WernerSchutz:

Spare me the population density argument and explain why NYC does not have it.

Because S.Korea decided early that everyone would need/want broadband so rather than commercialize the infrastructure they built only one. Infra is public property, all services running on it are private/competitively operated. At least that's what I read somewhere on the interwebs. Needs verification.

Socialism = bad,bad,bad.

While corporatism = good


jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
said by WernerSchutz:

While corporatism = good

Correct. All things Corps do is what's best for patriotic Corporatists like you and me. Everyone else is evil. Korea, the Nordic countries, these heathen US cities, and now some African countries. Sure they have cheap, reliable, fast service where all VoIP and vid services compete on a level field but at what cost to their souls? I'd rather pay $140 for proprietary symmetrical and go to heaven than let the devil's socialism touch my bits.

MrBungle87

join:2013-01-18
Durham, NC
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
·Time Warner Cable

1 recommendation

reply to cramer
This is the truth. Monopolies don't want competition because they want MORE money--not because they want to 'innovate'. Sticking rural customers on shitty, slow wireless is not innovative, nor is it fixing the very fundamental problems we have in American broadband (much of which is so slow, it can't rightly be called broadband).

Municipal ISPs are the way of the future. Wilson, North Carolina has their own FTTP/FTTH network called Greenlight which offers up to 100/100Mbit for about $180 a month. And Time Warner fought it TOOTH AND NAIL. Time Warner also lines politicians' pockets in the state legislature to keep their chokehold on much of the NC market. I realize some of you more radical libertarians who believe in ZERO government intervention, ever, are put off by the idea that the government has to regulate the broadband industry to some degree, but it needs to happen. Meaningful regulation and actual competition. We need an FCC that stands up to cable monopolies rather than a guy like Genachowski asking for gigabit fiber in every city by 2015.