|reply to Bill Neilson |
Re: I am not the most up-to-date on upgrading UVerse
elray, Customers won't know the technical details, but when their internet slows down while watching TV harkens back to the days that you need two phone lines to talk on the phone and use the internet at the same time, or they can only get 2 or 3 HD streams into the house at once, they will start to notice how much U-Verse sucks. Especially when cable rolls out 6-tuner 4+ room DVRs that run on MoCA, and AT&T ran out of bandwidth at 4. Pair bonding can only get them so far. They are bandwidth starved, and they need to go to FTTH.
Unfortunately, it will take a few years for AT&T to either have U-Verse stagnate or start bleeding customers, or have very high churn, and THEN, after they've dumped millions more into an archaic copper plant before they are finally forced to go fiber. The other problem that they have is that U-Verse only gets some of the customers on a CO, whereas fiber, as long as you can get into MDUs, is 100%, as you can just keep running the fiber until you hit all the customers, since it's not distance sensitive at that scale.
tanzam75, Verizon knew what was right, and rolled out FIOS until their leadership got really stupid and stopped expanding it. AT&T CAN be fully competitive with cable over their entire territory. GPON fiber can get them there. They should shrink the capacity of their copper plant to reduce ongoing maintenance costs, instead of building more capacity into it with shoestrings and bubble gum to handle U-Verse.
Telcos surely can compete with coax. It's called GPON. It's faster than what cable has, and puts them at a slight advantage, and at worst case, causes the cable providers to burn through some money splitting nodes, rolling out SDV, and the like just to keep up with fiber.
In the long run, Verizon will do just fine with FIOS. It is a telling sign how stupid customers are though, as if customers understood anything about anything FIOS would have a 100% take rate and cable would have to adapt to dual-channeling with SDV and faster internet speeds to compete.
For AT&T it will be MORE expensive. They are losing customers who would otherwise sign up for a service, and they are DUMPING money into U-Verse for plant upgrades with limited benefit. The cost of maintaining a complicated FTTN network with so much active gear out in the field is significant. Verizon doesn't have active equipment out in the field, they have two passive networks that are passive from the CO to the customer.
tschmidt, There is definitely room for a second provider in most markets, especially with triple-play. Verizon needs to get better at marketing their service, especially in regards to upload speeds and HD quality. I can think of all sorts of funny ads they could create that visually show what Comcast is doing by triple-channeling their QAM.
Right, the time horizon is the issue. Long-term, U-Verse will be far less profitable than two right-sized passive plants, GPON and POTS, but U-Verse is cheap to install now.
I doubt we'd see a wholesale last-mile network, who would want to build it? The profit is in the content and phone services, not providing raw pipes. The other issue is that you'd need one fiber cable per customer, and not multiplex 32:1 like Verizon does with GPON.