|reply to openbox9 |
Re: New DSL Speeds
Any argument can be valid depending on perspective. However, a 2013 technical article that claims an advantage due to DSL's extremely limited but "dedicated" last mile is like a driver who continues to praise a car's architecture and yet hasn't placed in the top 10 in the past decade. It's repeating marketing for investors and wishful thinkers.
DOCSIS 3.1 is aiming for 10Gbit downstream. The DSLAM will have to be in the subscriber's mailbox to be competitive. I don't call that an architectural advantage. At that distance, the coax is equally dedicated.
If the POTS plant folks have fiber to the DSLAM, they should consider the capabilities and cost of a wireless last mile. Especially if they could create a standard, get the consumer to foot the bill for the CPE and offer self-installation.
said by rradina:Split across how many channels? And how many cable companies are going to bond that many channels? For the record, I agree with you on principle. xDSL has a way to go to catch up with HFC plants used by cable companies.
DOCSIS 3.1 is aiming for 10Gbit downstream.
said by rradina:I don't see that being any more viable than pushing twisted pairs to their limits. Plus the added cost and spectrum needed?
If the POTS plant folks have fiber to the DSLAM, they should consider the capabilities and cost of a wireless last mile.
I don't think xDSL can catch them -- that's the problem with continuing to invest in this tech without at least pushing fiber deeper into their territory and serving everyone with something vs. just those fortunate enough to be within a mile of where they stopped.
Spectrum might no longer be the issue:
»White Space Broadband Deployed in California
Copper also continues to age and it's going to get crazy expensive to maintain given fewer and fewer POTS customers remain to share that cost. I'd be considering alternatives such as wireless. Maybe it's too costly but if you reliably can reach a mile from the DSLAM and reuse that same spectrum at another DSLAM three miles away...maybe it would be an affordable stop-gap that allows them to continue to push fiber deeper and split nodes (just like cable). Perhaps at the half-mile mark and continued wireless advances, they would remain competitive. Obviously the goal would be fiber all the way but this might be a path that allows them to eat the elephant a bite at a time while also offering a potential off-load for mobile customers. The mobile off-load could also generate revenue by becoming a monthly fee that doesn't affect their 4G data cap (or at least has a separate cap).
said by rradina:That costs money. If the telcos saw the returns, they would've already made that push.I definitely don't see telcos leveraging white space for the last mile. Too many unknowns.
without at least pushing fiber deeper into their territory and serving everyone with something vs. just those fortunate enough to be within a mile of where they stopped.
said by rradina:Wireless will fill the gaps. That's a given. Fiber upgrades will eventually replace the rest.
I'd be considering alternatives such as wireless.