carlini7
Premium
join:2003-12-19
Dundee, IL
| reply to RideRed
Re: Not this idiot again...YES Captain Obvious
RideRed
It's MY burden? It is obvious that you have absolutely no clue of network engineering, the time it takes to revamp an outdated network or how you go about upgrading a large network infrastructure. It's a long-term strategy, a huge investment and it does not fit into a timeframe defined by a quarterly report.
It is not a 90 day process. Nor is it something that you change out and then have to change it out again in five or ten years.
Having said all that, if you do commit to upgrading the network which is a multi-billion dollar endeavor, you think you would want to do it once and be done with it, rather than come up with some hybrid approach which does not yield high enough speeds today let alone what will be needed in ten years (maybe five).
Why do you think the phone companies want to squeeze another couple of years out of what is in the ground now? To your argument - short-term profits to please the stockholders.
It doesn't cost them anything compared to trenching up the ground and laying fiber (that is HUGE capital investment).
The problem is that copper is no comparison to fiber and if you, as well as all the investors that you purport to know intimately, were focused on looking long-term and not quarterly reports, you would select fiber for the next 50 years not copper or a copper/fiber hybrid. As THAT is the most cost-effective approach IF you are looking long-term and huge return on investment.
Unfortunately, focusing on short-term profits instead of looking long-term is the kiss of death in this industry.
Ask the 60+ ILEC companies that went bankrupt in the early 2000s because they thought this was a quick buck industry that needed minimal capital investment. (And yes I HAVE the list if you want it.)
If investors are as astute as you say they are, then they should realize that this is "the game" with this type of industry. Many have gone into ILECs thinking that there are huge sums of money to be made quickly and without large capital investments.
As for the wisdom of CEOs and short-term profits, I guess that is the overriding culture in the US. Maybe you should ask Ford (a short-term thinking US company based on your overall assumption of US companies) why they are turning to Toyota (a long-term thinking company) to try and bail them out. (I'm not going to go into the differences of long-term vs. short-term strategic management or cultural differences - go read some books)
As for Network Speedometers, funny you should mention that. I just got an EMail on that very subject on 12/27/2006:
James,
SBC/AT&T just sold another friend up to 3000 kps DSL service ( $24.99 a month).
His home is located at least 4 copper wire miles from the Central Office. I speed tested his download and he can only get 768kps ( $14.99 a month ). Do you think they are going
to call him and advise him of that ( of course not ). Most consumers don't realize that
SBC/AT&T is taking an extra $120.00 a year out of their pockets. Maybe a merger
conditions should be that they refund or change everyone DSL plan to what they can actually receive on the copper wires.
Regards,
Jerry Downing
So RideRed - who is slinging hogwash?? There is the perfect example that you wanted. Satisfied? Probably not.
Maybe you and your flock are just a lost cause. Maybe I am fighting a losing battle trying to make you see the light. You are probably paying the extra $120 a month for your turbo DSL that isn't being delivered.
And YOU can come up with the exhaustive studies and tell me that if the incumbents think they have the "best solution" then why are they mounting all these lawsuits and legislative lobbying to keep competitors out that are looking to do FTTP infrastructures?
Based on your own arguments, if the incumbents have the best solution and no one is concerned about high speed access because of "return on investments", they would not be so concerned about others coming up with a more advanced infrastructure that would obsolete theirs.
Ask the incumbents why they need to spend tens of millions of dollars on lobbying efforts to create restrictive legislation if they were not concerned about endeavors like Project Utopia or others providing the proof-of-concept that you and others say is not out there. |
|
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
| Exactly!
Thanks for pointing out that network investment is a SUNK cost and is recapped over the lifetime of the network, which according to the squid, is infinite for AT&T.
Just because At&t dragged its feet through the 90's (when they should have been considering these upgrades) they have now found themselves in a position where the investment is too great for them to manage on their current cash flows.
What is At&t's solution? Amalgamate and make it so that no company ever could sink that kind of capital into the upgrade and bring down the consumers who are stuck on their lousy service, which will be strongly tied to the new economy of the future, with it. |
|
squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02
| reply to carlini7
A billion is more than a millon.
Tens of millions for lobbying is NOTHING compared to the tens of BILLIONS a multi-gigabit build out would cost and you still have yet to show where those billions would come from or how other mitigating technologies would impact such a deployment.
As far as them considering it, look at the news. The majors are all deploying fiber, cable already has deployed and AT&T is rethinking their VDSL project.
And fine, rather than whine about copper and click our heals hoping that AT&T can crap 10's of billions for a fiber build out, how about writing an article about "deploy or get the F out of the way" assailing telcos and cable operators who sue to stop competitors while they refuse to deploy on their own or assail Verizon's PA billion dollar rip off.
But to piss and moan that the industry isn't moving fast enough while you give no plan of your own of how they could possibly move faster is hypocritical.
Investors and customers are the ones paying the bill genius, not you. Verizon answers to their INVESTOR-OWNERSHIP, not you. The investors have a reasonable expectation to get returns on their investments and even if short-sighted are reasonable in questioning the expense and risk of an accelerated fiber deployment.
Calini, just because you can balance our own checkbook or buy a car doesn't mean you can create budgets for Verizon.
As a holder of a degree in Finance (emphasizing in Capital Budgeting) from CSLB and an advanced degree in Economics from University of California, Irvine, I would admit my knowledge of fiber network topology is lacking, but not nearly as much as yours is in business economics.
Having worked on the accounting side of MASSIVE capital intensive projects for Boeing, Raytheon and Textron I have plenty of experience to know that these capital expenses are hugely burdensome and risky even if the future of the company may hang in the balance. One look at Sonic Cruiser or A380 freightliner will show you how bad the consequences are if you screw up predicting what people want a decade in the future.
The point is that the industry majors ARE deploying, some faster than others but great caution must be taken by these companies or they would face certain bankruptcy.
--
So-called Prof. James Carlini is like a investment advisor who tells you the answer is "buy low, sell high". Well duh, how do we do that? There is never an answer to that one. |
|
squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02
| reply to backness
said by backness  :Exactly! Thanks for pointing out that network investment is a SUNK cost and is recapped over the lifetime of the network, which according to the squid, is infinite for AT&T. Just because At&t dragged its feet through the 90's (when they should have been considering these upgrades) they have now found themselves in a position where the investment is too great for them to manage on their current cash flows. What is At&t's solution? Amalgamate and make it so that no company ever could sink that kind of capital into the upgrade and bring down the consumers who are stuck on their lousy service, which will be strongly tied to the new economy of the future, with it. What Calini isn't answering is where is the money going to come from TODAY. Perhaps at some time in the future AT&T will have recouped their investment but the industry is volatile and we saw from dark fiber deployments in the late 90's that not all companies can afford wait around for their return.
If you see a house for $400,000 that is worth a million (so obviously you can flip it), but don't have the $400,000 the point is moot. That is unless you can put together a plan and CONVINCE INVESTORS to loan you the $400,000. Calini has failed thus far to provide even the hint of such a plan.
It's not enough to want near unlimited throughput or to say that AT&T will get their money back at some point in the future.
Investors and company management want to know what is going to happen BETWEEN NOW AND THEN.
Baking a pie without filling doesn't a pie make and Calini brining this up, criticizing the incumbants while obviously not thinking things though is no different.
--
So-called Prof. James Carlini is like a investment advisor who tells you the answer is "buy low, sell high". Well duh, how do we do that? There is never an answer to that one. |
|
squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02
4 edits | reply to carlini7
said by carlini7 :Maybe you and your flock are just a lost cause. Maybe I am fighting a losing battle trying to make you see the light. You are probably paying the extra $120 a month for your turbo DSL that isn't being delivered. Holy crap!
Just goes to show that you don't bother listening to anyone but yourself (including your ISP service agreements). You read the first sentence then fire off another illogical rant.
RideRed has FiOS genius. RideRed has the very FTTH service you're pining for.
As for me, at home I have a similar service via Cox. At my office in Huntington Beach I skipped over FiOS and have Covad Wireless and am very content with it (and aware of the terms of my contract).
Meanwhile you freely admit that such a deployment is a massive undertaking (but obviously don't understand just how massive and risky), in planning, expense and execution yet as AT&T deploys bridding measures like fiber to the node and VDSL while they consider last feet FTTP and as Verizon and other incumbants deploy FTTP you bitch that it's not happening fast enough. You just like listening to yourself and expect everyone to blindly agree with you and anyone who doesn't MUST be an uneducated idiot.
Jeez, you really need to calm down. You are just embarrassing yourself.
--
So-called Prof. James Carlini is like a investment advisor who tells you the answer is "buy low, sell high". Well duh, how do we do that? There is never an answer to that one. |
|
carlini7
Premium
join:2003-12-19
Dundee, IL
| reply to squid7
SQUID
Ohhhh,,,I'm impressed. NOT. You have no idea about network infrastructure and sunken capital costs. Read the previous post before yours. You should understand it if you have those degrees.
I am surprised you did not volunteer what Backness said if you are so astute at financing and capital budgeting. It would be safe to say - You don't know the industry.
If I were you, I'd ask for your money back on your degrees because they did not teach you much. They should have taught you that competitive forces can obsolete traditional business models and in technology that can happen very quickly.
That being the case - explain why tens of millions of dollars are spent on lobbying to restrict competition that will obsolete the current network infrastructure. All of those millions could be put to upgrade infrastructure if they were so sure that what they have inplace is adequate.
Talk about skirting the issues - you did not answer my questions. If you are a budgeting genius all of a sudden, where are all of your answers?
And for something simple as a Network Speedometer which was just offered as an idea - you dismiss it but you fail to see the average Joe getting ripped off on service he is not getting, but paying for. I guess a Masters Degree doesn't give you the common sense to figure a consumer problem out.
Go back to playing with your Lionel train. |
|
squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02
2 edits | It wouldn't matter if Brian Roberts came on here disagreeing with you. You would read the first sentence, click reply and fire up another rant. I'm not surprised given that you railed on RideRed as paying for overpriced DSL (when he mentioned more than once he has FTTH with FiOS) and that you can't even read simple provider-subscriber service agreements.
As for your questions that I've already answered on multiple occasions, I'll state those answers again. Perhaps this time you'll make it past the first sentence before clicking that reply button.
There is more than one competitive angle Verizon and other's take. On one hand Verizon is deploying competitive services while on the other they do what they can to slow other competitors. Duh, this is nothing new and there will NEVER be a time where competing on product merit is the only method of competition. To think there will be is living outside reality.
As such, while Verizon, AT&T and cable operators spend millions and sometimes billions on infrastructure improvements (Comcast is dropping nearly $100M in the Bay Area alone) other units of these companies look to slow their competitors and preserve their market position through lobbying efforts.
If you want to criticize their marketing efforts, by all means I would agree with that but to think it will change anything is ludicrous. I would wholly support and positively comment on the hypocrisy of providers like AT&T who on occasion refuse to deploy while in the next breath sue the muni to stop its own deployment. But that wasn't the focus of this latest article of yours. If it had been, you wouldn't be laughed at.
Again with the damn speedometer, you didn't get it then and you didn't get it now.
What part of "speeds are not guaranteed are you not getting"? No where in these budget providers service agreements that CUSTOMERS freely agree to is any guarantee of minimum speed (except for AT&T DSL) or fitness of use.
Customers are free to enter into that agreement or not. If they must have an SLA they can get one, but it costs more because it costs far more to provide.
Certainly you, being a self-proclaimed network topology expert understand that in order to sell multi-megabit service you have to sell more connections than you can provide concurrent service for. To deny that will simply end the discussion here and now as you will officially tag yourself as full of crap.
Certainly you don't expect ISP's to only sell as many connections as they can support if 100% are wide open. If so, you should produce an article with the accounting showing how that would be possible.
Shared bandwidth is the cornerstone of budget providers. Bandwidth sharing which on occasion can result in speeds below advertised maximum is how a provider like Comcast or Cox can provide 12-15 or even 30 Mb service for $50/mo.
Go price a 30Mb connection with an SLA quoting up time and minimum speeds and let me know what you come up with. You didn't the last time the speedometer was brought up and you won't now.
Lionel train? Yeah, you tried that one already and like you aren't an industry expert, you apparently aren't a good joke writer either.
I'm done wasting time on you. You obviously don't get it and will continue to generate these meaningless rants of yours. However since I find you very amusing I will continue to read, comment and laugh at them so you win in the end. I've already shown how your logic is flawed and your conconclusions questionable.
Enjoy your day.
--
So-called Prof. James Carlini is like a investment advisor who tells you the answer is "buy low, sell high". Well duh, how do we do that? There is never an answer to that one. |
|
squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02
4 edits | reply to carlini7
Trying to have a logical discussion with you is like talking to the dog.
A comment on your article said it in just a few sentences what I've been trying to get around in dozens.
»wistechnology.com/article.php?id···ent56802
said by Hollowpoint, in part :
Or you could look at Verizon's example- 20 billion for it's FTTH project, and that's not a buildout to all customers nor is it offering anywhere near the speeds you propose. If it fails, the project could very well sink Verizon. Paying off 20 billion in debt with $50/month customers is far from a sure bet and as such investors are nervous about the project.
Exactamundo. My point in all of this to you Carlini, is show me and the investors how paying off this estimated $20 billion in debt with $50/mo subscribers is a sure bet given that the entire company is being put at risk in the effort. Verizon leadership seems to think the risk is worth it and investors who has the money riding on this guess are worried as well they should be. And you are in no position to be critical of that concern. |
|
squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02
3 edits | Even more amusing...you take the same ad hominem tactics with that poster as you did, me, RideRed and countless others.
»wistechnology.com/article.php?id···ent57508
said by The Great Carlini :
It's great to see the pseudo-experts come out of the woodwork.
Your juvenile behavior and condescending arrogance when people like "Hollowpoint" present logical, well thought out comments is unbecoming.
You should stop writing these public articles if you can't take criticism of your opinions without lashing out.
With that I bid good day.
'I try to get out, and they pull me back in.' - Michael Corleone |
|
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2 | reply to squid7
FFTH has nothing to do with dark fiber... |
|
carlini7
Premium
join:2003-12-19
Dundee, IL
| SQUID
I have read all of your whining posts or should I call them little kid rants? Look at all the space you took up to write your character assassinations. You have been non-stop writing and ranting. Why? You have been outed.
You are entitled to your opinions but that's all they are. And bottom line, they are not really grounded in any industy expertise.
After so many long and name-calling posts, it is FINALLY out that you do not know the industry, have never worked in it, have never had any engineering courses in telephony, have never designed or budgeted a major network or infrastructure upgrade, performed due diligence in a multi-billion dollar infrastructure acquisition, have never put any marketing strategies together and cannot even comment about the financing that someone else (backness) had to point out.
At best you are a consumer. Nothing wrong with that but don't try to come off and pontificate your BS and name-calling. That doesn't speak well of your education.
The incumbents (and that is the correct spelling) are doing everything they can to hold off new approaches to network infrastructure that obsolete their business model.
Fiber, WiMax all of these technologies obsolete the traditional business model that is being protected through lobbying and other efforts (consumer marketing, etc.).
All you have to do is look at where the rest of the world is going and it certainly is not putting in copper or trying to extend its life.
I'll give you this - Verizon is on the right track and putting in fiber is the long-term investment. The electronics that hang off of it dictates the speed. Once the fiber is in the ground, you just switch out the electronics at either end to increase the speeds - EXACTLY the same approach used with copper although copper as a transmission medium will never provide the speeds that fiber will.
The MAJOR cost Squid is the trenching and putting in the fiber in the ground. (In the Labs, they have already tested terabit speeds so it is a LONG-TERM solution) Once the fiber is in, it's in. Very long term use. (just like copper was 50 years ago)
Again if you listen to the short-term thinkers or the analysts on TV, they (VERIZON) are taking a gamble with the stockholders. Stockholders deal in taking Risk.
The reality is that Verizon is positioning itself better than anyone else and with fiber (dark fiber) in the ground - they are the best candidate to be bought out because they have something of value in the ground.
As to Network Speedometers : If one company comes out with a network speedometer as part of their marketing package, the others will follow.
I gave you the proof that people are being ripped off and it's not just reading the SLA or terms, it is good corporate policy to provide what is being sold. Or do you disagree with that? That's a rhetorical question so don't waste your time answering it.
I won't waste my time on yours either. |
|
carlini7
Premium
join:2003-12-19
Dundee, IL |  reply to squid7
It's INCUMBENTS. See my previous Post. Thanks |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | reply to carlini7
Where is the list of ILECs that went bankrupt? |
|
squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02
3 edits | reply to carlini7
It's INDUSTRY, but thanks for spell checking. Your Lionel train example works both ways and just because someone can easily manage their personal finances doesn't make them an expert in finances of a corporate scale.
How I make a good living is specializing in capital budgeting and it's specialists in capital budgeting and risk management that make these money spending recommendations to the BOD, not the electrical engineers or network specialists.
Just as I'm not an expert in network topology, you have no expertise in where to get the money or what the risk to the company is. That's not a bad thing, it's just not what you chose to study or chose as a profession as I did. So I understand your ignorance on the subject.
While you say that I'm not qualified to comment because I'm not an industry insider as you proclaim to be, in finance it doesn't matter what the money is being spent on. Finance people aren't double-majors in whatever they're planning to spend money on. If the money is being spent on engineering airplane components or assembly planning or fiber deployments, the concepts of demand, investment, risk and return are EXACTLY the same especially.
To "Finance" people, it's all widgets and the same principles apply.
I don't care how big a company is, $20 billion is a huge sum and it takes A LOT of time and painful planning to do it right and even then investors who are footing the bill get VERY nervous as they should be.
Set aside your arrogance and recognize that you don't have all of the answers and you should listen to individual posters who may be experts in different fields. Then you'll have more pieces for your position.
In your writings you appear to be heavily biased against the ILECs (not uncommon here at DSLR) and I believe it precludes you from being objective in your analysis of these issues. |
|
squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02
4 edits | reply to carlini7
said by carlini7 :James, SBC/AT&T just sold another friend up to 3000 kps DSL service ( $24.99 a month). His home is located at least 4 copper wire miles from the Central Office. I speed tested his download and he can only get 768kps ( $14.99 a month ). Do you think they are going to call him and advise him of that ( of course not ). Most consumers don't realize that SBC/AT&T is taking an extra $120.00 a year out of their pockets. Maybe a merger conditions should be that they refund or change everyone DSL plan to what they can actually receive on the copper wires. Regards, Jerry Downing Okay, I'll post without the condescending tone and we'll see if you can do the same.
From what I see your proof shows that there is no need for a PUC mandated speedometer to determine if people are getting "what they're paying for".
Meanwhile that subscriber with SBC portrayed in your example had a minimum quoted speed of 1.5Mb down (per the SBC/AT&T website) and the sub need only call SBC to ask why he/she isn't getting the quoted minimum speed. They'll attempt to deliver it (if it wasn't a distance issue) or downgrade the account should the customer choose to. And during the online order process AT&T states quote:
The actual speed achieved will depend on several factors, including line conditions and loop length.
I'm assuming that that sub ordered online as according to that online order page those prices are only valid for orders placed entirely online or ordered through select retailers (which for the DSL product I haven't heard of). If the order was placed by phone, whatever was 'disclaimed' by AT&T is hearsay and who knows if they warned the customer about loop limitations or not.
AT&T doesn't know why the subscriber ordered 3Mb service. Perhaps the sub is more interested in the 512kbps up that comes from the 3Mb service plan and he could have gotten even at 16,000 ft.
If that was the case and AT&T forced a downgrade to 768/128 (as Verizon would have as they do Cu ft limitations for their plans) and the customer was pissed, what would be your position?
I know if I had Verizon DSL and was at 16,000 ft I would pay the extra $10 to end up with 768/768 service than being forced to accept (if I kept DSL) 768/128 service.
However this wasn't the point you argued. What you were arguing is that people buy say 3Mb plans and because of poor service people see things like slowdowns in the evenings and some users never see the advertised maximums. Thus to force industry improvements there should be a type of weights and measures system insuring that every subscriber in effect gets an SLA and the industry stops selling us on 5Mb while constantly delivering 3Mb.
I along with others stated then and now that the shared bandwidth model won't support providing an SLA at the prices these budget providers charge and a PUC mandated SLA would drive up prices for everyone.
However since I'm not an expert in wholesale costs of bandwidth and capacity, perhaps you can show me how an ISP like Cox can provide me with a 12Mb service for the $55 I currently pay and guaranty it to me and all of their subscribers no matter how many of us are on at the same time. Personally from years of lurking at DSLR, the equipment to support that type of reserved bandwidth is very expensive and it isn't possible to provide those speeds with an SLA at those prices and all services are provided on a best effort basis. Perhaps with DOCSIS 3 that would be possible, but would $55/mo pay for that? |
|
carlini7
Premium
join:2003-12-19
Dundee, IL
2 edits | Re: Not this idiot again...
Nice to see you can be civil.
My background includes a lot of due diligence and review of acquisitions but I will save that. Suffice it to say, I have been brought in at the President/Chairman level on huge issues (yes - network related but strategic business issues) as well as court cases.
If you look at the Tariffs for dial-up lines they only guarantee 4800bps unless they have been updated (which I doubt). Why guarantee anything more if you don't have to? So that takes care of dial-up. (Surprised? dial-up has come a long way - but no guarantees in Tariffs)
As for getting higher speeds - the short version -- DSL is limited by distance. You also have to have good copper from the central office to the subscriber - ask any installer especially if you are starting to talk about the new services (Project Lightspeed).
Several years ago, I reviewed a $10Million acquisition of a small DSL company where the investors were going to sign the check. The business case was flawed (because they did not take into account changing out the copper for all these subscribers in old apartment buildings (old copper in buildings 20-40+years old will not handle DSL) About four months later, the whole DSL market fell apart (remember when there were a lot of companies re-selling lines with DSL for $49.95? Many lost subscribers as the price wars started. THe investors were happy they did not buy that company)
Copper has some characteristics you cannot get rid of.
You can compensate a little with electronics but basically copper is susceptible to EMI and RFI and it gets worse when you try to speed up on the line. The easy solution (what most companies and especially factories are doing is putting in fiber). IF you work at Boeing the cost of putting in fiber may be a little more upfront but through the lifetime of the network - that would save Boeing $$$ in down time as fiber is NOT susceptible to RFI and EMI. (More on that later if you are interested)
As to the subscriber- if he is out of distance - he will never get the higher service, in fact I have seem where people have been denied DSL because the telemarketer flatly says you are out of the range.
I was on a case where the network provides (an ISP) oversold their capacity and eventually went bankrupt. They DID in fact, sell more than what they had - so it is possible that could happen.
In most cases depending on the service, you may never have shared bandwidth with your neighbor. All of it is aggregated up into the network at the variuos switching points.
I have to run to a meeting but will continue this when I get back tonight. |
|
squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02
4 edits | We'll just have to agree that we disagree. |
|
carlini7
Premium
join:2003-12-19
Dundee, IL
| reply to patcat88
Re: Answering SQUID's Question (continued)
Somehow these posts got out of order. We started to cover the limits of copper and Network Speedometers. Sorry this is lengthy.
As I said earlier, unshielded copper cable (what you have coming to your house as telephone cable) is susceptible to Radio Frequency Interference (RFI)as well as Electro-Magnetic Interfenence (EMI) and has attentuation as a characteristic (the weakening of the signal as it travels down the copper cable). Copper is affected by all of this.
All that being said, as soon as you start to increase data speed on it (i.e.DSL) you need more electronics to condition the line OR the distance you can go becomes less and less. That's why if you are farther away from the Central Office, they will not offer you DSL. (Because they know of the limitations of the copper at that speed)
There are also several "flavors" of DSL. The kind that is being sold for the most part is the kind you do not need any special hardware in order to use that unshielded copper cable for data. (BUT you are also limited to speed)
DSL, HDSL, ADSL, etc - there are many versions. You can have 52Mbps download if you have special electronics put on the line but in almost all cases, that is not the version that anyone is marketing. Why? Because it would be a "capital investment" to add all the hardware but the flavor that they have selected (the 1.5/3Mbps DSL does not need any major additional hardware.
You can run 1 Gbps on copper (not any DSL type) but you need a lot of electronics and conditioning and the distance gets cut down dramatically (1000 feet at best AND you are still very susceptible to RFI and EMI - even more so because you are at a higher speed). That's why no one is talking about 1Gbps as the goal on plain old telephone cable = not even on Lightspeed.
The cost analysis at that point is why do copper when fiber is just starting at 1Gbps (there are networks right now running 40Gbps and tests in the Labs have already proven fiber to handle multiple terabit speeds) PLUS - fiber is NOT susceptible to RMI and EFI.
Cable companies are selling data services on the coaxial cable coming into your house. Right off the bat the transmission media is better from a very basic standpoint. (Coax is shielded and can carry broadband signals - not as susceptible to RFI and EMI but not as good as a direct fiber link).
Depending on how they provide service in your area (I do not know how yours is configured and how many people are around your location), you could get 12Mbps without any contention (i.e. other subscribers that are on the same connection)
As for Network speedometers and guaranteeing speeds, no carrier wants to do that if they don't have to. If one does - as a marketing approach let's say, the others would have to follow or be viewed as a very inferior service. Would you buy something that is not measured - while the other service offerings are?
Could a "speedometer" be mandated by the PUCs? Only if there was enough consumer dissention and complaints that would offset all the lobbying to keep things obtuse. I suggested it as a wake-up call to the industry. (Because I know people like the one in my example are out there.)
Marketing has always been the hocus-pocus of trying to differentiate a business line, Centrex line or residential line in the past. They are ALL the same copper twisted pair but what they were called determined what you paid a month.
The same applies with doling out speed. If you have a fiber line coming to your house - the only restriction is what electronics you have hanging on either side. The fiber itself can handle a LOT of speed.
I guess I am of the same opinion of TMC8080 who commented on the other page:
Either build a robust network through and through or: GO OUT OF BUSINESS, get out of the way and let someone who is willing to build the network BUILD ALREADY!!!
Playing around with copper/fiber hybrid networks is not giving anyone great capability and I definitely agree revamping the network is huge (as you said $20+ Billion) but if you are going to it, do it right once ($30-35 Billion?) because based on network development in the past, if you do it piecemeal it will cost you significantly more ($50-60 Billion? maybe more) by the time it's all done. (My experience in seeing networks built.)
And I am not anti-incumbent when they get things right: One good thing about having a monopoly is that you have one set of standards across the board and the network is consistent (as far as building standards, reliability, redundancy, switches, etc.
We lost that at the Divestiture in 1984. One overall standard started to erode (among others) when they started buying central office switches from more than one manufacturer (problems occurred when one CO switch's ISDN was not "exactly" like another manufacturer's)
What I fear is that there will be better "patches" of networks out there as far as fiber-based, wireless-based topologies (both public and private-owned) but what standard will they all adhere to AND will they all measure up to the same reliability standards??
Given all this, does this answer your question? It may not completely, as you need to know how we came up to where we are today. |
|
