backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
| reply to carlini7
Re: Not this idiot again...YES Captain Obvious
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
| 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. |
|
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2 | 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. |
|
squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02
3 edits | 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. |
|
