BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to XBL2009
Re: What a waste
said by XBL2009  :Just upgrade to fiber In the end at&t will have not choice but to that and it will cost 2X-3X or more per household that what it cost Verizon by doing it the half-assed way they are doing it now. Everyone laughed at Verizon and idiotic short sighted investors got pissed off but in the end Verizon made the smarter move when it came to deploying fiber. Going "cheap" in anyhting hardly ever ends up being cheaper in the long run. |
|
NewMariner
join:2005-06-24
| said by BF69 :said by XBL2009 :Just upgrade to fiber In the end at&t will have not choice but to that and it will cost 2X-3X or more per household that what it cost Verizon by doing it the half-assed way they are doing it now. Everyone laughed at Verizon and idiotic short sighted investors got pissed off but in the end Verizon made the smarter move when it came to deploying fiber. Going "cheap" in anyhting hardly ever ends up being cheaper in the long run. Nice try..however your completely wrong. It wont cost 2x-3x more to run fiber to the home when ATT finally decides to do so. Att is now running fiber to the node which is halfway. All they have to do is finish from the node to the home. By the time they start running fiber to the home, fiber will be cheaper not more expensive.
And guess what, there are talks amongst investors on pulling the plug on Verizon due to profits not being where they are supposed to be..so only time will tell what happens. But I bet Verizon caves soon...Especially in todays financial market, where it doesnt need to loose investors. |
|
sousademiami
join:2003-02-04
Hialeah, FL
 ·Comcast
 ·AT&T Southeast
1 edit | Sadly investors are short-sighted, so I think Verizon may cave to pressure to stop deploying fiber, which in the long run will probably be the best thing for them (FTTH, that is).
However I think avoiding investing in FTTH by AT&T is likely going to put them so far behind cable companies that they may never catch up.
--
OASAASLLS |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to NewMariner
fiber to the node is the easy part. it's wiring customer residences that's the most expensive and time consuming part. so, yeah, AT&T will eventually have to wire every household for fiber. at x2 cost. possibly 3 if you factor in the wasted $ on u-verse deployment. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| I tend to agree.
FTTN is 'relatively' inexpensive (compared to FTTH) and much faster to deploy.
FTTN upside:
Low(er) initial cost of deployment
Higher speed of deployment
Easier to fund (due to above), as noted, investors want quicker return
Able to cherry pick next gen upgrades easily.
TV/Internet/VoIP can run over this infrastructure today, and upgrade to FTTH or other can be paid for by existing FTTH/Uverse deployment.
FTTN downside:
Band-aid approach (i.e. doesn't get it all in one shot)
Requires infrastructure upgrades (pair bonding)
Limited reach (3000')
Will eventually require a complete rework (FTTH or other from FTTN)... swapout last mile of copper, and the last mile is the most expensive.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
1 edit | reply to NewMariner
said by NewMariner :And guess what, there are talks amongst investors on pulling the plug on Verizon due to profits not being where they are supposed to be..so only time will tell what happens. But I bet Verizon caves soon...Especially in todays financial market, where it doesnt need to loose investors. Verizon is not going to pull the plug on installing fiber. Since day 1 there have been "talks" among the STOCKHOLDERS of pulling the plug, but they won't do it. FiOS TV is doing well, FiOS Internet is doing very well, and now they have bendable fiber to work with, so MDUs are much easier. If they stop installing fiber, they would effectively stop offering service to new customers. They aren't going to redesign their entire backend for FTTN at this point so your assumption is ludicrous.
»www.alleyinsider.com/2008/7/veri···analysis
--
Linux Haters Unite! |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to en102
I don't think FTTN was a bad choice. The bigger problem is AT&T's 25mbps, 3,000 foot target.
Had they placed the nodes closer to homes, they could easily have 50mbps or more per home. That would have given them much more wiggle room for more advanced internet speeds, better HD quality, and more streams.
The physical size of the nodes could have been a lot smaller if they were serving fewer homes, too.
I would love have to have 3 HD streams, but count me in as being skeptical about the quality implications of reducing the bandwidth.
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.
|
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | I don't think FTTN was a bad choice either.
FTTH is very slow and expensive to deploy.
FTTN can subsidize FTTH as needed. FTTH as a first round needs huge $$$ from nervous investors.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
NewMariner
join:2005-06-24
| reply to Matt
said by Matt :said by NewMariner :And guess what, there are talks amongst investors on pulling the plug on Verizon due to profits not being where they are supposed to be..so only time will tell what happens. But I bet Verizon caves soon...Especially in todays financial market, where it doesnt need to loose investors. Verizon is not going to pull the plug on installing fiber. Since day 1 there have been "talks" among the STOCKHOLDERS of pulling the plug, but they won't do it. FiOS TV is doing well, FiOS Internet is doing very well, and now they have bendable fiber to work with, so MDUs are much easier. If they stop installing fiber, they would effectively stop offering service to new customers. They aren't going to redesign their entire backend for FTTN at this point so your assumption is ludicrous. » www.alleyinsider.com/2008/7/veri···analysis Never once did I say Verizon would rewire their network. I simply stated that if investors pulled the plug on Verizon,(stopped the cash flow) then FiOs would simply come to a grinding halt or near halt. They may launch in the more profitable areas to increase subscribers to generate more revenue.
I like how you link to an article that is two months old now, before Freddie and Fannie have been bailed out, before AIG, before now the government forking out 700 BILLION dollars to stop our economy's freefall. Yeah right, my assumption is ludicrous at this point. Obviously you havent paid close attention to the financial sector. Once the banks stop lending(which is what the government is trying to prevent) Verizon's money dries up. Investors will start backing out of the stock...
This is only the beginning with our economy, expect it to get worse. I hope our next president has a plan. |
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to BF69
said by BF69 :In the end at&t will have not choice but to that and it will cost 2X-3X or more per household that what it cost Verizon by doing it the half-assed way they are doing it now. Everyone laughed at Verizon and idiotic short sighted investors got pissed off but in the end Verizon made the smarter move when it came to deploying fiber. Going "cheap" in anyhting hardly ever ends up being cheaper in the long run. You are talking through your ass.
Your 2x-3x figure for "FTTN first, FTTP later" vs. "FTTP first" is just made up.
Verizon right now is spending 2x more per subscriber than AT&T ($2K vs $1K). And AT&T's per-passed-house cost is way, way lower than Verizon (well below $400) specifically because they are reusing copper.
Do you really think that incrementally adding FTTH is going to blow their costs up that far ahead of Verizon? No, it won't. All the costs of running the fiber to the neighborhood are completely re-used when you run it the last mile.
In addition, by doing FTTN, AT&T has the ability to stage their brownfield FTTP rollout, rather than being forced to run fiber just to get a subscriber up and running.
And, AT&T has lots of headroom to increase speeds BEFORE running FTTP. They can use VDSL2, and deploy more VRADS closer to the homes, and crank the speeds up by a factor of 2-4x, without running FTTP. |
|
cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA
| I agree FTTN is that bad when it comes to cost and time required to get a significant speed increase to the customer. When ATT starts to roll out ftth, they can look at the problems verizon faced in rolling out their fiber, never mind the cost of fiber and new fiber technology in the future. Also who says the huge VRAD cabinents are wasted money? Someone how I doubt they will just 'throw' them away, I would think they would just ship them off to a location where FTTN is being deployed once FTTP is deployed. This also assumes that the VRADs are only caple of the VDSL fiber interfacing.
I read so much FUD and crying when it comes to fttp here. You'd figure that the only people here are 3 year old spoiled brats that think they deserve everything first or people pulling numbers from you know where in an attempt to downplay something (just like this 2x-3x factor). |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
1 edit | reply to NewMariner
said by NewMariner :Nice try..however your completely wrong. It wont cost 2x-3x more to run fiber to the home when ATT finally decides to do so. Att is now running fiber to the node which is halfway. All they have to do is finish from the node to the home. By the time they start running fiber to the home, fiber will be cheaper not more expensive. If you think building things piecemeal is cheaper then you are crazy. Fiber maybe be cheaper in 10,12 15 years, but the labor costs won't be. See it costs money to pay the workers to deploy the fiber. Perhaps you forgot about that.
By then FiOS and cable will be so far ahead of at&t it won't matter they would have lost potential customers forever. Besides by then it won't be long after at&t decides to start finally going to FTTH before people will be getting thru the internet. They're starting to that now with Hulu and other sites. In 10, 12, 15 years or whenever at&t decides to join the 21st century it will be too late. Personally I don't see myself using cable or satelite, FiOS, U-verse to get my TV in 15 years.
And guess what, there are talks amongst investors on pulling the plug on Verizon due to profits not being where they are supposed to be..so only time will tell what happens. But I bet Verizon caves soon...Especially in todays financial market, where it doesnt need to loose investors. BS. I don't where you get your facts from. Fantasyland I suppose. |
|
sensualpoet
join:2004-09-19
Toronto, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
Verizon's upfront costs are much more than 2x AT&T.
Actually, I've come round to the view that FTTN isn't such a bad strategy. They are now managing 2 HD streams (a must) and decent Internet speeds (10 mbps) right now in 2008. They have a killer multi-room DVR ... and they are competing with cable companies, and satellite, not Verizon.
AT&T's number one goal is to ensure they still have wireline customers left and U-Verse provides another hook to entrench existing customers and slow the face to black of twisted pair households.
At some point, of course, 50 mbps Internet with simultaneous 4 HD streams will become table stakes but that is quite far down the road yet and AT&T will have the opportunity, in the meantime, of holding on to a large customer base and delivering more advanced services when there is a genuine, economically rewarding reason to do so.
Make no mistake: U-verse FTTH is a defensive move and, based on the rollout these past 18 months, reasonably successful. Again, compared to most cable U-Verse directly competes with, AT&T has a very good story to tell consumers. |
|
Tigerpaw509
Premium
join:2006-07-15
Huntley, IL | reply to morbo
they only bring fiber to the home,Inside wiring remains the same |
|
impala
join:2008-03-08
Clemson, SC
·AT&T Southeast
|  reply to BF69
Awww, don't screw it up ATT! If UVerse isn't even satellite quality, then I have no use for it. Two HD streams would be enough for many, many people. You do have to watch the recorded content eventually, else you don't need to record it.
They could give the option to dynamically turn the internet off to get a third HD stream, if the node is smart enough.
As for FTTH vs FTTN; they should be installing dark FTTH in new developments. And I hope they are deploying enough potential bandwidth to the node so they don't have to add more fiber from the CO to the node when they ultimately do FTTH. To not do either of these would make upgrade to FTTH more expensive than it needs to be, and take much much longer. |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| reply to NewMariner
said by NewMariner :Nice try..however your completely wrong. It wont cost 2x-3x more to run fiber to the home when ATT finally decides to do so. Att is now running fiber to the node which is halfway. All they have to do is finish from the node to the home. By the time they start running fiber to the home, fiber will be cheaper not more expensive. 
The distance between the CO and your home may be (more than, actually) halfway covered, but you seem to fail to grasp that there are several hundred drops to be made from each of those RTs. There is far more than half (probably more like 80%) of the wire feet left to pull.
The only savings here is saving the CEO the bonus reduction involved in a major capex project.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| reply to NewMariner
said by NewMariner :Never once did I say Verizon would rewire their network. I simply stated that if investors pulled the plug on Verizon,(stopped the cash flow) Investors don't bring cash flow. Customers do. At least in the absence of a new stock issue, which I don't believe is on the table.
All of the ILECs are still so ridiculously profitable (especially those with wireless, but even landline only) they are like money minting machines. They can afford to do most anything they want.
When SBC and BellSouth bought ATTWS in 2004, SBC had enough cash on hand to pay for their 60% share of it, plus had another $20 billion or so left over. BellSouth had most of what they needed, but decided they'd rather raise some extra funds by selling off some of their latin american wireless operations to Telefonica so they wouldn't be running low.
Of all the companies in the world, the telcos least need to worry about their stock price.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. |
|
