amungus Premium Member join:2004-11-26 America |
amungus
Premium Member
2011-Jul-14 5:30 pm
is it worth it?I mean, how can these possibly be less economical for either company or customer than say, oh, I don't know, something like fiber?
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of a regular phone line having power for -DAYS- when a big storm comes through, but come on. For all these must cost, they could leave copper infrastructure in place AND provide fiber right? | |
|
| |
Re: is it worth it?What's in these things that has to be so large? You could build half a main frame computer in the boxes in the picture.
FIOS in my neighborhood is very unobtrusive. | |
|
| | |
Re: is it worth it?said by bgraham2:What's in these things that has to be so large? You could build half a main frame computer in the boxes in the picture.
FIOS in my neighborhood is very unobtrusive. There are lots of batteries to keep the things running in a power outage. Its not like FiOS which has no power needs between the central office and the customers house, only boxes to split the fiber. | |
|
|
Instead of complaining...They should just be glad that they're finally getting broadband service in their area. | |
|
| ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
Re: Instead of complaining...san fran has great broadband coverage. well except for AT&T. AT&T could probably get away with putting in fiber but the vrads don't stand a chance. | |
|
| 45612019 (banned) join:2004-02-05 New York, NY |
to fonzbear2000
San Francisco doesn't need AT&Trash and with their new bandwidth caps U-verse barely qualifies as a broadband service.
The Bay Area has plenty of other broadband options that are far better than AT&Trash. | |
|
| |
to fonzbear2000
You're calling that second-rate U-verse crap "broadband"? | |
|
Duramax08To The Moon Premium Member join:2008-08-03 San Antonio, TX |
F*$# ittake them away and put them somewhere else where they can use them. If they are gona bitch about it over and over again, pull em out. | |
|
| |
sparc
Member
2011-Jul-14 7:47 pm
Re: F*$# itagreed... there's plenty of other AT&T areas that would be happy to take the oversized boxes
ditch san fran and go for something easier! | |
|
|
BurialIs there some technical difficulty or impracticality that prevents them from simply being buried? | |
|
| TheMG Premium Member join:2007-09-04 Canada MikroTik RB450G Cisco DPC3008 Cisco SPA112
|
TheMG
Premium Member
2011-Jul-14 7:14 pm
Re: Burialsaid by PapaMidnight:Is there some technical difficulty or impracticality that prevents them from simply being buried? Water. Heat. Accessibility. How do you keep water from entering a below-ground cabinet, without an expensive drainage setup? How do you keep this cabinet cooled? How is a technician going to have access to the equipment? It's not impossible, but the cost would be HUGE. | |
|
| r81984Fair and Balanced Premium Member join:2001-11-14 Katy, TX
1 recommendation |
to PapaMidnight
said by PapaMidnight:Is there some technical difficulty or impracticality that prevents them from simply being buried? Nope they just need to run fiber all the way to the house and then you don't need a VRAD. | |
|
| | Duramax08To The Moon Premium Member join:2008-08-03 San Antonio, TX |
Re: Burialsaid by r81984:said by PapaMidnight:Is there some technical difficulty or impracticality that prevents them from simply being buried? Nope they just need to run fiber all the way to the house and then you don't need a VRAD. HAHAHA, AT&T doing that! Nice one | |
|
ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
questioncan someone tell me why they don't put them under ground? | |
|
| |
waste of spacetakes 700 of these littered across the city so that we can only get a measly 20mbit/2mbit service?
and it's not even fiber.
If it was 1gbit symetrical, people would be singing a different tune | |
|
| | tshirt Premium Member join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA |
tshirt
Premium Member
2011-Jul-14 7:29 pm
Re: waste of spaceNope, the same people would complain about the boxes, no free access for the poor, and the high price of service.
given all the stops and starts of providing broadband to SF, they should be happy to get anything | |
|
| tshirt |
to ArrayList
Re: questionBecause digging a hole that would fit one and meet the access drainage and safety requirements in a city like SF, would not be possible at many locations, and would be prohibitively expensive at a time when a lot of people think everything should be free. | |
|
| | r81984Fair and Balanced Premium Member join:2001-11-14 Katy, TX |
r81984
Premium Member
2011-Jul-14 7:34 pm
Re: questionOr they could just build fiber to the home and eliminate the need for the VRADS. | |
|
| | | |
sparc
Member
2011-Jul-14 7:45 pm
Re: questionsince digging up all of San Fran would somehow make the local government even more happy?
i can just see all the rules and ridiculous restrictions for that to get approved.... | |
|
| | | | r81984Fair and Balanced Premium Member join:2001-11-14 Katy, TX |
r81984
Premium Member
2011-Jul-14 9:32 pm
Re: questionsaid by sparc:since digging up all of San Fran would somehow make the local government even more happy?
i can just see all the rules and ridiculous restrictions for that to get approved.... They already have to dig up to run fiber to all the VRADs. All the VRADs do is let them keep the existing copper from the VRAD to the houses on the block. I guarantee everyone in that neighborhood would freely let them trench some lines through their back yards as when they are complete and the grass grows back there will be no lawn fridges or any traces of work. | |
|
| | | PashuneCaps stifle innovation Premium Member join:2006-04-14 Gautier, MS |
to r81984
I have to admit. It looks pretty low tech when we need a bunch of lawn refrigerators everywhere just to provide 20 meg internet service to the people. | |
|
| | | | r81984Fair and Balanced Premium Member join:2001-11-14 Katy, TX |
r81984
Premium Member
2011-Jul-14 9:32 pm
Re: questionsaid by Pashune:I have to admit. It looks pretty low tech when we need a bunch of lawn refrigerators everywhere just to provide 20 meg internet service to the people. Agreed. | |
|
| ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
ok how about putting it on top of them tall buildings? | |
|
| NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616 Asus RT-AC66U B1 Netgear FR114P
|
to ArrayList
• Cost of excavation. • Venting the heat of electric equipment running 24/7. • Amount of land disturbed for the excavation (the hole will be probably three times as wide as the surface cabinets). • No less intrusive to the property owners, whose landscaping will be seriously disturbed (at more cost to AT&T). Oh, and did I mention the cost of excavation? BTW, which of these two boxes is uglier, and less intrusive? VRAD and SAI box.
And my labeling is incorrect. The VRAD does not serve my premises; the distance between the premises and the adjacent SAI box is too great. The VRAD does feed the copper of the adjacent SAI box for those of my neighbors fortunate enough to be closer than I am.
One more thing; neither of those boxes is in a front yard. Very few that I have seen, in San José, California, are in an obtrusive location; none, that I have seen, are in anybody's front yards. The one in the photo is in a parking strip, though, so it may require and easement on the adjacent property deed.
| |
|
| | maartenaElmo Premium Member join:2002-05-10 Orange, CA |
maartena
Premium Member
2011-Jul-15 4:32 pm
Re: questionAs far as front yards go: There are areas with either no sidewalk, or limited sidewalks. The sidewalk in front of my house for instance, is 3 feet wide. There would be no place for a VRAD, and also still have enough space to walk. The VRAD would have to be placed in the 4-foto grass strip between the sidewalk and the road, which is MY property. The sidewalk here is city managed, but technically goes over my property as well. Quite frankly, I would fight AT&T for sure if they try and pull it off. VRAD's in my area are indeed placed in the 4 feet stretch of personal propery between the sidewalk and the road. They have, however, chosen somewhat more strategic locations, along the main street through the neighborhood, and there where they can be placed to the SIDE of the road, where many people have built a wall. I have driven around, I think my neighborhood has 6 VRADs, and they are all placed on the SIDE of someone's home. Of course, this isn't always possible, and I can certainly see the home owners point of view. A realtor: "And here is the living room.... look what a beautiful view it has of the neighborhood and the street. Believe me, once you buy this house, you won't even notice the AT&T box over there. And AT&T only parks right in front of your house maybe twice a month or so. Nothing to worry about." Right. Although the "AT&T needs to run fiber" discussion is beating a dead horse, the FIOS solution is a lot more neighborhood friendly: If AT&T would change to a fiberoptic solution, I don't think neighborhood opposition to these small, hanging cabinets, will exist. | |
|
| | | NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616 Asus RT-AC66U B1 Netgear FR114P
|
Re: questionsaid by maartena:Although the "AT&T needs to run fiber" discussion is beating a dead horse, the FIOS solution is a lot more neighborhood friendly ... AT&T well never deploy FiOS. Ever. Unless they first buy Verizon. In my photo, the VRAD is adjacent to an older, pre-existing SAI box. Considering that the VRAD is the "node", where the fiber meets the copper, a VRAD has to be placed very near the neighborhood copper distribution (SAI) box. So, unless AT&T already has an SAI box on your property, the odds are pretty low that they will consider placing a VRAD on your property. | |
|
MrHappy316Wish I had my tank Premium Member join:2003-01-02 Columbia, SC |
PictureStill gotta love that article picture, lol. Still works great for what about 2 years later? | |
|
|
uversetech
Anon
2011-Jul-14 10:24 pm
wowclearly people who don't understand how expensive it is to overbuild fiber to an existing area shouldn't comment
the copper network is in place and with very little work other than installing a cabinet in an existing right of way
wow just gota say get over your selfs its a cabinet next to a cabinet thats been there forever in a existing right of way its just drama | |
|
| 45612019 (banned) join:2004-02-05 New York, NY |
45612019 (banned)
Member
2011-Jul-15 3:20 am
Re: wowOkay, Mr. "U-verse Tech" at sbcglobal.net.
You certainly seem like an unbiased source. | |
|
| | |
Re: wowsaid by 45612019:Okay, Mr. "U-verse Tech" at sbcglobal.net.
You certainly seem like an unbiased source. Perhaps you could address his points rather than pretend he's lying. Who better to explain installation costs than someone that deals with it every day? | |
|
| | | 45612019 (banned) join:2004-02-05 New York, NY |
45612019 (banned)
Member
2011-Jul-15 9:25 am
Re: wowBut he doesn't deal with it every day. AT&T isn't overbuilding fiber to an existing area with U-verse. They're half-assing it. A Verizon FiOS tech would be a better person to talk to because they actually are someone who deals with it every day | |
|
| | | | |
repair tech
Anon
2011-Jul-17 9:50 am
Re: wowbetween verizon and At&t who has the better roi????? who provides and cheaper product. News flash ..... fiber is too expensive when you can bump a wifi from the house to the vrad and get the same thing done. I notice someone keeps saying this is a 20meg product...... just fyi ....i have seen uverse push over 80meg on a regular basis | |
|
| |
to uversetech
Verizon techs and people who actually have FTTH FiOS say otherwise. | |
|
| David Premium Member join:2002-05-30 Granite City, IL |
to uversetech
I dunno, At this point I am all for selling San Francisco at this point. I am thoroughly convinced they would complain no matter how large or small they are.
What kills me is if you see some traffic light boxes, they are 2x the size of the Uverse cabinets.
I think we should just give up and sell! | |
|
| maartenaElmo Premium Member join:2002-05-10 Orange, CA |
to uversetech
said by uversetech :clearly people who don't understand how expensive it is to overbuild fiber to an existing area shouldn't comment
the copper network is in place and with very little work other than installing a cabinet in an existing right of way
wow just gota say get over your selfs its a cabinet next to a cabinet thats been there forever in a existing right of way its just drama Be that as it may.... I haven't run the numbers, so for a moment.... lets assume you are right: Fiber is more expensive. What is AT&T going to do when Ultra or Quad HD hits the market? (I am talking about the 2650x1440 pixel resolution type, NOT the 7680x4320 type, which is still highly experimental) in say 3 years from now? You can already buy Ultra/Quad HD panels, but obviously no stations are broadcasting in it. Yet. This may change in 3 to 5 years. And guess what..... DirecTV and Dish, will simply launch another satellite and provide capacity for the country. Cable TV networks can get rid of the analog spectrum by then, and free up a lot of frequency space, and will have plenty of bandwidth for Ultra or Quad HD. FIOS has fiber to the houses, and will have no problem broadcasting 6 or more Ultra/Quad HD streams to houses at that point..... because why? Their networks and systems are future proof without a massive investment needed at that point, because they are making the RIGHT decission now. What is AT&T going to do? Try new alternative copper technologies to push more through copper? Compress the streams even more so a 1440i video stream would fit in 5.7 Mb? Not offer new technologies at all? With a little luck, AT&T might be able to squeeze a 30/4 internet connection into a 32/5 profile, but that is about all there is left. Bottom line: If AT&T does NOT move to fiber to the home within a few years, they are going to be left behind and won't be competitive anymore. | |
|
|
Cut AT&T a bit of slack.No one told them that their customers would want broad band and this was simply the best they could kludge up in 20 or so years. That passive optical stuff is to low tech and only delivers hundreds of megabits a second to each customer. The VRADs that AT&T are proposing to install will give at least a third of that to their end users.
AT&T should have to vault the devices just like the electrical services are required to do. Who wants a 6 foot tall box in their front yard, most wouldn't me included. Just another example of AT&T not giving a crap about the customer or their desire to live in an aesthetically pleasing neighborhood. If they threw that thing in front of my place I would be having a crap too. | |
|
| ••••••••••••• |
|
Mr Matt
Member
2011-Jul-14 11:51 pm
Burying a new fiber network has some risks. VRAD technology reduces the situation where the carrier tries to install fiber in the utility easement when the utility easement was abandoned years before the installation began and no longer exists. Installers might find a pool built the abandoned easement. Then comes the BS when the contractor installing the fiber wants to rip out the pool with resultant police activity and both parties wind up lawyering up, or the contractor cuts a gas line with a resulting explosion. On the other hand the cable TV industry had the good fortune that RF over fiber technology was developed. That allowed them to use existing coaxial plant by installing fiber nodes at key locations where major coaxial trunk lines were split into distribution lines. That is essentially what VRAD's do for twisted pair. On the other hand cable fiber nodes are not the size of a small storage building. | |
|
Metatron2008You're it Premium Member join:2008-09-02 united state |
Just run fiber wires across the ground everywhere.No need to bury them. Nobody will notice the wires in between all the trash and homeless people. | |
|
| ••• |
|
The proper way to do itThis is what a cabinet looks like in New Zealand. They are going into every town / city in the country, and support up to 500 houses off each. Inside is a DSLAM for DSL, patch boards and the existing copper lines back to the auctual telephone exchange for the plain old telephone service. So rather than install telephone and broadband services into the boxes, they use existing copper for telephone, and just put the broadband in the cabinets so its closer to the customer. The auctual telephone is served still from the central exchange up to 5km away and all the batteries, backup generators etc are back there also. The reason why these need to be in the streets is because VDSL broadband service will only go 1-2km down a telephone line. They are painted forrest green or white to suit the surroundings, placed next to existing passive cabinets and have a sacrificial clear coating so spray paint tagging is easy to wipe off. They are also not quite 6 feet high. More like 4-5 feet. | |
|
| David Premium Member join:2002-05-30 Granite City, IL |
David
Premium Member
2011-Jul-16 3:29 pm
Re: The proper way to do it Everyone in san francisco would still complain...
1.) it's above ground 2.) that's too big!
end result: sell san francisco.
| |
|
|
compromise schmucksshouldn't some of California be getting FTTP instead of DSL? It is one of the most dense, and therefore most profitable potential markets in the country worthy of FTTP investment. If not California, where? | |
|
| •••••• |
Liberty Premium Member join:2005-06-12 Arizona |
Liberty
Premium Member
2011-Aug-6 2:07 pm
Utility boxThe electric utility here has similar sized boxes that they sink most of way into concrete pit in ground - about 2' out of ground
They use a boom truck to lift it up and drop back down when done | |
|
|
|