Re: To sum it up But cable companies cannot pay you on Tuesday for a hamburger today; there's a big difference between paying now and paying later. Of course we all agree fiber is more future-proof and will have lower maintenance costs in the long term, but tearing up all existing coax and replacing it with fiber would certainly not be economical.
| Fiber is probably be able to deliver the fastest speed. But for the next 10 years, the current cable networks are probably more cost effective.|
First, the cables are already in place, and fiber has been installed to the neighborhoods. (If you have digital television and any HD channels, you have a TV company fiberoptic cable less then 2 miles away, likely less then a mile).
Second, fiberoptic cables are expensive. This is why Verizon isn't doing a massive deployment and just hook everyone in a city up to fiber, regardless of whether they have TV, Internet or Phone or not. They did this with telephone back in the day, and just connected all homes to copper regardless of whether they actually had this newfangled invention called a tele-phone. Instead, they do it on a case by case basis.
I agree COMPLETELY that fiberoptics is the future, and can't wait till all houses are connected with a 10 Gbps pipe.
But as far as cost-effectiveness goes, the DOCSIS system has allowed for easy upgrades and downwards compatibility. A cable company can take DOCSIS 1 and DOCSIS 2 equipment out, and replace it with DOCSIS 3 equipment, and still serve all of their DOCSIS 1 and 2 clients....with the new equipment whereas both Verizon with FIOS and ATT with UVerse have to maintain 2 separate networks and 2 separare systems. One for their old DSL clients, one for their new FIOS and UVerse clients. And that.... is very cost in-effective.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"
Santa Monica, CA
Re: DSL and Distance
said by n2jtx:Fiber-optic probably is the most cost-effective, if you're looking out 30 years, but telco can't use that calculus.
Short of rolling out DSLAM's to the neighborhoods so that the total length is only a few hundred feet to the premises, I seriously doubt this technology will see the light of day. Considering what they would have to spend to do it, fiber would be the most cost-effective solution in the long run. Plus, as the article points out, poor quality copper lines would be an issue as well.
Verizon took the chance and is paying the heavy costs of installing fiber-optic @ $4k/household, and so far, many people are willing to pay the monthly freight at $50-70 for internet. But if the FCC takes a Left turn, ends forbearance, and starts dictating wholesale rates, Verizon's balance sheet would suffer - they therefore have to make their money in the short run.
Am I making the case for regulated rates of return on a natural monopoly? Some might suggest so - and that isn't the worst possible outcome* - but it would cost a lot more than we pay today, given the cozy nature of government with regulated utilities, and the creative accounting that follows.
*(Worst possible outcomes are no service, or USPS-SEIU-IBEW Broadband-For-All.)
Santa Monica, CA
Re: DSL and Distance
said by sonicmerlin:$4K/household was the original projection given in a variety of documents when FIOS was proposed, and cited for years as an ongoing cost. I would suggest that the number is even higher now, once the low-hanging fruit has been picked - rural deploying costs more. But regardless, one need only look at AT&T's choice, not to deploy fiber-optics, to infer that the cost is substantial compared to reinventing copper.
4k/household? Why do you lie? Is your argument not solid enough to hold its own?
I am not one to believe telco's numbers at face value - $4K could be inflated, or it could be understated. Based on the activity I've seen with FIOS rollouts - taking months to a weeks' worth of work, with contract crews imported from the opposite coast, and the nascent failure issues with some of the installs and the STBs, I could see where VZ might see even higher costs.
If you have data which supports a different figure, please present it. I have nothing vested in $4K.
Re: delete the hype and it's still not bad.... same goes for all of karl's claims and the use of many.... "Many telcos are upgrade phobic, many homes lack quality copper or extra pair"
i'll take Karl's word on the telcos phobia for upgrades, but i haven't seen any data about the poor quality copper and lack of an extra pair.
I could just as well say many homes have good quality copper and have an extra pair available.
| || |said by sparc:And how much do you think they will lower it? DOCSIS 3 has to share 160 mbps downstream with a large number of users. The more high bandwidth consumers, the more node splits the cable company has to do, which costs them money. If the number of users per node reaches 32, it makes much more economic sense for them to just lay fiber out all the way.
"Many homes will be able to get 50 and 100 meg downstream."
the same article mentions that as well. Most people would be happy with even half that at a reasonable price.
In other words cable companies have a huge incentive to prevent the mainstream user from accessing those premium tiers. They are meant solely to extract exorbitant prices from rich power users willing to sacrifice thousands of dollars a year on speeds that fiber could prevent at a fraction of the cost.
Re: UF.DSL perfect for apartment buildings
said by Packeteers:Pretty much. The telcos could have leveraged stuff like this if years ago they started actually making their copper plant friendlier to high frequency systems. But alas, they'd replace a 26ga cable with a 26ga cable. So now the only real people benefiting from xDSL advances like this are recent apartment dwellers who usually have at minimum cat3 wiring.
if you could deliver 100 Mbps over two pair of untwisted copper withing 100 yards of the main building hub - you could light up 80% of apartment buildings within a year, and only need pull one line of fiber between the CO and each building. people who only have 2 pair coming into each apartment, could simply use VoIP or their celphone, which is probably what they are doing already.