There's Still Some Life Left In CopperActelis hopes to improve VDSL2 03:01PM Thursday Sep 10 2009 by Karl Bodetags: business · hardware · bandwidth · networkingTelephony Online directs our attention to new VDSL technology from ECI Telecom and Actelis Networks that promises to extend both the reach and throughput of VDSL. Using digital spectrum management level-three (DSML3) technology for reducing crosstalk in DSL networks, Actelis is boldly claiming they can reduce the number of remote terminals needed to serve customers by 90%. Assuming it's more than hype, that could be good news for AT&T, who has taken the less expensive route of deploying VDSL instead of fiber to the home: Most of the world’s existing access wire-line infrastructure is still copper-based. Using existing copper wire, VDSL2 technology enables operators to offer service exceeding 100Mb/s. But without DSM L3, VDSL2 is limited in its practical reach. Testing shows that iSMART DSM L3 technology can dramatically increase the reach of high-speed, high-value VDSL2 services, effectively multiplying the coverage area of VDSL2 equipment by a factor of 10 in some cases. That's some fancy prognostication, though keep in mind the DSL hardware sector has seen no shortage of sexy technology that's never actually gone anywhere. According to Actelis, the technology can "theoretically" be used in conjunction with VDSL2 line bonding to deliver faster speeds at even longer loop lengths. AT&T, whose U-Verse service remains heavily distance dependent, is going to need all the extra help they can get as cable operators extend delivery of DOCSIS 3.0 hardware that can provide cable users with downstream speeds ranging from 50-100 Mbps. AT&T has been waiting to deliver line bonded VDSL2, but initial hardware chipset delays have pushed those plans into 2010.
Related:- Wednesday Evening Links
- Broadband May Kill The Game Console Wars
- Still Waiting On Faster AT&T Speeds, Line Bonding
- Knology Gets Closer To DOCSIS 3.0
- New Docs Show FCC Glossed Over BPL Flaws
- Google Starts Discussion About Speeding Things Up
- The Exaflood Isn't Coming After All
- Metrocast Offers Fiber To The Home
|
 |  | | | | | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: What Does This Do? said by Ignite  :Indeed. Until someone can work out how to both drop the noise floor on the copper and break the laws of physics by overcoming attenuation it's not going to be ground breaking. Wrap each copper pair in foil/braiding and ground it. | |
| | | | | rahvin112
join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT | Re: What Does This Do? Increase the copper size a couple sizes, untwist it and call it something new. You just invented COAX cable. Congratz. | |
| | | | | 
tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·Callcentric
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·FrontierNet Intern..
| said by patcat88 :Wrap each copper pair in foil/braiding and ground it. this has been bothering me, and i've tried to think of a reasonable solution (mathematically) why this wouldn't work.
essentially, in a two-wire setup, you are forming a two wire transmission line (albeit, a twisted one). in such a fashion, your carrier signal is carried between the two wires (the signal is not carried *in* the wires, emf does not run along a wire, but if anything, along the surface. given the higher frequencies of vdsl and the high sigma of copper, you start to form a primitive waveguide).
if you were to wrap the copper pairs in foil, and ground the foil, you have created a three way potential difference in the wires (tip at one potential, ring at another, the foil at another). you'd be messing with the electric fields, because if one of the wires in the twisted system was left floating, you'd alter the flow of the guided signal due to the changing electric field dynamic. even if the one wire was properly grounded, i still think you haven't cured attenuation. you are still passing the signal through a lossy dielectric and haven't increased loop lengths.
this is just my rambling though. i'm fairly certain i'm missing something.
q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..." | |
| pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland |  I've been reading stuff like this for years
| |
| | | bbwithdrawls
join:2008-08-30
Vanleer, TN
| Re: So would this mean faster deployment? well first they have to catch up with the dsl deployment which is pretty pathetic especially in the rural areas , all these new technologies go to the crowded cities first so they can make the money and run leaving the rural folks out in the cold
Att has been making promises for years , Im in an area with no dsl, no 3g and not likely to see it anytime soon ,
I dont believe it | |
| | | 
CaptainRR
Premium
join:2006-04-21
Blue Rock, OH | Re: So would this mean faster deployment? when I moved to were I am 6 years ago at&t said DSL in a year and still all I get is 19.2 dail at the house and still no 3G were I live, I agree they are pathetic! | |
| | | 
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: The bottom line is this: said by qworster :Indeed, many locations will never see fiber deployed. So in 50 years some places will still have copper not fiber? hardly. | |
| | | qworster
join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA
·DSL EXTREME
·Brand X Internet
·RoadRunner Cable
·Vonage
| Re: The bottom line is this: said by BF69 :said by qworster :Indeed, many locations will never see fiber deployed. So in 50 years some places will still have copper not fiber? hardly. Sure. many rural locations will never see fiber. | |
| | | | | | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: The bottom line is this: said by iansltx :At some point the maintenance costs of copper will be high enough that fiber will be the logical medium for a switchover. Additionally, rural ILECs will realize that their telephone-only service is fading fast, and thus will have to figure out how to keep money coming in. The problem with rural fiber is also the benefit: cable plant is never going out into the cow pastures of rural America. Rural ILECs will continue to get mega-business from last resort T1s, and termination charges, and from people without cell service, or no indoor coverage. Plus most/all cell towers run off Rural ILEC's copper, or T3s. Plus the cable company's long haul fiber is rented from the rural ILEC. Cable plant is surprisingly somewhat available in rural areas, thanks to mandatory buildout rules in the local franchise agreements, "want to wire the downtown? your coverings the hills too then!". Rural ILECs still have alot of mileage left in their business models. It will be decades before Clearwire's "WiMAX" moves into their territory. And thanks to idled warehoused spectrum, indie WISP are only a rumor. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: The bottom line is this: said by iansltx :Otherwise, no. Landlines will continue to sink as people transition to cells and/or VoIP, and with them will do interconnection fees. Cell=ILEC backhaul
VOIP=ILEC DSL, or Cell=ILEC backhaul, or indie WISP=ILEC backhaul
Also, Clear WiMAX is being rolled out aggressively, as will be Verizo LTE.
Its being rolled out agressively to urban/surburban areas. Clear has billions of dollars to pay back to its corporate investors. Clear building out into rural areas is atleast a decade away, and its just astroturfing by the WiMAX lobby (except for the remote chance of indie WISPs). Remember, unlike the 800/1900 cellular providers which had buildout requirements (800 was 75% area I think, 1900 was 75% population, covered means 0-1 bars of service BTW), Clear's EBS and BRS spectrum has ZERO buildout requirement, its been sitting unused by school districts and churches and spectrum warehousers for decades. For the record, there is microscopic buildout requirement, but it has already been met, and says nothing about rural service.
»seekingalpha.com/article/116304-···-by-2011 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Samsonian
join:2007-06-15
| said by patcat88 :Cell=ILEC backhaul VOIP=ILEC DSL, or Cell=ILEC backhaul, or indie WISP=ILEC backhaul Not for 4G WiMAX/LTE. 4G capacity demands fiber or wireless Ethernet+fiber backhaul. Copper won't cut it anymore. AT&T is learning that the hard way right now with the iPhone.
Clear has billions of dollars to pay back to its corporate investors.
Google, Intel, and the cablecos made a 3.2B equity investment in Clearwire to finance it. It's not debt financing, so Clearwire doesn't have to pay it back. Clearwire is supposed to use the money to build a starter national Mobile WiMAX network (a full build out will cost at least $5-6B).
Its being rolled out agressively to urban/surburban areas.
...
Clear building out into rural areas is atleast a decade away
That may end up being the case. 2.5-2.7 GHz is more suited for bigger cities than rural areas.
I'm hopeful they can get a critical mass of users. These next few years are very important for them. If they're successful in urban/suburban areas, they'll eventually get to rural areas. That's the important thing. Remember, they don't have the same financial resources of Verizon (nor are they charging VZW prices).
Clear's EBS and BRS spectrum has ZERO buildout requirement, its been sitting unused by school districts and churches and spectrum warehousers for decades. For the record, there is microscopic buildout requirement, but it has already been met, and says nothing about rural service.
That's because they sub-licensed/leased the EBS/BRS spectrum from the churches, schools, etc. that got the licenses for free, decades ago. And those licenses didn't contain buildout requirements, hence Clearwire doesn't have any.
But as the article you linked to pointed out:
Clearwire does have to cover 30+ million people by 2011, as a result of merger conditions imposed on spectrum contributed by Sprint/Nextel.
Interestingly, the FCC is auctioning the unassigned/lapsed/terminated BRS spectrum as an overlay license in Auction 86 on Oct. 27. It doesn't include assigned BRS/EBS spectrum though, which covers major metros (and now Clearwire leased/sub-licensed), so the auction isn't expected to fetch very much (compared to AWS and 700 MHz).
Aside from some indies, Clearwire and DigitalBridge are expected to be the big winners, as it won't be useful to many others. Though there is a "substantial service" requirement by May 2011, so a license holder can't just warehouse it.
'»https://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cach···en&gl=us'
'»wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/defaul···ry&id=86' | |
| | | | | | |
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by iansltx :Also, Clear WiMAX is being rolled out aggressively, as will be Verizo LTE. yes we have Verizon 3G in our area. And I'm sure wil have Verizon's LTE in a few years. We'll also have Verizon's 5 GB monthly caps and the $51 per GB overage fees. | |
| | | | | | | | 
w0g
o.O
join:2001-08-30
Portland, OR
clubs:
·Clearwire Wireless
1 edit | Re: The bottom line is this: Well that's Verizon, Clear is unlimited data at $30 per month for 3Mbps/1Mbps real-world performance, that's 4-6 times faster than Verizon 3G. I don't agree that WiMAX or LTE will ever be a replacement for wired connections though. Right now the maximum real-world bandiwidth provided by WiMAX is 15Mbps/3Mbps, and is capable of 75Mbps as newer hardware and updated specification is applied. This is still less than say Qwest VDSL2 40Mbps/20Mbps service, and the latest and reliability is a lot better with wired technology.
BTW I have Clear WiMAX 4G currently and it runs pretty well at 7-10Mbps down and 1Mbps up. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
w0g
o.O
join:2001-08-30
Portland, OR
clubs:
·Clearwire Wireless
1 edit | Re: The bottom line is this: I couldn't get Sprint's website to load so I couldn't find out more about the 16/7, but hardware wise, at least the Motorola equipment clear uses, is limited to 15Mbps/3Mbps. Intel WiMAX cards are limited to 13Mbps/3Mbps. Clear's top plan at $45/month is also uncapped on the downstream ("unlimited") and hardly pulls 9Mbps tops, average is 7Mbps. That's my experience, with perfect signal.
I'm aware of VDSL2's very short range, but this news is about improving the range substancially so that won't be a problem. I made no comparison to wireless vs wire, outside of the fact wireless will probably never be better than wired and won't replace it anytime soon. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
w0g
o.O
join:2001-08-30
Portland, OR
clubs: | Re: The bottom line is this: Omg.. I want Sprint's WiMAX upload. I'm pretty amazed at one of the Clear users getting 13Mbps too. Latency looks higher on Sprint PCS though, 120ms Portland/Portland test vs 80ms on Clear. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Samsonian
join:2007-06-15 | Re: The bottom line is this: Have you seen any traceroutes comparing Clear vs Sprint 4G (over Clear) vs Comcast HS2Go (over Clear)?
It'd be interesting to see where the problem is in the network/routing. | |
| | | | | | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO | Re: The bottom line is this: I haven't. WOuld love to though. Betting Sprint goes over SprintLink like their EvDO service though. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Samsonian
join:2007-06-15
| Re: The bottom line is this: It probably is over SprintLink, but that shouldn't cause extra latency.
I heard that Sprint is providing network services to Clearwire. So Clearwire might be getting transit from SprintLink as well. Yet they don't seem to have a latency problem. | |
| | | | | | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO | Re: The bottom line is this: Clear has their own backbone network, though Sprint may be providing the middle mile for Clear. Sprint's network sems to only have a few gateways, at least on EvDO, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same for WiMAX. | |
| | | | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO | More capacity = higher caps. To counter Clear's unlimited service Verizon will have to provide *something* better than 5GB. Probably 20+ GB. | |
| | | | | | | | | binded2
join:2009-08-11
Providence, RI
| Re: The bottom line is this: said by iansltx :More capacity = higher caps. To counter Clear's unlimited service Verizon will have to provide *something* better than 5GB. Probably 20+ GB. still not worth it verizon can suck my long shaft | |
| | | | | | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO | Re: The bottom line is this: Then get Clear. Problem solved. | |
| | | |
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by qworster :said by BF69 :said by qworster :Indeed, many locations will never see fiber deployed. So in 50 years some places will still have copper not fiber? hardly. Sure. many rural locations will never see fiber. Most will you're same argument was used for electricity and POTS service. Both turned out to be untrue. the cost of rolling out fiber drops every year. I'm sure in 20, 30, 40 and 50 years it will really be cheap. Placed that are rolling out fiber aren't spending billions on a short term solution. Just like copper has been around for 120+ years these companies expect that fiber to last well into this century and maybe even past it. | |
| | | | | rahvin112
join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT
| Re: The bottom line is this: My father in law is the lead technician for very small rural telecom (around 3-5 thousand possible users). This rural phone (they also provide cable service to the area) is planning to deploy fiber to the home in the next 3 years. They have already purchased all the conduit and are in the process of installing it using their own forces. Once conduit installation is complete they will begin installation and deployment of fiber. Why are they going to deploy fiber?
1. Cost. Verizon's deployment of FIOS has dramatically altered the cost of fiber projects. What used to cost $3k per home to do FTTH now costs much less than half that. Last I spoke to him the number is around $1250 per home now and still dropping an average of more than 10% per year.
2. Maintenance. Fiber isn't susceptible to EM interference, water, corrosion or nearly anything else that effects copper. Maintenance costs for Fiber are higher per incident, but the number of items that can cause problems is an order of magnitude less. A direct burial copper wire that has insects breach the insulation then gets wet will lose all signal, a fiber line unless physically broken will not have the same issue. In addition, fiber lines can be run in the same trench and on the same poles with power lines without adverse interference.
3. Capacity. As a rural phone and cable company they cannot compete against Satellite television providers. Anyone that's lived in or visited small rural towns knows that Satellite is killing small rural cable providers because of HD television. Most of the small rural cable providers aren't even digital, let alone HDTV.
Make no mistake, Fiber is the future. The only question is how long it takes them to realize that Fiber is cheaper in the long run. The problem is large public companies like AT&T are selling out the future for current profit, rather than long term gain. Verizon saw the writing on the wall and realized that if they didn't get FIOS in the ground while they could use their telephone revenues to pay for it then the Cable companies would eat them for lunch.
This is now happening to Qwest in markets they compete against Comcast, Comcast had a quarter million new phone lines in Utah (that's 1/8 the population) last year. Qwest lost nearly that same number of phone lines. With the deployment of DOCSIS 3 and the eventual elimination of analog cable Qwest will continue to bleed customers until they simply can't fund operations anymore without raising prices significantly above what Comcast can sell the service for. I expect that by 2012 Qwest is going to be in Bankruptcy, with Chapter 7 liquidation likely. By 2015 I would wager the copper lines in most areas aren't gong to be worth much more than the value of the copper in the lines because they simply don't have the near unlimited potential that fiber does. It's truly unfortunate that we didn't decide as a nation to build a single fiber network with open access to providers as it would have been the best use of resources. Instead we are all paying about double the price it would cost to build a single open network through higher prices of what ever provider you are using. And make no mistake, you are paying to build at least 2 networks whether you what to believe it or not. | |
| | | | | | Samsonian
join:2007-06-15
1 edit | Re: The bottom line is this: Great post.
It might take at least 10 years, rather than 5 or so for Qwest and company to go under. It's hard to say when, but all telcos are bleeding landlines, so the ending isn't in doubt.
AT&T is the most frustrating. At least Qwest has some excuse, AT&T has the finances to build fiber to the premises, but they keep milking copper and making band-aid investments.
These companies are the next General Motors. I for one welcome their death.
I also wish we had the will to build a national, wholesale, fiber to the premises network like Australia is doing now. That's one thing that will create lasting economic growth. | |
| | | | | | | | | Automate
join:2001-06-26
Atlanta, GA
·Comcast
| said by BF69 :said by qworster :Indeed, many locations will never see fiber deployed. So in 50 years some places will still have copper not fiber? hardly. I would guess many rural locations will get WiMax/LTE before they get fiber. | |
| | | | qworster
join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA
·DSL EXTREME
·Brand X Internet
·RoadRunner Cable
·Vonage
1 edit | Re: The bottom line is this: said by Automate :said by BF69 :said by qworster :Indeed, many locations will never see fiber deployed. So in 50 years some places will still have copper not fiber? hardly. I would guess many rural locations will get WiMax/LTE before they get fiber. Yep.
Also remember that DTV has opened up a bunch of low band VHF channels, particularly in rural areas. The propogation of this frequency range (50-80 mHz) makes it ideal for medium distance links of 10-30 miles.
This unused spectrum can be used to deploy broadband to rural areas too. While it's true that cheap equipment hasn't been developed for it yet, I'm sure that it's in the pipeline. | |
| | | | |
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: The bottom line is this: said by qworster :Yep. Also remember that DTV has opened up a bunch of low band VHF channels, particularly in rural areas. The propogation of this frequency range (50-80 mHz) makes it ideal for medium distance links of 10-30 miles. And how does that work for rual people that live 75-100 miles from the nearest big city? | |
| | | | | | qworster
join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA
·DSL EXTREME
·Brand X Internet
·RoadRunner Cable
·Vonage
| Re: The bottom line is this: said by BF69 :said by qworster :Yep. Also remember that DTV has opened up a bunch of low band VHF channels, particularly in rural areas. The propogation of this frequency range (50-80 mHz) makes it ideal for medium distance links of 10-30 miles. And how does that work for rual people that live 75-100 miles from the nearest big city? Three simple hops and you are there. | |
| | | | | 
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
·PenTeleData
·Future Nine Corpor..
·VOIPo
·Vonage
| said by qworster :Yep. Also remember that DTV has opened up a bunch of low band VHF channels, particularly in rural areas. The propogation of this frequency range (50-80 mHz) makes it ideal for medium distance links of 10-30 miles. This unused spectrum can be used to deploy broadband to rural areas too. While it's true that cheap equipment hasn't been developed for it yet, I'm sure that it's in the pipeline. Low band VHF is largely unusable due to noise and reflections. Even high VHF DTV is having problems.
During a rainstorm? Forget it. | |
| | | | | | qworster
join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA
·DSL EXTREME
·Brand X Internet
·RoadRunner Cable
·Vonage
4 edits | Re: The bottom line is this: said by Eat Me :said by qworster :Yep. Also remember that DTV has opened up a bunch of low band VHF channels, particularly in rural areas. The propogation of this frequency range (50-80 mHz) makes it ideal for medium distance links of 10-30 miles. This unused spectrum can be used to deploy broadband to rural areas too. While it's true that cheap equipment hasn't been developed for it yet, I'm sure that it's in the pipeline. Low band VHF is largely unusable due to noise and reflections. Even high VHF DTV is having problems. During a rainstorm? Forget it. No, low band VHF is fine for point to point at distances of about 30 miles. again, I say, POINT TO POINT, not broadcast.
DTV uses 8-VSB, a purely $hitty system of sending digital, highly affected by reflections and interference (it's AM radio after all). They also only use forward error correction, unlike the back and forth of TCP/IP.
The modulation system used by Internet in this band will either be COFDM or spread spectrum.
COFDM's bit errors actually DROP with multipath.
Low band VHF is not affected by rainouts at all. What you are thinking of is that AM radio transmission IS affected by lightning, which is why it WON'T be used for data transmission!
The example of DTV is a piss poor one. That system was developed by analog TV broadcasters over a decade ago. Today's modulation schemes run rings over DTV's crappy
8-VSB 100 year old AM technology. | |
| 
siouxmoux12
@sbcglobal.net | ATT Still have problems rolling out their new 32/5 profile. For ATT U-Verse its one delay after another. | |
|
w0g
o.O
join:2001-08-30
Portland, OR
clubs:
·Clearwire Wireless
| Excited I'm excited by this development, being in the north west, our largest provider is Qwest and they're sticking with copper with no plans of deploying FTTH anytime soon. They recently started to upgrade their copper network to VDSL2 with speeds upto 40Mbps/20Mbps, but hardly anyone qualifys for anything over 12Mbps/1Mbps. Heck my house only qualifies for 1.5Mbps/1Mbps. :/
I'm craving 20Mbps upload and DSL is much better suited to providing this than even Comcast's DOCSIS 3 technology. | |
| chronoss2009
join:2008-09-23
1 edit | coughs....chokes....bell, groans....Canada yup ask bell how to make copper last forever....... | |
| 
digitalfreak
join:2005-12-09
49533
| Maybe they should be looking at this »newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/ts_122701.html
Cisco demonstrated 10Mb ethernet over junk wires a few years back, including barbed wire. Being the cheapskates that they are, I'm surprised AT&T hasn't implemented BWTTH (Barbed Wire To The Home) yet. | |
| |
tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
·Cox HSI
·Callcentric
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·FrontierNet Intern..
| Re: Maybe they should be looking at this said by digitalfreak :» newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/ts_122701.htmlCisco demonstrated 10Mb ethernet over junk wires a few years back, including barbed wire. Being the cheapskates that they are, I'm surprised AT&T hasn't implemented BWTTH ( Barbed Wire To The Home) yet. having implemented and supported lre in the past, its a fickle technology at best. it never really took off because it was meant more for installations in which fiber wasn't feasible (couldn't trench/run aerial lines, etc). the gear is flaky and expensive and sometimes just wouldn't work, especially as you start pushing loop lengths. plus, iirc, its cisco proprietary, so no hopes for interoperability.
q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..." | |
| sego1230
join:2008-09-06
Levittown, NY
4 edits | this "save a buck, bandaid" approach is a waste Thats what I feel this is.. AT&T may have had an initially cheaper buildout plan but their paying a fortune for bandaids to make it work to some degree, crosstalk is just one of the problems that plagues copper.. what about shorting, copper sitting near power lines with hum, static from stray locations, radio interference.. doesn't AT&T realize this is a very expensive bandaid
This is why we really haven't made a big bang in rural fiber, cause everyone is constantly trying to find out how not to have to build it out there. You think cable companies thought they were going to make a fortune when they ventured into the country, if they didn't, you wouldn't have cable in these rural areas.
honestly rural may be more of a gold mine then most urban area's I think, cause there is usually more to do in an urbanized area, rental stores are less in abundance & even with netflix, I would think it takes longer to get movies longer distance in the mail. Also, believe it or now, it may be cheaper to lay in fiber in rural areas then replace defective copper since fiber has the capacity to handle much more data as well as multiple wavelengths. Since there are not thousands of individual copper pairs to worry about with a master fiber out of a central office which could just zig zag around the countryside even if homes are very far apart and return back to the c.o. to create a complete loop, there could even be a second route for backup. Along it would also be a power cable out of the c.o. for, say, regeneration. Since just one master fiber pair can just wiggle through the neighborhood only where its needed, it can connect, say 100 homes, even if they are each 2 miles apart and some of the points where it gives off its drops can also be regen points for the master fiber. It could be dug into the ground to hide it from elements, only the drop fibers to the homes near the master run need be aerial. Its not completely passive, the master fibers would have 2 for transmit and receive but the drop fibers over aerial can be just one to the home like FIOS. I mean, most cable channels are just sprayed out to all the homes they serve anyway, with digital technology, somehow the signal can be constantly regenerated, pretty much phone technology even with telcos are likely going voip anyway & you can serve a small amount of customers over a large area. -- what you get, die hard customers.. why.. with the best to watch, fastest net, don't you think their going to be home using this stuff as much as possible. Please don't tell me a long master fiber cable wont carry the signal far enough or will have too much loss, they have fiber going around the globe that is regenerated and it works.
My point is that, I feel there seems to be a constant approach of, lets do it cheap, forget about a quality system with quality results. In comparason to what their doing with u-verse, pair bonding and new technology investment; they could be doing the above instead. Kudos to Verizon, they will never be behind with FIOS cause it is fast enough to grow with time. No matter what comes out, likely with nominal cost FIOS can adapt to it. Yeah they spent more but if you had $20,000 in your pocket with an anticipated profit of abou $1,000/yr & I told you for $10,000 I will build you a car that will last 100 yrs or for $5,000, I will build you one that will last 10 at best, which would you choose. You don't have to take my word for it, just read some of the posts on here.. ugh AT&T, why don't Verizon compete, can we still get FIOS even though we are in AT&T territory and the like. Also, theres a lot at risk for ATT, if they end up unreliable, their done, phone, internet, tv.. I would think its quite a risk to try to just stay copper & lets be honest, predominantly old copper and what if some new feature comes out that AT&T can't deliver. The shame is that AT&T is exactly the company who can deliver big time.. cmon go FTTH.
Remember, investors heed, a wrong calculation here and you lose the revenue stream, isn't it worth investing in technology that can definately stand the test of time against competition. BTW, this should also be a good example for other companies such as Fairpoint as well. | |
| | | |
|
|
So would this mean faster deployment?