Cisco Pushes Fiber Ethernet

No matter how you slice it fiber is more expensive to implement. When they find out how to make equipment less expensive then you are talking. Not a dream need more time to develop.

Happy Surfing

The prices will drop shortly, its the same story with all technology. Fiber is the future baby .

I agree.

After seeing how Cisco tech support didn't have a real concrete solution for the Tech support guy from my ISP with one of their present products (Cisco 1720 Router), Cisco is going to suggest a new technology. HA!!

Going to offer Fiber Ethernet next year - at $15.99 a month or some dirt cheap price - while back in the USA, we're still begging for 1.5Mbps DSL at $50 a month, if we can even get it.

what's the chance that we will get 10Mbps DSL for $12 a month?

Ussually we talk a lot and accomplish nothing..all brag i have a fa king fiber all over my country..but others already has it going on and connected to users.. what wrong with us?

Lets face it, Very High Speed DSL will never be deployed to residential end users unless it is used (as suggested) to deliver cable TV. In SBC/Ameritech Territory (and most likely anywhere else), the Telephone Companies are using HDSL (High Speed DSL) as the local loop to deliver T1/DS1 Services. This is totally appropriate; they can deploy access using one pair of regular cooper. But, as recent as three years ago, Ameritech (Prior to merger) was completely dragging their feet when it came to deploying DSL. My point is the Local Exchange Carriers do not change unless it allows them to add to their profits.

The fact of the matter is that when it comes to T1 service, it is not the same product that was deployed twenty to thirty years ago. In the past, if you ordered a T1 line, the LEC would provision a cooper circuit from point A to point B. As fiber technology matured, it became possible to combine (or mux) 100 T1 lines onto one piece of fiber. This dramatically saved costs and improved profits once the expense of deploying fiber was recovered. Well, fiber gets faster and faster. You can even run multiple OC12 over a single strand of fiber. Thus even giving the LECs the most bang for the buck. But when it comes to deploying new services for residential customers: FOR GET IT!

Now, there is a surplus capacity amongst all the backbone providers (SprintLink, Qwest, Genuity), prices are falling through the floor, the telephone companies have HDSL facilities in all their COs, yet they only want to deploy ADSL to people's houses. Of course, we all now the answer, once they let that cat out of the bag, it will ruin the profits of their traditional services like T1. The day will come when there will be a DSL variant that will reliably push 50+ Mbs over one pair of copper. The Telco's will jump on that technology and deploy it rapidly. But, they will package it as traditional DS3 service, reduce costs and jack up the rates in the process.

I came to the conclusion just the other day that the Incumbent LECs are not in business-they are running a racket. They are mobsters who want to keep the competition to a minimum and revenues high by using strong-arm tactics against their stakeholders (the customers and employees) and the competition. (Please do not confuse me for a member of the CWA or IBEW or a shareholder/employee of a CLEC.) They do not like change because the very act of change threatens the only way they know how to conduct business-a static, monopolistic business model. If the ILECs were a real, functioning business, they could deal with change and adapt.

Here is my cure for these ailments:
1. Eliminate the DS0 and DS1 tariffs for business
2. Introduce a HDSL tariff priced at the same rates as the old DS1 tariff (who would want a DS1 when you could get a 10 Mbs HDSL line for the same cost)
3. Get rid of the Plain Old Telephone Service (or POTS) infrastructure; deploy bundled SDSL Voice/Data services for all customers. Once phone service is unchained from the legacy switches and is moved to a layer two/layer three based solution, the old method for delivering service will become irrelevant and change will move rapidly.
4. Billing should reflect the amount of data or bits pushed in/out of a line (this should discourage the people from setting up businesses in their houses) as opposed to the distance of the connection. Do what you want, but do not exceed the average amount traffic. Of course, competition is the key to keeping this part of the market place fair for all stakeholders. Regulators will need to be vigilant to avoid Enron like tactics like ricochet and death-star.

Sure, VDSL is being deployed in Gilbert AZ. But, do not expect it to flourish in the rest of the Qwest (US West) market. Here is my version of the company line: “There is no reason to deploy fiber to the door when we can sell you all these great cooper based services (which use current infrastructure) and besides the point, we’re flat broke, just inches from bankruptcy and the SEC is breathing down our back for unethical accounting practices. We’re Qwest. We used to be a high-flying ISP in the 90’s, then we merged with a baby bell. Now, the Dot Com economy is bust and telephone service is the only thing that is keeping us in business.”

As far as Ethernet is concerned, the equipment is not designed to sit outside in extremely variable conditions unless it is in a climate-controlled vault. Additionally, try to find a manufacture that will sell you single pair fiber that is encased in a rugged, outdoor jacket. The smallest denominator for outside use is 6 pair.

We the Internet Generation need to stand up (like those of the M-TV Generation) and state "I want my high speed connectivity at an affordable price."

said by Chango Gringo:

---

Sure, VDSL is being deployed in Gilbert AZ. But, do not expect it to flourish in the rest of the Qwest (US West) market

---

VSDL is capable of 50mbps+ and whats the best qwest is offering? 1mbit/1mbit. toss in protocol overhead and you're looking at 920/850. why even bother? plus the amount of ports that are filtered on the vdsl is rediculous. you're better off going with their 640/272 dsl.

Ouch! Why bother! But, I guess a stable 1 M/bs connection with filtered ports in some cases (not all) would be a lot better than sporadic adsl service, expensive SDSL Service or worthless, overpriced IDSL service.

In regards to filtered ports, are they filtering Windows Media, streaming MP3 and Real Player. If they are, then the LEC is extending their monopoly by denying the competition access to their customers. If they aren't, I have to hand it to Qwest because the are delivering a fast, stable services to consumers while protecting their business services.

I do not buy the cost argument when it comes to delivering access > 1.544 Mbs because the cost per Megabit of Internet Connectivity has fallen through the floor. We recently purchased a OC12 from a large back bone provider for about the same cost of an OC3. These people are desperate. They have so much excess capacity, that the prices are falling through the sub-basement!

This post goes to show you that the ILECs are not in interested in keeping up with the pace of networking technology. They just want to maintain the status quo by selling more of the same old services at inflated prices while driving the cost into the ground.

I was reading on DSL reports that the VDSL flavor deployed by US West was fiber based. Is this true? If so, this *might* mark the beginning of deploying fiber to the door step. But, I doubt it. Deploying fiber to houses is a ploy to keep up the appearance that they have an interest in running fiber to the door step.

I agree with everything you said right up until under your solutions you propose metered (by traffic) pricing. ILEC's WANT metered pricing. They would love your solution because it allows them to charge a lot more then they do now for the same service.

Metered services would be the death of the Internet as we know it.

said by KrK:

---

Metered services would be the death of the Internet as we know it.

---

i am in 100% agreement with you on that one.

telling me i have to pay for how much bandwidth i use is...not acceptable.

said by drew:

---

said by KrK:

---

Metered services would be the death of the Internet as we know it.

---

i am in 100% agreement with you on that one.

telling me i have to pay for how much bandwidth i use is...not acceptable.

---

Very very true. I'd switch back to dialup to get my unmetered access back rather than deal with metered broadband ANYDAY.

said by Chango Gringo:

---

But, as recent as three years ago, Ameritech (Prior to merger) was completely dragging their feet when it came to deploying DSL. My point is the Local Exchange Carriers do not change unless it allows them to add to their profits.

---

and why did they drag their feet? simple.. when you can charge from $1000 to $4000 a month for a leased line T1 on top of the ISP charges, why deploy a service that gives comparible speeds that will only sell for $30 to $60 a month?

the only thing that "saved" DSL and let the telco's grudgingly adopt it is the "standardization" on the very very very slow upstream speed.

how can i get my dsl up to 8mbps down

The prices and service in japan are graded higher then in most if not all other countries offering Fiber-Based Access.

I will tell you this, speeds are good and prices are better:D

LoL! After reading all that and knowing how much bandwith hoggers we, Americans, are, I'm willing to move to Japan! Aloha (or whatever u say :P)