CenturyLink → Re: [CenturyTel] 4 DSL Lines (bonded or load balanced) vs MOE Circuit?

That's insane.

I'll lay it all out for CL management. Call it the formula for success.

Comcast is successful in those areas because they can offer cheap (for a few months, but the marketing works) triple play and double play bundles, and also high Internet speeds for a secondary portion of their users.

Right now, CL needs to get with it on bonding. That means adding it to their website for residential customers and making sure CSRs are trained on it. They've been offering it for years now, not only in Qwest areas. Qwest's FTTN DSLAM deployments support it. What's the holdup?

In these areas with competition, the competition exists for a reason: it's profitable to build out. So, for the most part and with the exception of any contractual obligations (serviceability clauses in franchise agreements, for example), these aren't rural areas. Many are probably densely-packed subdivisions. It stands to reason that many of these users could qualify for 100/12, 40/20, 60/30, 80/40 and 100/40. Those speeds rival Comcast's easily.

(On that note, upstream speeds are more of a limitation than downstream. We've already seen how many users provisioned for 40/5 can attain 50/5 when overprovisioned, so 50/6 isn't much of a stretch. I suspect many users who couldn't qualify for 60/30, could qualify for 100/12. Since most marketing revolves around downstream speeds, this is an easy marketing bullet point.)

The next step is Prism. A lot of people like those cheap triple play and double play bundles. I'm not a fan of TV at all; I think it's an outdated and dumb business model. But if CL wants to compete for the average household, they need it. DirecTV bundling isn't a "strategy."

And now, we come to CL's real problem. Because of the nature of Comcast's point-to-multipoint network, they can offer TV services for 5+ simultaneous HDTVs AND 105/20 Internet service, to each user. CL is technically capable of doing this too, but here's the problem: DSLAM ports aren't free. When each user is taking up 3-4 DSLAM ports, that gets expensive. And then that brings us to a brand new set of problems: crosstalk absolutely kills performance (look around for DSLAM vendor marketing, there's some graphs with 12 and 24 crosstalkers). This is less noticeable when you have on average 3-6 pairs out of 25 with DSL, but when you bring that up to 12-20, you've got problems.

As usual, there's a solution to this: vectoring (crosstalk cancellation). And, naturally, yet another problem! Vectoring only works really effectively with access to every single pair in the binder. (That is, it can't cancel crosstalk it doesn't know about.) However, much of Qwest's FTTN territory is using Adtran TA1100 series 48-port DSLAMs. The strategy has been to install one and add more as demand grows. And there's your problem - these DSLAMs are supposed to be independent from each other.

On that last point, I'm pretty confident it's true but I need to note Adtran makes some interesting, vague claims in this press release. In particular, "Allows simple system scalability from 48 to 192 ports and beyond with system-level vectoring." But I believe they're only talking about system-level vectoring on each individual DSLAM. I think it's intentionally unclear. Vectoring on all these ports in real-time across 4 DSLAMs, will require a ton of bandwidth, and I don't believe the 1148 has any special, high-bandwidth system-to-system communication bus. So this seems to me to just be intentionally vague/unclear marketing bullet points.

So now, you probably ask, why did Qwest do this and handicap themselves? Well, those TA1148 DSLAMs are cheap as hell to deploy. The CoolPed is a lot cheaper to install. As for some actual numbers? A member here got quoted $60-80K from CL (non-Qwest area) to install a cabinet, I believe a full-size cabinet probably with a Calix. I don't have any numbers from the CoolPed setup, but it eliminates a ton of work.

In other words, with Qwest's limited financial resources, it's clear they couldn't have done much more. (Though CL has continued these deployments...)

And now, we come to the realization... if they want to compete, they need fiber. Period. There's no other solution. Either run the fiber or die.

So, here's what I would do if I was suddenly named CEO of CenturyLink...

In the short term, competing is important. Aggressively roll out Prism, bonding, and triple play and double play deals. Yes, run 4 pairs for one customer for a little bit. Start taking back some of those customers from Comcast and filling up those DSLAMs.

In the longer term ("long term" isn't appropriate), aggressively build out fiber. In particular, look for markets that are responding well to the short-term buildout. Upgrade those first since your ROI is basically guaranteed. Also look for markets that already are mostly owned by CL and upgrade those if the numbers are right. Comcast is limited by DOCSIS; force them to invest massive cash in upgrades. Triple play for $99/mo. with 250/250 Internet access? Compete with that, Comcast. (8x4 can't do 250M downstream for more than a few users.) When Comcast invests in 24x8 or whatever the next step is, go up a little. 500/500?

Play the speed game with Comcast, knowing your superior network will allow you to win.

Continue investing in Prism. Break even on it. It should be a way to get people in the door for more profitable Internet services.

On the fiber rollout, not only can you offer more IPTV streams to really compete with the capabilities of Comcast/DTV/Dish, you can also start offer some even faster Internet tiers to generate a little extra revenue. Now, the types of users on this site are relatively rare, but it's still something. $150/mo. gigabit? Sounds good. I would gladly pay that!

Also, I'm not saying I would do this (at all), but I will say I would put some serious thought into it: perhaps buy T-Mobile, if the numbers look interesting and financing is possible? This is one of CL's major issues, not having a wireless business, and this would be a solution. There wouldn't be any antitrust issues because CL's only "presence" in wireless is lame bundling.

The end: world domination. :P

Now, can I have my million dollar bonus?

In my area in and around Seattle, the people I know that have CL, only them because cable isn't available. Everyone I know in the cities have Comcast and a lot of them only have cell phones, no house lines. So CL isn't getting any income from them.

The people I know out here in the rural area have CL phone (no cell signal since Nextel stopped), VZW cell (when not at home), 1.5Mbps DSL and Direct Tv.

Prism tv doesn't interest me, but most people in the city I know do have the Comcast tv packages, so your points are very true about selling that product to people.

The CL phone tech said on average there are 1.5 pairs for each house available in the street in the cities here.
He said where I am in the rural county, there are a lot more available. I have 6 pairs in the multicore cable from the pedestal in the road to my house, and I'm using just two pairs for the bonded VDSL.

The new housing developments here do have fibre direct to the home and they offer tv there too. He said they use the same Technicolor C2000T modem I have for that.

I asked if I could bond more than the one pair, he said I could not at the moment.

Making me get a business line just to get a certain speed package is bad marketing. If people can get 40/20 in town, then they should offer all speeds available. If someone can only get 3Mbps on one pair, then give that customer two pairs at no additional charge.

This cross talk info is interesting to me.

I would agree with this & would add one thing to it.

If someone calls to inquire about getting faster speed (especially if their neighbor(s) can), that instead of saying "That's why my computer says you qualify for", do actually see why their line only is getting X speed & to see if they can get something faster.

And that's what CL management needs to realize. When people are only using you because there's no other option, that's not a healthy business. (Because what happens when some other option comes around?)

It's not universally true (in my case, for example, I use CL because it's so much more reliable than Comcast, which I had for 5 years before Qwest installed a remote) but it's true enough of the time to be a concern.Same, it's not something I'd buy (parents would though). Internet access is the only product CL has that interests me.And this is yet another problem for their copper network. Not only can some of those terminals not even have enough capacity for 2-4 pairs for each house, many drops won't either. If you're wasting money burying/hanging new drops for everyone, why not just do the right thing and run the fiber, be done with it?Yes, they do GPON in new developments.

The C2000T isn't used as a modem, it's used as a standard gateway. The ONT gives you an Ethernet handoff so you can use your own equipment and take the C2000T (or FR1000z or whatever they give you) out of the equation completely. The only thing that seems to have surprised some people is that their equipment needs to be capable of PPPoE on a VLAN subinterface.More than the two pairs I assume? He would be correct. G.998 can do it, but there isn't any CPE I'm aware of that can.Agreed. That's what I mean about not playing games. When a customer can call 10 times and get 10 different answers about it ("yes, it's available, let's order it for you!" "I don't think there is such a thing using 2 pairs" etc.), thats' a problem.

I agree, but you might be asking for too much here. This would involve training sales staff, who are probably not too technically-inclined, to look at circuit stats and their max attainable rate to make a decision whether or not a new speed tier is likely to be stable.