x
<<   <   Page 9 / 16   >   >>
skeptic 12/4/2012 | 11:23:22 PM
re: Copper Access Startups Tarnished The arguments about wireless and cable TV are red herrings. Both had new, unique markets with an unserved clientel. FTTP does not have this luxury. It will carry the same content/services that copper does now - and at no increase in pricing since PUC's will prohibit vast price increases.
-----------------
I heard the same things said about wireless and
cable TV right before the national rollout
started. The only future for wireless according
to some people was in dense urban areas where
luxury (or business) customers would be willing
to pay. It was "absurd" to even think about
towers in the suburbs and it would be "impossible"
to get the property rights to set up service.

For Cable TV, it was "nobody will ever
want ### channels". I heard the Cable TV
people say that right up to the point where
sat TV came in.

And now its the same stupid arguments trying
to preserve copperline phones.

-------
Your all obsessed with "fiber is better than copper". Beta was better than VHS - Beta= big $$$$ VHS = little $ - VHS won. The world doesn't give a tinkers damn about why your mouse trap is superior to his - only that it works and it's cheaper.
-------
You have an amazing ability to come to the
wrong conclusion with the right example. What
VHS and Beta proved was that it was impossible
to have to duplicate infrastructures to deliver
the same content. And as far as beta goes, it
wasn't better in a meaningful way to most people.

And you might want to look at something called
a DVD which is pushing out VHS and tape in
general because its BETTER. Amazingly enough,
people are defying your model and BUYING DVDs
rather than staying with "cheaper" VHS & tape.

In your world, everyone would have stuck with
records, the pre-digital phone system, acustic
modems and video tape. But amazingly enough,
progress does happen and it happens lots faster
than in the orderly do-nothing protected world
of the RBOCS.

---------
If deploying fiber means huge investments but the PUCs will not allow for increased pricing to offset the cost - why would an RBOC do it? If they don't do it = who will?
---------
If the RBOCs are "poor" and have no money,
how is it that SBC is aggressivly building
out data services nationally? Where did the
money come from to build multiple redundant
wireless networks nationwide?

There was a company that embodied your view
of things. It was called Ameritech. It saw
every investment as a waste of money. It ended
up getting swallowed by SBC who then spent all
kinds of money fixing years of neglect. The
point being that the "money" problem at ameritech
was more a problem of bad managment and
a willingness to let the business drift rather
than doing the things necessary to build it up.





techathiest 12/4/2012 | 11:23:21 PM
re: Copper Access Startups Tarnished >While many of us on this board have a dim view of the Bells based on our professional experiences in telecom, they have still have some reservoir of good will out there that most cable operators don't have.

I have been cable modem user for past 4 years. I lived through TCI buyout ATTB, @home shutting down, Comcast buying out ATTB. In all these years my services has never been down for more than 12 hours cummulative (during sudden transition from @home). My friends who are on Pacbell and SBC DSL have lot more horror stories to tell. Cable guys must be doing something right.

I think cable companies in last few years have improved their act. If they put their dollar where there mouth is about triple play, the RBOCs should be scared looking 10 years ahead.
rjmcmahon 12/4/2012 | 11:23:20 PM
re: Copper Access Startups Tarnished If [RBOC] don't do it = who will?

There looks to be two choices, both of which have huge hurdles to climb if the job will ever get done in our lifetimes.

1) Progressive muncipalities
2) Progressive power utilities

If the RBOC could make a signficant profit and kill competition they would be trenching right now. They can't so they are not.

Agreed that a profit motive doesn't exist for the RBOCs, at least when treating bandwidth or wired phones as the product. The products need to change. For that change to occur, the RBOCs would need to adopt structural separation.
Ramu3 12/4/2012 | 11:23:19 PM
re: Copper Access Startups Tarnished bonnyman in post 70 said: "Maybe the Bells will go the way of Western Union."

Yeah, if I recall my history, Western Union turned down the chance to buy the Bell patents for $100,000, thinking those crazy telephones were just a fad that would never catch on. Sounds a lot like the RBOCs point of view on FTTH. But then again, under their control it probably never would catch on.

Below is a small section from Claude Fischer's book "A Social History of the Telephone"

For the first 30 years of the telephone, promoters struggled to identify the
killer application that would promote its wide adoption by home owners and
businesses. At first the telephone was promoted as a replacement for the
telegraph, allowing businesses to send messages more easily and without an
operator. Telephone promoters in the early years touted the telephone as
new service to broadcast news, concerts, church services, weather reports,
etc. Industry journals publicized inventive uses of the telephone such as
sales by telephone, consulting with doctors, ordering groceries over the
telephone, listening to school lectures and even long distance Christian
Science healing! The concept that someone would by the telephone to chat
was simply inconceivable at that time.

It was not until the 1920s that telephone promoters recognized that basic
communication was the killer application
for the telephone. But this social
use of the telephone did not become evident until wide spread connectivity
occurred to most homes. Most people are surprised to discover that it took
over 75 years for the telephone to reach 50% of the homes in the United
States. For the first 30-40 years telephone companies focused on connecting
businesses and promoting business use.

--------------------
So, maybe the RBOCs will morph into power companies, supplying battery-backed power over their copper wires to run the optical network units for FTTH networks deployed by today's electric utility companies.

dodo 12/4/2012 | 11:23:17 PM
re: Copper Access Startups Tarnished "A silent revolution is brewing. By the time the public hears about it, the revolution will be at full speed like a runaway train. Why should you care? Because people like Bill Gates, Michael Dell, and John Chambers intend to get a foothold on this burgeoning market. Companies like Verizon, Motorola, SAIC, Corning, 3M, Broadcom, Cisco, and SBC Communications just to name a few are silently preparing to build the next generation of Internet access. Billions of dollars will be made in the next ten years. Integrators, installers, and structured cabling engineers that position themselves now will be the ones that will reap the financial windfall of FTTH. Those that donGÇÖt may not be in business in two years. "

http://www.convergedigest.com/...

This reminds me of the Fiber Barons in the mid-90's looking for their piece of the pie (and the subsequent Telecom Glut)after Bill Gates said that the Internet "was radically going to change the world," in 1995.

Live and learn:-)
joe_average 12/4/2012 | 11:23:16 PM
re: Copper Access Startups Tarnished Dodo declared:

This reminds me of the Fiber Barons in the mid-90's looking for their piece of the pie (and the subsequent Telecom Glut)after Bill Gates said that the Internet "was radically going to change the world," in 1995.

Live and learn:-)

-------------------------------------------------

Dodo,

I guess it's how you define "radically". When I look back over the last eight years, the internet has, in fact, radically changed my life:

Pros:
- Instant news = no more newspapers
- Community groups/message boards = more communication across all country boundaries
- Shopping = no more want ads + much less time wasted in stores
- Instant data sheets, etc = much more efficient working environment

Cons:
- There can be no doubt that the ugle genie that won't go back in the bottle is that white-collar jobs can be MUCH more easily exported now. 8-(

I really do believe that the internet is everything it was hyped to be. We just take it for granted because it came in bits and pieces and (for the most part) the readers of this board are highly technical people. Historians of the future will write hundreds of PhD thesis dissertations about the cultural and economic impacts of the WWW.
dodo 12/4/2012 | 11:23:15 PM
re: Copper Access Startups Tarnished Joe

I don't dispute the impact of the Internet. It has changed my life since 1993 when I first subscribed to an on-line provider (WWW kicked in during 1995).

I am just questioning the expectation of billions in revenues and if one is not in that game, one is DEAD ( as the dodo bird-pun intended):-)
big daddy 12/4/2012 | 11:23:14 PM
re: Copper Access Startups Tarnished I got an idea - how about structural separation? Just a thought.
Ibeenframed 12/4/2012 | 11:23:10 PM
re: Copper Access Startups Tarnished
"And you might want to look at something called
a DVD which is pushing out VHS and tape in
general because its BETTER. Amazingly enough,
people are defying your model and BUYING DVDs
rather than staying with "cheaper" VHS & tape."

Look in your sunday paper - DVD players are selling for $75 and discount movies under $10. It may be better - but the driver is it's cheaper.

"In your world, everyone would have stuck with
records, the pre-digital phone system, acustic
modems and video tape. But amazingly enough,
progress does happen and it happens lots faster
than in the orderly do-nothing protected world
of the RBOCS."

I am old enough to have used all those technologies (sadly to say - even the acoustic modem at the lightning fast speed of 300 baud)
and each had a clear advantage that resolved or helped alleviate a clearly identifiable problem.

When 802.11b was introduced I recognized that it would rapidly be deployed in all kinds of ways. I was told by many that "Why would wireless Ethernet ever be deployed in an enterprise that already has Cat 5 to every cube and office?

I recognized the benefits of 802.11 when others thought it a fad. 802.11b had two unique advantages - it was very convenient for users - and it was very affordable. It is cheaper to install and 802.11 hub and nics than to pull cable to support those same connections.

What I don't see is the compelling attraction for the home subscriber.

"If the RBOCs are "poor" and have no money,
how is it that SBC is aggressivly building
out data services nationally? Where did the
money come from to build multiple redundant
wireless networks nationwide? "

The amount of money being spent by SBC is miniscule to the cost of trenching to replace cooper loops. The differences make the example moot. An earlier discussion in LR tried to determining the cost for Verizon to completely replace their copper and TDM with fiber, IP and DWDM and the cost of switching and optical gear was just in the noise range compared to the cost of trenching. I donGÇÖt have the data but I would wager that the cost of replacing all the copper from one urban CO would allow SBC to build multiple 10s of wireless towers and supporting networks. For the cost of replacing the copper in just Chicago SBC could probably build a wireless network that gave coverage to the back country of Montana.

Interestingly - the NSF gave a supercomputer group $11 million to do a study of 100 Mbps to residental sites in 3 states. Something on the order of 100 homes in different locations. It will take awhile for this study to finish but the results will be fascinating.
rjmcmahon 12/4/2012 | 11:23:10 PM
re: Copper Access Startups Tarnished each had a clear advantage that resolved or helped alleviate a clearly identifiable problem.

Agreed that need must clearly addressed. This seems to be true regardless of the solution type, i.e. public or private.

The challenge we face is clearly defining the problem and motivating solutions. It has become obvious the RBOCs remain on the problem side of that definition.

What I don't see is the compelling attraction for the home subscriber.

It's called unicast communications at an affordable cost.

If we think about it, the monthly payments we give to fraudband oligarchs and their substandard technoloies, none of which are even taught in universities anymore, would better directed to college funds.
<<   <   Page 9 / 16   >   >>
HOME
Sign In
SEARCH
CLOSE
MORE
CLOSE