& cplSiteName &
Comments
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View        ADD A COMMENT
Page 1 / 3   >   >>
rjmcmahon
50%
50%
rjmcmahon,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:27:50 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing
"Do you believe the future VoIP powerhouses will find a way to bypass the local loops or HFC plants?"

They're doing it now.

Who is the "they" in which you are referring to? The only people I see who are bypassing the incumbents control are folks like Clearwire http://www.clearwire.com/ That's a bet on WiMAX, which seems like a long shot and doesn't provide enough bandwidth for real broadband services. Most everybody else seems to be building some sort of overlay model which means their dependent upon the incumbent controlled infrastructure. The ISP/CLEC lessons suggests where that goes.

PS. Bit torrent combined with fraudband doesn't seem like a viable proposition. I don't see how it pays the supply chain nor how it drives investment into modernizing our communications infrastructures.
paolo.franzoi
50%
50%
paolo.franzoi,
User Rank: Light Sabre
12/5/2012 | 3:27:51 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing

Its funny that everybody speaks out of both sides of their mouths on deployment speed and unbundling.

A - If deployment does not go fast, then the elimination of unbundling to FTTP sites means nothing as there are no customers on it.

or;

B - Deployment goes fast, which means that everyone is getting the network upgrade they desire.

I think people will be shocked at how fast old services will be eliminated.

seven
beowulf888
50%
50%
beowulf888,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:27:51 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing
RJ:
Sorry -- I didn't think my sarcastic remarks would generate serious discussion. Yikes! Now I have really be careful what I say...

You wrote:
"Do you believe the future VoIP powerhouses will find a way to bypass the local loops or HFC plants?"

They're doing it now. Maybe not with excellent voice quality. But a high MOS score probably isn't as important as (A) convenience and (B) cheapness.

Moreover, there's a lot of long distance international traffic that's VoIP now. But most people think of VoIP to the home when they talk about VoIP.

"Also, what's your opinion from the TIVO experience?"

Couldn't comment on TIVO. I shot my TV back in the 80s. But just because TIVO is having troubles doesn't mean there isn't a market for consumer-controlled media devices. Maybe the incumbents can quash the technology, but they'll have to do it by investing billions in making it convenient and inexpensive. But if they invest billions, well their ability to offer it inexpensively is undermined. In reality, I don't think it won't be big-Cable and media companies that kills TIVO, I think it will be ubiquitous broadband and BitTorrent that will kill TIVO.

"In my opinion somebody has got to provide a common carriage access infrastructure, one that prioritizes voice traffic from the best effort data, if VoIP critters are going to go beyond the enterprise and become the next GTE. Am I missing something?"

Well, most of this stuff is layer 4 through 7 -- which carriers have always done poorly. Maybe they'll evolve, but I sort of doubt it.

--Beo
allidia
50%
50%
allidia,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:27:53 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing
I would be surprised if SONS is cutthroat in pricing while maintaining 59-62% margins vs. Nortel's 43% for Q1/2 04 and NT taking an Indian contract at an outright loss which will reduce margins even further. As for the VZ issues time will tell when their contract expires this June. Analysts have mentioned "issues" with NT gear in VZ and others speculate it is Echo related. SONS AT+T revenues are recognized when certain milestones are met. Look at the deferred revenue column for a hint.
OldPOTS
50%
50%
OldPOTS,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:27:54 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing
Some carriers own large interest in Voice Gateways. They are feature rich, but more expensive. I think they are the third little known option.

OldPOTS
OldPOTS
50%
50%
OldPOTS,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:27:54 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing
keelhaul42

Most triple play trials are now done with FTTH/U/C in new greenfield development areas and then extended to some revenue generating brownfields. Most leading carriers have at least proposed these smaller trials over the last few years. Now these include both homes, apts strip shopping malls and some midsize enterprises.

Note the money is in the high-density apts, malls and enterprises. More ARPU. Less fiber, equipment and much better take rate than residential. As stated in other posts, the money is in density and then residential becomes gravy. For new developments, the cost of fiber install is about the same. But the slight added equipment costs is made up for in the added value to the developer. Developers have many times sought out carriers, RBOCs and CLECS to operate as partners and then paid the install costs.

Note three cables go in for nearly the price of one for the developer. Redundancy, choice and wired for the future. Developer has choice of cableco that can use coax laid by developer if 15% competition in area. That is why cabelcos may litigate for requiring everyone (carriers) to have a city franchises (See VZ article), even though it is possible for them not to have franchise (FCC/congress 15% competition rule with satellite TV or other).

In many cases the first FTTH B-PON (ATM) application is HIS (Internet) and voice (VoATM GR303) and a few with the more expensive video (cableco advantage) implementation. They test migrating voice and HIS, all to IP. When the todayGÇÖs "Edge Router Evolution" is available in archive I suggest you listen intently. Video is still a challenge; technical and expensive.

"I say RBOCS lightly because I don't think they intend to follow through after the pilot projects"
I concur that follow through will be slow! They'll nibble until they need to strike. Video is more difficult, even on B-PON (Broadcast frequencies) is not easy (learning curve) and they need to work out the probable/cheaper solution before striking. But they have tested the more expensive B-PON broadcast equipment if they must.

OldPOTS

prefer_to_lurk
50%
50%
prefer_to_lurk,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:27:55 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing
"I'm a little surprised because NT is known to give their product away. Must be those rumored ECHO issues at VZ."

Interesting... from what I've seen over the years, Sonus is the one with cutthroat pricing.

How much has T actually bought from Sonus ? They aren't listed among the 10%+ customers in the latest SONS 10-Q.

Similarly, it is rumored that several major accounts are actively evaluating competing vendors as they finish out their Sonus contracts. I guess it's hard to stay ahead of the big boys when your R&D budget is less than $40M per year...

ptl
allidia
50%
50%
allidia,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:27:56 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing
will use AT+T VOIP solution (SONS). This appears to be a major win for Sonus and another disappointment for NT. I'm a little surprised because NT is known to give their product away. Must be those rumored ECHO issues at VZ. I guess the next question is how much is SONS worth to Alcatel or maybe even Cisco? It would appear that they are the defacto standard for T/SBC/ and most likely Cingular when it comes to Carrier class VOIP.
paolo.franzoi
50%
50%
paolo.franzoi,
User Rank: Light Sabre
12/5/2012 | 3:27:56 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing

First off, there was some competition in out of region.

Second, I think unless you have all lost it you have forgotten the rule of money around communications. Residential Service was subsidized by Business Service. Now we have changed the rate structure so this is not true anymore, but the high margin piece of the market is in Enterprise services. Frankly, consumer services have always been more a mile wide, inch deep (in terms of margin) service. So, I would expect a lot of profit from out of region VoIP.

Third, the only reason SBC would do it would be to amortize the expense of their network. If they have an AT&T site in say Atlanta and they can for no additional capital offer VoIP to residences in Atlanta then this is a good deal. It raises volume on the network which in turn lowers the cost per bit/second of the network. Most existing out of region businesses simply don't justify the expenditure of capital.

Finally, fgoldstein is probably ready to type "so that is why we need UNE-P". My problem with UNE-P is that it never justified the expenditure of capital under any circumstances. From an CLEC's standpoint, you took money out of your enemies' pocket and you could use it to invest in other things. If there was a way to say, you can have UNE-P for 1 year and then you are required to put in your switches after 1 year or be heavily fined, then I could agree to it. But to subsidize a company with no need to add value to the economy just makes no sense. If you can make a business case to invest in a switch and want to compete early fine. But to take money out of one pocket to place in another pocket is called robbery.

seven
rjmcmahon
50%
50%
rjmcmahon,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:27:57 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing
I'd expect SBC to press VOIP out-of-region - that is, in those areas of the country where they are not the incumbent copper plant owner.

Regulators expected the RBOCs to compete out-of-region with the UNE-P rules as well. It never happened. Why would VoIP be any different?
Page 1 / 3   >   >>


Featured Video
Upcoming Live Events
September 17-19, 2019, Dallas, Texas
October 1-2, 2019, New Orleans, Louisiana
October 10, 2019, New York, New York
October 22, 2019, Los Angeles, CA
November 5, 2019, London, England
November 7, 2019, London, UK
December 3, 2019, New York, New York
December 3-5, 2019, Vienna, Austria
March 16-18, 2020, Embassy Suites, Denver, Colorado
May 18-20, 2020, Irving Convention Center, Dallas, TX
All Upcoming Live Events