& cplSiteName &
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View        ADD A COMMENT
<<   <   Page 2 / 3   >   >>
OldPOTS
OldPOTS
12/5/2012 | 3:28:02 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing
The quote "Obviously when you start moving video and high-speed data by the volumes weGre talking about in deploying Lightspeed, (and enterprizes) the kind of backbone capacity that AT&T brings to bear is really exciting.Gǥ

Now Williams capacity becomes available for the others' freaking longhaul networks. This helps some early deployers. The cablecos obviously have the video, but will need this capacity for VoIP.

If you assume higher speed DSL and FTTU fast roll out with triple play, then SBC can strike quickly as they now have longhaul network Capacity.

They know how to easily upgrade DSL and they have had a small FTTH access trial for a few years. SBC is now behind in the triple play application scaling/rollout capabilities, but probably ahead of most US competitors, except cablecos.

OldPOTS
aswath
aswath
12/5/2012 | 3:28:01 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing
Msg. #9: ... one that prioritizes voice traffic from the best effort data ...

Skype is universally being praised for good voice quality, even though it uses best effort network. Given that why do you think we need a common carrier who prioritize voice traffic?
paolo.franzoi
paolo.franzoi
12/5/2012 | 3:28:00 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing

I want to correct a factual error made below that AT&T was shut out of the local loop.

What was deleted was UNE-P which was the ability to rent both switch and loop capacity. UNE-L which allows AT&T to rent the local loop alone still exists. Also, AT&T owned a cable company and decided to sell it. If it had not done so, it would have had a local loop alternative for any of its services.

Also anytime anyone wants to build a network they are quite welcome to. The overbuilder market exists and many companies are profitable doing so.

In fact, AT&T, MCI and Sprint LD own plenty of plant to their major business customers. Which is where the money lies for these firms anyway. The whole point of this deal will be to allow SBC to win in the Enterprise space.

seven
keelhaul42
keelhaul42
12/5/2012 | 3:27:59 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing
OldPots:
They know how to easily upgrade DSL and they have had a small FTTH access trial for a few years. SBC is now behind in the triple play application scaling/rollout capabilities, but probably ahead of most US competitors, except cablecos.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Who do you know who is working with "triple Play" besides cablecos and RBOCS? ( I say RBOCS lightly because I don't think they intend to follow through after the pilot projects.)
I've heard talk of wireless networks but not seen or heard of actual deployment.
Anything in your area?

thx,

-kh
fgoldstein
fgoldstein
12/5/2012 | 3:27:59 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing
> Skype is universally being praised for good voice quality, even though it uses best effort network. Given that why do you think we need a common carrier who prioritize voice traffic?

The laws of physics still apply. Skype performance depends on the intevening networks. Sometimes good, sometimes not. "Universally" is a bit strong, because any non-prioritized VoIP can suck when the link is congested. No way around it.
PO
PO
12/5/2012 | 3:27:58 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing
Two dinosaurs mating will not a VoIP powerhouse make.

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. The AT&T deal gives them an immediate national presence to advance that agenda.

In-region, they can offer it as a defensive play against competitor's offerings, but as the ILEC their cost structure would presumably be better on traditional technologies.

The question, IMHO, is to what extent a DSL offering can be separated from the voice services offering. That is, to what extent can you buy DSL without buying voice from that same carrier?
rjmcmahon
rjmcmahon
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?
allidia
allidia
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
paolo.franzoi
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
prefer_to_lurk
prefer_to_lurk
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
<<   <   Page 2 / 3   >   >>


Featured Video
Upcoming Live Events
November 5, 2019, London, England
November 7, 2019, London, UK
November 14, 2019, Maritim Hotel, Berlin
December 3-5, 2019, Vienna, Austria
December 3, 2019, New York, New York
March 16-18, 2020, Embassy Suites, Denver, Colorado
May 18-20, 2020, Irving Convention Center, Dallas, TX
All Upcoming Live Events