danielcawrey 7/4/2016 | 1:58:32 PM
Re: NTT & Verizon Amazing to think that PSTN systems are still up and running. 

I get it; there are a number of operations that still require it. But now that we're entering into an age of IoT, I think a lot of these older data connections will be upgraded. That's a good thing, given these legacy systems are a bear to maintain. 
brooks7 7/1/2016 | 3:08:41 PM
Re: FTT...(x)? @jayakd0.

The same way that it was throughout the FiOS properties.  NTT deployed the fiber in underground and aerial (whatever is appropriate).

The challenge of fibre deployment is the business case.  The number 1 factor in the case is NOT construction.  It is line loss.  In the case of Verizon, they were under extreme pressure from Cablevision (in particular) and other MSOs.  Not only were they losing on the broadband front, they were losing phone lines.  FiOS was built to stem that tide and has been wildly successful from that standpoint.  

Why didn't AT&T follow suit?  If you look at where AT&T is (Texas, California, now the South East) there was more new lines being installed and not as much pressure on lines.  So, AT&T went the U-verse route - trying to save some money.  They are working to play a "lose slowly" game for residential broadband.  They have ftth available for markets that they want to hotly contest, but have not done something ambitious.

NTT was getting its head handed to it by the alternate DSL providers in Japan.  FTTH was a way for NTT to build a network that it didn't have to unbundle and share.  So, it was a lock out the competition move.  This is somewhat different than Verizon - who did have some CLEC competition but its primary competition was from MSOs.

The whole highlight here is that competition can drive FTTH deployments.  Note the utter lack of wireline compeition in Europe.  In spite of article trumpeting FTTH taking off in Europe on this site for the last 10 years based on pronouncements from service providers, almost nothing has happened.

The only other way to get FTTH built is through governement intervention.  South Korea is an example of that.  Australia should have been an example of that but has fallen flat.  

Back to the business case, Construction Costs is the #2 factor...which is why Verizon started in areas with Aerial Plant.

And as a note, none of this has changed for the past 15 years.



jayakd0 7/1/2016 | 11:01:32 AM
Re: FTT...(x)? @Seven, how was that (fibre deployment to enable FTTH) achieved in Tokyo?
brooks7 6/29/2016 | 1:08:41 PM
Re: FTT...(x)? Denser than Tokyo?

Its a great myth.


inkstainedwretch 6/29/2016 | 1:03:29 PM
FTT...(x)? So but wait? I don't understand why fiber to the home is even being considered. I've been told repeatedly that it would be deeply and profoundly impractical to have to install FTTH in most of Europe, simply because of the way most cities are built.

From a tech standpoint, reducing the length of copper loops always helps with DSL throughput. So fiber to the node -- extending fiber deeper, as Mari notes in another comment --  would presumably be perfectly adequate to get to hundreds of megabits-per-second with very very short VDSL loops, or by migrating to g.fast on the copper reach.

If that's the case, what advantage would FTTH have that would overwhelm the cost, difficulty, and perhaps the pointlessness of going that route rather than fiber-deeper?

-- Brian Santo


msilbey 6/29/2016 | 12:02:35 PM
Wireless implications too There are wireless benefits to deeper-fiber networks too, particularly with the development of 5G. I wonder if that tips the capex scales too.
brooks7 6/29/2016 | 11:39:19 AM
NTT & Verizon  

Could provide case studies on the topic.


Sign In