DSL is EnoughDSL profit means less fiber incentive? ( old news - 01:25PM Thursday Nov 13 2003) tags: Fiber · business · telco With profits from DSL subscribers growing, the Bells incentive to deploy fiber grows dimmer still. - Verizon, SBC and BellSouth unveiled their request for proposal announcement (RFP) this summer, indicating they were taking fiber more seriously and were looking to standardize deployments. Verizon CEO Ivan G. Seidenberg insisted that the company was serious about investing $20 to $40 billion in Verizon's fiber deployment agenda, which was to have 60% of U.S. households ready for fiber within five years. Companies like Alcatel and Advanced Fibre Communications Inc. (AFC) saw their stocks rise on the promise of serious FTTP (fiber to the premises) interest on the part of the Bells. Industry insiders began predicting that the bells "were serious this time", and that cable competition, mixed with less regulation, would leave us living in a fiber utopia very soon. Skeptics warned that history repeats itself, and any fiber promises coming from the incumbents should be taken with a grain of salt (or a salt lick, if available). Gordon Cook's recent Cook Report warned that there simply wasn't any incentive for the Bells to shift from ADSL to fiber or next generation DSL, thanks to a "unholy alliance" between the bells, the FCC, and Congress. From state to state, critics warned, there was evidence of repeated fiber promises, most of which had never been kept. After the FCC's Triennial Review didn't give them everything they wanted, Bell exec attitudes quickly changed. SBC Chief Edward Whitacre Jr. suddenly informed investors he simply "didn't see the incentive for FTTP". Seidenberg applied the brakes, noting that there was "a significant bait-and-switch inside of the order that needs to be clarified." Hardware vendors felt betrayed, competitors cried "cabal", and consumers (most of whom couldn't care less) continued to plug away at 1.5Mbps. The bottom line is that the Bell's simply won't be investing in fiber optic networks until any and all network sharing provisions are eliminated and profit potential is maximized. Minimal competition keeps improvements limited, and neither the states or feds hold the bells accountable for broken promises, even after receiving billions in taxpayer funded incentives (see Pennsylvania's problems as just one glowing example). If this Light Reading report is any indication, they're making enough off of DSL to drag the regulatory debate out indefinitely. BellSouth, Verizon and SBC reported 661,000 new DSL customers in the third quarter of 2003, bringing the total to 6.5 million DSL customers nationwide. Lean earnings (wireless and dial-up/fax line decline are eroding revenues) were bolstered by DSL, with bundles helping to reduce customer churn. Analysts speaking to Light Reading suggest that the only thing that might speed up fiber deployments is consumer demand for video-via-bell (which could be handled by ADSL or VDSL anyway). With the majority of telcos signing bundling agreements with satellite providers to fill that demand, such a notion seems like little more than wishful thinking.
Related:- Monday Evening Links
- Wednesday Evening Links
- Friday Evening Links
- Verizon: 50% GPON By 2010
- Verizon Promises FiOS To All Of DC In Ten Years
- Verizon Promises Not To Cherry Pick Philadelphia
- Scott Cleland: Google Using 21x The Bandwidth They Pay For
- Bright House Slams Verizon On FiOS Grounding
|
 
Vamp
5c077
Premium
join:2003-01-28
MD | There to cheap.. They use that filesharing is eliminated as an exuse for them to not pay for the fiber.... Cheap companies | |
|  | 
cameron119
1lt
join:2002-12-03
Morristown, TN
| Re: There to cheap.. "They use that filesharing is eliminated as an exuse for them to not pay for the fiber.... Cheap companies"
lol, it's not filesharing, it's line-sharing. The bells don't want to share their fiber; which makes sense considering they're a company that wants a profit (like any company). | |
| | | 
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
 ·AT&T Southwest
 ·Charter Pipeline
edited
| Verizon is really doing it I have it from 2 inside sources that Verizon really is doing FTTP in Keller/Southlake TX (Dallas). Also, their fiber contractor, Level3, just laid a fiber ring around Southlake. It seems many Verizon executives live in this area. Maybe FTTP isn't good for the masses -- but it appears to be plenty good for neighborhoods with Verizon executives in it. | |
| | | | 
EnasYorl
Thieves World
join:2001-12-02
West
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Verizon is really doing it FTTRemote but I doubt you'll see FTTH in the next 15 years or more.
It's TOO EXPENSIVE to dig up. You talking about $50/ft for underground work.
ADSL2 will bring enough bandwidth for the future. BB's will add remotes so the copper drop is less than 5000 ft so ADSL2 will be available to all. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | drtysanch
join:2003-11-12
Wood Ridge, NJ | Re: Verizon is really doing it yes they are.. iam a splicer for verizon, and we are starting to see work orders for the job. they tell us it will be fiber to the house. | |
| | | | | | | | 
Maggs
Premium
join:2002-11-29
Woodside, NY
clubs: | Re: Verizon is really doing it W;)ear some thick gloves, buddy. Your dealing with glass. 
--
Welcome Home Rob. Get Well Soon | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | footballdude
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| said by ronpin  :
I have it from 2 inside sources that Verizon really is doing FTTP in Keller/Southlake TX (Dallas). It seems many Verizon executives live in this area.
Texas is SBC territory. Why would Verizon execs live there when their offices are in a different state? | |
| | | | |
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana | Re: Verizon is really doing it Check again. | |
| | | | | | footballdude
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| Re: Verizon is really doing it said by ronpin :
Check again.
Dude, SBC execs all live in San Antonio. Ed Whitacre was referred to in the Wall Street Journal as the 'gunslinger from Texas' not too long ago (caveat: or something very similar to that). SBC stands for 'Southwestern Bell Corporation'. It doesn't get much more southwestern than Texas. Verizon was created by a merger of Bell Atlantic and NYNEX, neither of which had a presence in Texas. I could see Verizon wireless in Texas, but not their executives. | |
| | | | | | | footballdude
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO | Re: Verizon is really doing it OK, I just checked. Verizon corporate headquarters is in New York. | |
| | | | | | | 
Pathfinder
Dazed Confused
Premium
join:2000-03-26
Mount Vernon, NY | Verizon was created by the merger of Bell Atlantic and GTE. GTE headquarters was in Irving Texas and the are still plenty of executives there.
--
support the Hunley | |
| | | | | | | | Marckus0513
Just Because
join:2003-01-11
Vernon, VT | Re: Verizon is really doing it Clueless is correct, there is a huge Verizon presence in Texas. Verizon has many corp offices there along with one of their major NOC centers | |
| | | | 
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ | Have you seen the loch ness too  | |
| 
broknsymetry
What Time Is It And Why?
Premium
join:2003-06-27
THE VOID
clubs: | Consumers will learn That's ok, soon the Japanese will buy the Bells and run FTTH. | |
| | 
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Kansas City, MO
clubs: | Re: Consumers will learn we wont see wide-spread FTTH until the government steps in..
in other words, we'll never see FTTH nationwide.
--
UMKC:15051/20689 kbps RoadRunner:3123/374 kbps | |
| | | SaBo7Ge
join:2003-03-12
US
| Re: Consumers will learn This is the truth of it unfortunatly.. Regulations will need to put in place to keep our nation competitive with other leading nations like japan and korea if the US is ever going to get up to speed. American Corporations just don't appear willing to take steps to deploy fiber on their own. Instead of deploying they only dangle the potential promises of doing so believing this is enough to keep their stock options high while keeping everyone else at bay... | |
| | | sherpaboy
join:2001-07-06
Seattle, WA | we wont see wide-spread FTTH until the government steps in. out. | |
| | | | SaBo7Ge
join:2003-03-12
US
edited
| Spending Money to make Money-Unless you're a Telco How do you figure? Have you seen anything to believe that such promises have been fulfilled in the past? Look at Verizon for example; who took 2.1 billion in incentives and did not follow through with their fiber deployment in PA. That's outright fraud imo and who paid? The citizens of PA. The best analogy I could give about what should happen to these ILEC's is like when dealing with a uncourteous and undisciplined teenager. If they can't treat people politely with respect or dignity and won't follow through with their promises then send them off to bootcamp. That's exactly the problem here as we've got a bunch of greed driven individuals running the show with absoulutely no care or concern for US interests. Meanwhile the US is falling further and further behind on a global scale and the average citizen is receiving substandard service as other leading nations like Japan & Korea are distancing themselves as the days pass by. | |
| | | | | sherpaboy
join:2001-07-06
Seattle, WA
| Re: Spending Money to make Money-Unless you're a T .
How do I figure?
Well to quote you....
quote:
That's outright fraud imo and who paid? The citizens of PA
The citizens of PA got screwed because the government is under the impression that they are smarter than the rest of us and they are better able to manage our money than we are. The citizens of PA got screwed because the government allowed Verizon to bilk them out of 2.1 billion you refer to.
quote:
The best analogy I could give about what should happen to these ILEC's is like when dealing with a uncourteous and undisciplined teenager. If they can't treat people politely with respect or dignity and won't follow through with their promises then send them off to bootcamp.
That is the typical authoritarian response to the problem
Main Entry: au·thor·i·tar·i·an
Pronunciation: o-"thär-&-'ter-E-&n, &-, -"thor-
Function: adjective
Date: 1879
1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority
2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people
favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people
Think back to your teenage youth for a moment. If someone (your folks for example) forced you to do something against your will, you may or may not have obeyed. However a) it would be less than a quality effort (much like the heavily regulated ILECS of today and yesterday), and b) You would resent them for it. It is no different if you are a human, a dog, a donkey, or a Corporation. If really want to get something from a Corporation, trade for something that they might want and you are willing to part with.... let's say money.... for example. Much in the same fashion you might spend money on Beer, Pizza, or even a new car. Oh yes, I know, here comes the part about poor me, "I have to deal with Verizon because they are the only ILEC in town". Bull. And besides, now we get back to the government. Who gave the original Bell Telephone Company the monopoly to begin with? I'm pretty sure it was the Feds. And who in 1980's made it worse by breaking up the Bell Telephone Company up by region rather than by function? I think that was the Federal Government as well. Now they have created a bunch of regional monopolies that are serving us no better than in the past. If they really wanted to fix it they should have broken it up by function and not region. If it was broken by function than different Voice and/or data companies could rent infrastructure in the same neighborhood and create a quality and competitive business niche.
quote:
That's exactly the problem here as we've got a bunch of greed driven individuals running the show with absoulutely no care or concern for US interests.
OK, all of those who do not want more of the things you desire please stand up.
Do you own any Mutual Funds? Stocks? Are you part owner of a Company? Would you like to spend more time with your Spouse? Your Children? If you have answered yes to any of these you are greed driven. How many of the stocks that you own do you hope the company strives for a marginal return?
In your job are you underpaid or overpaid? In either case who is greedy, you or your company. If you think you are underpaid, you might be considered greedy because you feel you deserve more. If you are currently over paid, we might consider you greedy for taking too much from the evil company who forced you to work for them. Because you and others in the company are overpaid, the investors are getting screwed by you for taking more than your fare share.
Maybe the solution would be to have the your employer give a fixed amount of money to the US department of Wages and Labor for a fixed amount of labor hours. The Department of Wages and Labor will then supply the company with a warm body and pay their wage minus Social Security, Health Care, and the assorted taxes and a small large handling fee. This process should eliminate greed and should also eliminate the need for you to put out extra effort on the job as a way of advancing your career.
quote:
Meanwhile the US is falling further and further behind on a global scale and the average citizen is receiving substandard service as other leading nations like Japan & Korea are distancing themselves as the days pass by.
I'm so tired of hearing this. It's a bit easier to wire Japan than the US, it's a shock we were ever ahead! But now we are back to greed and government. You are pissed about not having enough BB. That sounds kind of greedy to me. And as far as the deployment is concerned, if there was less government regulation and a bit more demand, these greedy telcos would be tripping over each other to win the business. The fact is that areas that are under served have one of 2 problems. 1) There is not enough demand to make a profitable business model, or 2) the regulatory hurdles are such a pain that none of these companies want to touch it.
My company was thinking about becoming an ILEC. But when we looked at the regulatory issues we would have to deal with we decided the cost of the Lawyers and the hassle of dealing with the feds were not worth it. This is yet another example of the government creating barriers to entry for the marketplace.
Finally, every system has strengths and weaknesses. We have a lot of advantages and opportunities here in the US that the Japanese and Koreans do not. Why is it so important that we be #1 in everything? As far as the US goes, we have plenty of things in the desirable column (that's why so many people want to come here). The good things tend to outweigh the bad. It seems like we have much more than our share already. Is it not again greedy to demand more telco infrastructure?
If you want it, step up and pay for it. I for one only qualify for ISDN. If I really want more I can get a T1 from one of 5 or 6 carriers in the area. What I don't want is to go to the government and ask them to take your money so that I can have FTTP for less then the cost of deployment.
I have never wished you any harm or ill will, but you seem to be on the side that supports the government comming to me and saying, "give us more of your money or we'll throw you in jail". You in essence appear to have no qualms about using the government as weapon to take things away from me to get things you desire. If the Koreans have more stuff in their "desirable" column that fit your needs, then you can move there. To my knowledge the Federal Government has not yet made emigration illegal.
I apologize that this has come out in such an agressive fashon, and I am not trying to "call you out", but please think about what you are asking when you ask the government to come rescue you. Verizon is not a problem they are our slaves. They need us more than we need them. If Verizon does not give us what we want we can strangle them by not giving them dollars. If we protest the Government by refusing to pay, they shoot us.
If you don't believe me, do some research on the Bonus Army march in the mid 1930's.
Cheers. | |
| | | | | | barrytime
join:2003-10-01
Hawley, PA | Re: Spending Money to make Money-Unless you're a T EHHHHHHHHHHNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRD | |
| | | | | | | sherpaboy
join:2001-07-06
Seattle, WA | Re: Spending Money to make Money-Unless you're a T .
THANKS!
I've been trying hard, but I didn't think I had earned that lofty title yet!
. | |
| | | | | | SaBo7Ge
join:2003-03-12
US
| I'm not about to sit here and break this argument down bit by bit so I'll try and hit some points.
a). Nobody said the US had to be #1 , but at the very least as a nation we should stay competitive globally, and offer similar services at around or about the same prices. We should strive to make this happen not just for a better infrastructure & way of life, but also because of the business opportunities and jobs staying competitive brings..
b). Being greedy and being underpaid are two different things and while anyone can set a personal value to their time or effort some people are getting severely overpaid for their effots. Sports stars making millions a year are one example, Movie stars are another, suits at the record companies, ILECs or CLECs are good examples... The value system in this country has gone down the crapper and with it a level-headed scale of what's realistic.
c). The point I was making about broadband and FTTH or FTTP deployment is simple. Such services should be treated as a necessity to modern day life. Just like electricity, water & waste, or the roads; the internet has become part of our daily lives and as such should have some regulations put on the maintanence of said networks to keep them secure, in good condition, and up to speed. I'm not suggesting the regulation of the content on said networks, but there should be a basic standard set for the QOS and level of service as to keep our nation competitive with other nations if the corporations are just content with sitting back and leeching off the profits..
d). In closing with all the talk about teenage rebellion I'll ask you this: Was your teenager in a position of power? No I don't believe so, but the ILEC's are and in possesing said power they tend to offer the only service available to a community. Not everyone has millions of dollars available to form an upstart competitor so why shouldn't the ILEC's be held responsible for a service that the majority of the world is now dependant upon?
Sorry I just can't agree with you believing ILECs care about better service and staying competitive if they can get away with providing less service for more profit.. | |
| | | | | | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| said by sherpaboy :
The citizens of PA got screwed because the government allowed Verizon to bilk them out of 2.1 billion you refer to.
That's quite priceless. We should trust the thief, because after all, it's not their fault the government allowed them to steal.... quote:
favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people
That's pretty excellent description of a Telco monopoly... quote:
Do you own any Mutual Funds? Stocks? Are you part owner of a Company? Would you like to spend more time with your Spouse? Your Children? If you have answered yes to any of these you are greed driven.
Are you kidding? Greed driven? No way. It's one thing to want some, vs. Demanding it ALL. The Love of Money is the root of all evil... quote:
How many of the stocks that you own do you hope the company strives for a marginal return?
What's sad is they'd stop thinking such short term, in the long run they'd be way more profitable *and* be giving people what they want.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | | | | ashworth
join:2001-10-06
Pittsburgh, PA
·Verizon Online DSL
| The ILEC's were handed their infrastructure essentially for free in 1984 and have done nothing but maintain an existing switched network. Verizon for example knocks down $2-4 BILLION each year and does nothing to improve their network (fibre). I understand if they put the money in, they don't want to share it (Cable doesn't share). But there needs to be investment for the future. Why not put the fibre in, offer any/all services including TV and lease the line if need be. This arrogance on the part of the ILEC's needs to cease!!!! In my area they use a 50-60 year old network..How are they going to compete with VoIP ??? They will learn sooner or later......and of course it will be later....so we all will suffer !! | |
| | | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
 ·Packet8
·Cox HSI
| Re: Consumers will learn said by sherpaboy :
we wont see wide-spread FTTH until the government steps in. out.
Actually, government OUT is not the solution. Government needs to step in and hold the Bell's to the promises THEY made in exchange for long distance services.
If the government were to step it, it would just be hold the Bell's to their word, a word they have broken contnuously since the '96 Telco Act.
And its not like its really going to hit the Bell's bottom line, only their profit margins. The fact is, the Bell's are collecting fees in your telephone bill to PAY for a network that has yet to be built. In fact, that proposed network has already been paid for at LEAST twice. The Bell's are currently using those fees and treating them like profit.
I mean, seriously, have you every considered how Bell's are showing profits even though they say they are loosing TONS of money providing voice ?
--
Male by birth... Geek by choice. -- Man... Earth's most foolish child. | |
| | | | | sherpaboy
join:2001-07-06
Seattle, WA
| Re: Consumers will learn .
Yes, you're right. A more powerful federal government is the cure for all our ills. John Ashcroft would agree with you. So would Hillary Clinton, Fidel Castro, Mao, Kim Jong-il, Stalin, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Ralph Nader, Caesar.
These people will all promise to take care of me and protect me from the evils of the world. They are much better examples to follow than that rabble of Washington, Adams, Jefferson and the like.
Put me on the Express to Utopia where every body pays but me.
Yahoooooo!!!!!
. | |
| | | | | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
·Cox HSI
| Re: Consumers will learn said by sherpaboy :
Yes, you're right. A more powerful federal government is the cure for all our ills. John Ashcroft would agree with you. So would Hillary Clinton, Fidel Castro, Mao, Kim Jong-il, Stalin, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Ralph Nader, Caesar.
*YAWN* Yeah, take what I say, twist it around and turn it into some sort of authoritarian agenda... Oh please, save me from the ignorance of others.
Seriously, if you had actually read what I wrote and not what you THINK I said, you would see you are way out of right field...
What I'm advocating is for the government to step in and hold the Bell's to the PROMISE they WILLINGLY made as a trade for the ability to offer long distance.
said by What I said...:
If the government were to step it, it would just be [to] hold the Bell's to their word, a word they have broken contnuously since the '96 Telco Act.
Nowhere did I say that government should do anything but hold them accountable for the PROMISE they made and broke. If you are going to defend the Bell's action of breaking that promise and charging us for a network they aren't building, you are no better than them.
Maybe you need to learn this, so I will give it to you straight. Free markets can not solve everything, and neither can government. What is needed is a proper balance of the two, not the extremes advocated by some liberals, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and others.
--
Male by birth... Geek by choice. -- Man... Earth's most foolish child. | |
| | | | | | | sherpaboy
join:2001-07-06
Seattle, WA
| Re: Consumers will learn I just want people to realize that every time we run to the government to save us, we become more dependent on them. They OWN us because they convince us that we cannot survive without them.
At this point in time I own Verizon and I can deal with them however I please. I do not need them, and I have the choice weather or not to give them any money. The more functions we ask the Federal Government to take over the less choice I have as to weather I want to pay or not.
Verizon says, "Please give us money and we'll give you something in return." If I don't think it is a fair trade I won't give them anything. The Government says, "Please give us money and we'll give you something in return." If I don't think it is a fair trade and decide not to give them any money, they Jail me (or shoot me), sell my home, throw my family in the street and keep my money.
Personally, I think Verizon is a Pussy cat compared to the government. Why would anyone want the latter? It's not like Verizon has a monopoly on air. | |
| | | | | | | | Talis
join:2001-06-21
Houston, TX
| Re: Consumers will learn I think you missed bmg's closing remark. said by bmn :
Maybe you need to learn this, so I will give it to you straight. Free markets can not solve everything, and neither can government. What is needed is a proper balance of the two, not the extremes advocated by some liberals, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and others.
Asking that someone hold your pussycat acocuntable for crapping on the carpet isn't asking too much. Its the right thing to do. Thats the purpose of regulation. Letting the damn cat back in the house is just asking for more crap. | |
| | | | | | 
FLECOM
Bay Networks Freak
Premium
join:2003-03-03
Miami, FL | In Soviet Russia, fiber downloads you!!! | |
| | | | | | | SaBo7Ge
join:2003-03-12
US | Re: Consumers will learn Enough with the punchlines already. Go back to OT if you aren't up for a concise and detailed argument.. | |
| | | | | | | |
FLECOM
Bay Networks Freak
Premium
join:2003-03-03
Miami, FL | Re: Consumers will learn holy crap dude take a joke O_o | |
| | 
Stewy85
Premium
join:2003-01-16
Sharon, WI
clubs: | I can only hope. | |
| | SaBo7Ge
join:2003-03-12
US
| If that had any chance at happening then Some ILEC's and CLEC's would call foul and make the FCC drop in saying that the buyout's would make the market anti-competitive for american interests.. This is really a shame that the FCC and the gov't has been turned into biased tool for corporate american greed.. What ever happened to keeping the interests of the common citizen as a top priority? | |
| hoyleysox
join:2003-11-07
Long Beach, CA | Except DSL isn't profitable yet Except DSL is not profitable yet... | |
| | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | Re: Except DSL isn't profitable yet Can you cite an unbiased reference for that? I honestly believe that if there was no profit, they wouldn't do it. | |
| | | 
Agent 86
| Re: Except DSL isn't profitable yet "I honestly believe that if there was no profit, they wouldn't do it."
Obviously they believe (hope) they will make a profit...but that doesn't mean they are making a profit today. The subscribers don't sign up all at once. | |
| | | | | hoyleysox
join:2003-11-07
Long Beach, CA | Re: Except DSL isn't profitable yet Verizon needs 2 million subscribers to break even on their investment. They are not there yet. | |
| Rammer
Premium
join:2001-03-06
clubs: | deploy they should not worry about fiber now
better too keep using the copper
its there and take the money too
bring more cos online over the copper | |
| alchav
join:2002-05-17
Palm Desert, CA
|  You can call the Shots!
ALC | |
| 
rwong48
join:2002-11-10
San Jose, CA
clubs: | for now.. for now, i just want broadband in the first place. they're trying to make something that exists even better, when they don't reach out to all the consumers like me. that don't have it available. -dies- | |
| garmst
join:2000-09-17
New York, NY
| Don't need the Bells Cable is going to own Broadband communications in the US and give you the speeds you want. We don't need Telco fiber. CLECs will also come to the plate with higher DSL speeds over copper, especially if the ILECs stand pat. Wireless 3G will take more business from the Telco's in Broadband as those speeds ratchet up.
If the Telco's don't change their ways soon they will go down the tubes, and it will be their own fault.
The Telcos perennial problem is that they wanted to own the whole pie, rather than just compete like everyone else for it. They killed off the early DSL start by systematically killing off Northpoint and Rythyms, among others. They were oblivious to the cable threat. They still deny the threat. | |
| |
See 7 replies to this post | |
ncherry
Premium
join:2003-07-13
Monroe Township, NJ
·Comcast
| They will rue the day... (who talks like that
Currently the economy isn't well enough for Broadband to actually live up to it's promise but when it does (VoIP, Internet access, real video on demand, other service, etc.) the Bells will be stuck with their tiny 1.5M pipes and no upgrades in site. We're already starting to see the Cable companies pushing more bandwidth (3M download upgrades and hints of possible upload upgrades). The Cable companies will have the upper hand (it's easier for them to upgrade because of their infrastructure (I believe they have fiber into the communities, not the premise). Of course the Baby Bells will then try to get Congress to fund FTTP and it will already be too late.
--
Neil Cherry - Linux Home Automation - Linux Home Automation | |
| | | | |
ncherry
Premium
join:2003-07-13
Monroe Township, NJ
·Comcast
| Re: They will rue the day... Nice info (really!), I know a little about DSL (I'm not an expert at DSL). The VDSL is only good for short distances. I know it's popular in Korea where I'm told they have the DSLAM's somewhere in the building so cable runs are relatively short. I expect that ADSL2 will be better but I don't beleive that consumers will see those speeds. In the suburbs I doubt we'll see ADSL2, we barely have a good enough single pair, bonded pairs will be hard to find in older cabling. That's if they're talking about bonded (certified) pairs as opposed to circuits that happen to all start in one place and all finish at another. But time will tell.
--
Neil Cherry - Linux Home Automation - Linux Home Automation | |
| bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
·Cox HSI
| Illustrated here is one of the drawbacks to... Capitalism...
If you can make a good profit now, why invest, increase you bottom line and lower your profits? Most corporations only plan about two to three years into the future and plan in an effort to keep the bottom line low and profits high. Significant investments in fibre and next generation DSL would raise the bottom line and lower profits margins, the fear of any company. There is no incentive to invest in fibre for the Bells or MSOs because frakily, they see it as a risk that does not have a sure outcome. Why risk a sure thing and sure profits on something that might not work ?
The question is then, why have other countries like Korea and Japan successfully deployed fibre and next generation technologies ? An article recently posted on the front page here said its not because of the size of America. I'm more inclined its because in those countries, quality of life appears to be more important than the shallow and unfulfilling pursuit of wealth. I mean, yes, everyone wants money, but it does not seem as if that's their first and foremost concern.
--
Male by birth... Geek by choice. -- Man... Earth's most foolish child. | |
| | footballdude
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| Re: Illustrated here is one of the drawbacks to... said by bmn :
Capitalism...
If you can make a good profit now, why invest, increase you bottom line and lower your profits? Most corporations only plan about two to three years into the future and plan in an effort to keep the bottom line low and profits high. Significant investments in fibre and next generation DSL would raise the bottom line and lower profits margins, the fear of any company.
Every major corporation has a ten year plan that they manage to. Some have thirty year plans (which I find ridiculous, who can predict the market thirty years from now)? If ANY company thought they could make more profit ten years from now by investing now, they'd jump all over it. The truth is, only a small number of internet freaks are clamouring for fiber and even they wouldn't be willing to pay the early adoption costs. Fiber will happen when the 'killer app' appears that drives demand. Unless the government gets involved (like they did with HDTV). | |
|
|
|
