AT&T Defends Project Lightspeed (Again)CFO tells investors not to worry about surprise FTTH plan ( old news - 03:41PM Thursday Jan 11 2007) tags: business · bandwidth · telcoAT&T's CFO says AT&T remains happy with the bandwidth provided by their VDSL network upgrade plan. This week they tried to diffuse fear among investors concerned that AT&T will unveil a surprise billion dollar plan to run fiber to homes (something our readers would love, but investors wouldn't). In 2006, several analysts suggested AT&T would change gears and use fiber instead of copper for the last mile -- something AT&T denied to us and everyone else. "We get lots and lots of questions about U-verse and IPTV,” Lindner said at the event, which was Webcast from Las Vegas. “I know there is a lot of concern about whether the product will work--and much of that is centered around [whether] the fiber-to-the-node architecture will work and supply enough bandwidth. The concern is that we will be coming back and announcing a large capital program to take fiber to the home. What I would tell you is that we are pleased with the rollout at this point. We would always like it to go faster--we’re more impatient than all of you here in terms of wanting to see revenue." Obviously, the main concern has been whether AT&T's VDSL will offer enough future-proof bandwidth, but the company is convinced pair bonding and compression will address any tight fit. The company says they should have more announcements along this front (aka faster speeds) during the second half of 2007.
Related:- Thursday Morning Links
- Thursday Evening Links
- Friday Evening Links
- AT&T's New 18Mbps U-Verse Tier
- Verizon DSL Customers Getting Free Upgrades
- Backbone Analysis Puts Exaflood Myth To Bed
- Verizon Aims for LTE Deployment in 2009
- Verizon's Open Development Initiative? So Far It's A Joke
|
 bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
 ·Packet8
 ·Cox HSI
edit:
January 11th, @02:59PM
| Grammar check... In 2006 several analysts suggested AT&T would change gears use fiber instead of copper for the last mile -- something AT&T denied to us, and everyone else.
Should read...
In 2006 several analysts suggested AT&T would change gears AND use fiber instead of copper for the last mile -- something AT&T denied to us and everyone else.
--
Prove it... | |
|  | 
Phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Jacksonville, FL
 ·Verizon Wireless B..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Re: Grammar check... It doesn't matter how you spell it or word it. AT&T will do like they have done the last 15 years, and that is either they will fail horribly, or sell it to someone else. They just want to call off the investment hounds, and keep getting paid. They have done this for years, and I don't really see people benefitting from this as they will when FIOS gets around to their neighborhood...
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1. | |
| 
ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·Covad Wireless
| Good bridge measure But certainly not future-proof. VDSL will be enough for a while but the future will eventually require that high speed last few hundred foot connection. However FTTP may not be the only answer in 5 or 10 years.
Perhaps new future wireless technologies will be able to provide 100+ Mbps services to the home from the local nodes which from my understanding of lightspeed would be fiber fed. In that case the investors will turn out to be right as I would assume that such a wireless deployment would be much cheaper than deploying FTTP. | |
| 
Rob
In Deo speramus
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL | AT&T Executives want to invest.. ..invest in their retirement pension. | |
| 
bq4571
@navy.mil | The real answer is... ...these guys are morons. | |
| | 
Varlik
Without Honor You Will Never Be Free
Premium
join:2002-01-06
Anderson, SC
edit:
January 11th, @05:14PM
| Re: The real answer is... said by bq4571 :
...these guys are morons.
If by these guys you mean the investors, yes they are morons. The CEO and Big Suits running things are pretty smart. They're insuring their companies short term success (as in stock market success) by not angering investors with costly upgrades. By the time their folly bears fruit they'll be ready to move on if they haven't already.
--
"Sir SIR! We don't use DHCP servers. We only use IBM & Microsoft servers." From there my call to tech support went steadily downhill.
--Don't bother telling us that we're too loud. Cause there ain't no way that we'll ever turn down. | |
| 
hamburglar_
join:2002-04-29
Columbus, OH | Yeah, but... all I hear is faster and faster FIOS actually being deployed by Verizon and nothing but 'talk' about ATT and their crap VDSL. 1.5Mb in 2006 is very sad. | |
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Yeah, but... said by hamburglar_  :all I hear is faster and faster FIOS actually being deployed by Verizon and nothing but 'talk' about ATT and their crap VDSL. 1.5Mb in 2006 is very sad. Then move to a Verizon area..
I've thought a lot about what at&t/sbc is doing.. weighed it with sentiment here and came to this conclusion. at&t is right in what they are doing.
People here think that every company has to offer the Cadillac of service to everyone they serve. I don't agree. People here also feel a sort of an entitlement to the best service available as well, again, I do not agree.
So much of the "grass is greener on the other side" syndrome is going on here as well. Everyone sees what Verizon is doing with FTTH and think that it somehow sets a standard when in fact other systems have been doing FTTH projects for over 6 years now. (Sacramento, CA - Huxley, IA and many more)
Bottom line - at&t is going after a market that it feels it will serve. It may not be a grade A system offering gobs of bandwidth to the home, but maybe they aren't going for that. People here say that DSL is better than cable, however DSL speeds are usually less than cable, not always better quality, but people seem to be ok with it because it fits their needs.
With that, at&t most likely doesn't feel it needs to offer a fiber service. Cable will most likely offer a fast and wide pipe to the home. at&t's strategy most likely will be to offer a service which is less to a consumer that wants or needs less.
So, their "crap VDSL 1.5" (which is so incorrect to begin with) which serves around 100mb (6 for internet) is just fine for their market. Additionally, if you're hearing nothing but talk about 1.5 VDSL, then you're not listening too closely either.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. | |
| | | Zorglub
join:2000-11-18
Fremont, CA | Re: Yeah, but... 100Mbps? I thought that they were limited to 26. Please educate me. | |
| | | | cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX | Re: Yeah, but... VDSL2 is capable of 100meg at 1000 feet. They are provisioning out to 3000 feet with vdsl at 25meg. There is room for growth in bandwidth as the technology matures and pair bonding is added. | |
| | | | |
hamburglar_
join:2002-04-29
Columbus, OH
·WOW Internet and C..
| Re: Yeah, but... said by cwh :VDSL2 is capable of 100meg at 1000 feet. They are provisioning out to 3000 feet with vdsl at 25meg. Exactly. I am in a major metro and live over 16000 feet from the CO. 100Mb. Yeah, right. 1.5 is all I can get via DSL, that's why I'm with cable. | |
| | | | | | cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX
| Re: Yeah, but... said by hamburglar_ :said by cwh :VDSL2 is capable of 100meg at 1000 feet. They are provisioning out to 3000 feet with vdsl at 25meg. Exactly. I am in a major metro and live over 16000 feet from the CO. 100Mb. Yeah, right. 1.5 is all I can get via DSL, that's why I'm with cable. I used to be at 13000 feet, I an now at about 3000 feet. Things change. | |
| | | | dgatewood
join:2002-08-12
Euless, TX
| Yes. The above poster is wrong in the 100 MB figure. It is limited to about 26 as far as I know without bonding...
He also totally jumped the gun on the above poster's words. He didn't say they had "VDSL 1.5" deployed. He said that they had VDSL deployed and that 1.5 MB internet connections were a joke. | |
| | | | | 
DaneJasper
Sonic.Net
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-20
Santa Rosa, CA
clubs: | Re: Yeah, but... I thought that u-wave was to be ADSL2+, which offers sync up to 24/3. Are you sure about the VDSL protocol usage?
-Dane | |
| | | | | | cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX | Re: Yeah, but... They are using vdsl. ADSL2+ maxes out at that, where as they are getting 25meg at 3000 feet right now. | |
| | | | | silica
join:2004-05-20
Duluth, GA
| Theoretically, we have the following situation:
VDSL's maximum symmetric speed is 26 Mbps, but with asymmetric transmission, it's 52 down and 12 up.
VDSL2's maximum (again theoretical!) is 250 Mbps, with 100 Mbps at 500 m.
Again, your mileage may vary  | |
| | | 
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
 ·AT&T Southwest
| said by fiberguy :I've thought a lot about what at&t/sbc is doing.. weighed it with sentiment here and came to this conclusion. at&t is right in what they are doing. ... So much of the "grass is greener on the other side" syndrome is going on here as well. Everyone sees what Verizon is doing with FTTH and think that it somehow sets a standard when in fact other systems have been doing FTTH projects for over 6 years now. (Sacramento, CA - Huxley, IA and many more) let's face it: AT&T is short sighted. sure, it's cheaper now and investors like saving money! but in the long run, they will bleed to death from cable's improved infrastructure.
sad in a way, but that's their choice. however, we must all remember their decision and not bail them out of this hole they are digging. failure to adequately plan for the future = you die. | |
| | |
hamburglar_
join:2002-04-29
Columbus, OH
·WOW Internet and C..
edit:
January 11th, @10:30PM
| said by fiberguy :So, their "crap VDSL 1.5" (which is so incorrect to begin with) which serves around 100mb (6 for internet) is just fine for their market. Additionally, if you're hearing nothing but talk about 1.5 VDSL, then you're not listening too closely either. All I hear is 'Talk' about these new services. They haven't deployed anything new here. 1.5Mb is all I can get today, along with two different cable providers at much faster speeds. And BTW, I don't need to move to a Verizon area. The cable providers here provide a fast, reliable connection at a reasonable price. ATT is a joke. | |
| 
inteller
Sociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK
·Cingular Wireless
| proof we need short term investing reform Because of short term investing, companies have been viewed as disposable. Anything that the company may want to do that provides a long term benefit is shoved aside for cheap hack technology to "please investors"
Furthermore, it encourages a culture of the company pulling the wool over the customer's eyes, telling them that this is actually better. It breeds a culture of deceit.
Well I've got one for ya investors, customers will QUICKLY find out that Uverse is a sham, and they will leave in droves, taking their money with them before your short term profits can be realized.
--
"WHEN THE LAUGH TRACK STARTS THEN THE FUN STARTS!" | |
| |
Happi
@charter.com
| Re: proof we need short term investing reform said by inteller :Well I've got one for ya investors, customers will QUICKLY find out that Uverse is a sham, and they will leave in droves, taking their money with them before your short term profits can be realized. ...why wait? I already left. When Charter saw the new VRAD box down the street they upped their speeds to 10mbs and packaged it with their VoIP phone -- at $30 less per month than the 5mbs+phone from AT&T. UVerse is valuable after all -- but only for spurring competition. | |
| 
thongsai
join:2002-07-04
Santa Rosa, CA | vdsl.. is suppose to be cheaper, and faster to deploy.. it should spread like wildfire through the att territory. yet, i havent heard of any deployment. except for trials for att employees who clearly wont give a bias review. | |
| | | | |
thongsai
join:2002-07-04
Santa Rosa, CA | Re: vdsl.. wow, lol.. im so out of the loop.. well hopefully it gets massive deployment | |
| lucasbunt
join:2005-05-22
netherlands
| Well - maybe there in sh*t anyways... From DSL-specialist Dave Burstein's site:
"Correction: VDSL 'Crossover' Not Close
ADSL equivalence
mode and interoperability disappointing VDSL is working
well for highspeed service from the basement, deploying
rapidly in Japan. From the neighborhood node, DT has 3M
homes passed and AT&T over a million, with both intending
to rapidly expand. So the niche will expand, but I have
been unable to find a carrier regularly using VDSL gear for
customers over 5,000 feet, despite a VDSL standard designed
for that choice.
Yet another carrier has told me DSL Prime’s enthusiasm
for an early switch to all VDSL2 service is premature.
'I’d never get 72 ports on a line card with VDSL2, and
the power problems are hard to solve,' their DSLAM
designer tells me. Density, heat, power are proving
very resistant to improvements. Prices are staying
high, 2 or 3 times the $6 or less ADSL2+ chips can go
for. TI isn’t competing for the high end, and several
other announced chips have not come to market.
From 5,000 to 12,000 feet, the goal was equal
performance. The actual VDSL chips were considerably
slower (up to 20%) to customers at those ranges. Only
one profile (8b) allows full downstream 20.5 dBm
power; all profiles reduce power by several dB and
result in less maximum performance.
'Deployable interop will take more time to settle,' an
chip engineer laments. 'All vendors are upgrading VDSL2
firmware rapidly. Production designs are changing
rapidly.' Carriers deploying now must use modem and
DSLAM chips from the same vendor, and may be locked
into that vendor for several years to maintain
compatibility. The DSL Forum and UNH are working on the
problem.
My prediction, '20% of dollar volume will be VDSL by
the end of 2006, I believe,' is almost surely wrong.
Currently, only deployments under 5,000 feet are going
to VDSL. Those with a substantial portion of lines over
5,000 feet are going for ADSL2+."
»www.dslprime.com/News_Articles/n···cles.htm | |
| raye
Premium
join:2000-08-14
Orange, CA | "AT&T remains happy with the bandwidth provided" But I doubt your customer are or will be. Looks like cable will win out in most if not all the areas served by this bloated dinosaur of a company. | |
| 
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
edit:
January 11th, @08:00PM
| Dear AT&T... Dear Uverse project engineers...
My fellow Americans..
and CWH.
Approximately 3 days ago, my cable operator, Adelphia..was transitioned over to Comcast.
Following a little upgrading this morning..and a bit of tweaking..these are currently my results.
19914k Download speeds
719k Upload speeds
I ask you this. How is Uverse EVER going to compete?
Do you think that when that uverse flyer winds up on my door that I'd EVER want to switch from something like this for what today anyway..appears to be at best 1/3rd those speeds?
You must be on crack if you think that would ever happen.
This is so fast that to be honest..I'm afraid to go to anymore speed test sites. The last one I went to..when it started downloading..it blew me off my seat and into the wall.
I mean, have you ever sat at a connection like this? One that just starts getting warmed up at about 9,000k..then absolutely rips into overdrive..leaving you just wondering, what the he** is AT&T ever going to do to match this?
But, you know what? This is just the beginning. Where will this all be when at&t finally gets itself rolled out of 8 markets it's trying to sell a few customer service in now?
Will this service be at 50MB by the time AT&T really calls uverse a viable product?
As I read the above story, all I could see was poor Mr. CFO so damn worried about disapointing his investors. So worried about spending the money that it will take to really compete.
But, you know what? With this kind of competition, I'm really starting to worry that AT&T won't even be around to compete.
After all, would YOU take uverse and it's 5MB speeds instead of something like THIS?
19914/719
You'd have to be absolutely insane..or completely broke.
One can only hope they come to their senses.
Before it's too late.
Fiber..to the home.
It's now, or never..for AT&T. | |
| | 
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
edit:
January 11th, @08:24PM
| Re: Dear AT&T...
That's nice and all, but what you leave out is that 95% of consumers dont NEED such speeds. For them 1.5-3Mb is good enough.
For that matter, you best hope you keep that speed and they dont slow you down after they get situated. | |
| | | cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX
| Re: Dear AT&T... said by Fatal Vector :That's nice and all, but what you leave out is that 95% of consumers dont NEED such speeds. For them 1.5-3Mb is good enough. For that matter, you best hope you keep that speed and they dont slow you down after they get situated. You right. Most people shop on price and performance. Most people dont need 20meg download. It is a nice service no doubt, but that does not mean everyone wants it.
And Rick, I still got more upload than you do. | |
| | |
Happi
@charter.com
| said by Fatal Vector :That's nice and all, but what you leave out is that 95% of consumers dont NEED such speeds. For them 1.5-3Mb is good enough. It's the total cost comparison that breaks your equation. The inflated cost of AT&T phone service (with all those myriad of "extra" service charges) is used to subsidize the "cheap" (and slow) DSL. Folks are starting to see that for the same total cost of "cheap DSL" and AT&T phone service -- they can have (at no extra cost) much faster broadband with VoIP on their cable. For the same money -- why-not? Good-Bye AT&T! | |
| | | |
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
edit:
January 11th, @09:16PM
| Re: Dear AT&T...
The inflated cost of phone service? I have a basic, unlimited local calling, no frills line from AT&T that is just shy of $16 a month before taxes, my 1.5 DSL, which is rock stable, 24/7 AND fits my needs is $13.
That's $30, before taxes, about $45 after. Still WAY cheaper than comcast when you have to bundle TV and HSI, BEFORE taxes. Hell, HSI alone is $42 and TV is another $50. Who exactly has the bloated cost?
You can call DSL slow if you like, but the bottom line is that 1.5 Mb service fits MANY peoples internet needs. | |
| | | | |
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
| Re: Dear AT&T... lol, you're using some real creative math there.
What you're leaving out of YOUR costs though is YOUR tv costs in addition to your phone and dsl.
And any way you want to shake it, 1.5M dsl simply is no comparison for 20M cable.
Sorry.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
| | | | | |
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
| Re: Dear AT&T...
My TV costs are immaterial, since I dont use Comcast HSI. And I was referring to the "bloated cost of TELEPHONE service.
Also, I never said 1.5 Mb DSL was comparable to 20 Mb service. What Iv'e said many times is that my 1.5 serves my needs and is rock stable speed wise. I also said that most consumers dont need such service and 1.5 DSL serves their needs too.
Face it. Only geeks want or "need" 20 Mb Internet service. The rest buy what suits their needs and wallets. It has allways been so in commerce. | |
| | | | |
Happi
@charter.com
| You are not an average account (I suspect not even real). Here is a "modest" AT&T account. Cable + VoIP beats it to shreds! | |
| | | | | |
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
| Re: Dear AT&T...
If you bother to ASK next time you call AT&T, and hack your way through the marketing pitch, you will find that a BASIC, NO FRILLS line for unlimited local calling is about $16 and a metered line (usually 40 local calls included) is about $10, before taxes. BOTH of which will qualify you for DSL. It's not rocket science.
A Metered line plus DSL at $13 is $23 before taxes, even less than VOIP.
"15 in taxes!!!?!? That's 50% of your bill added on for taxes and fees. That is EXACTLY what is wrong with the phone company. Taxes and fees on my cable/internet/phone bill are less than 10%."
It's not the phone company. It's the "Fcc access charge", the "911 charge and/or surcharge" Federal tax, state tax, franchise tax, and other taxes. In some places the taxes add up to MORE than the cost of the line itself.
"phone=$16 dsl=$13 u r missing all the line charge bs. the lowest ive seen att dsl is 14.99, lets see a copy of the bill.
what u dont see is the real cost of their dsl cuz they hide it in the pots line charges."
Actually, the bill is quite detailed and all the different services are separated. The DSL is the last promotion for a one year contract they offered. it is $12.95, before taxes.
The line charge is for the POTS line itself for "access to the telephone network" (what a crock of shit.). | |
| | | | |
hamburglar_
join:2002-04-29
Columbus, OH
·WOW Internet and C..
| said by Fatal Vector :That's $30, before taxes, about $45 after. $15 in taxes!!!?!? That's 50% of your bill added on for taxes and fees. That is EXACTLY what is wrong with the phone company. Taxes and fees on my cable/internet/phone bill are less than 10%. | |
| | | | | | 
Alakar
Facts do not cease to exist when ignored
join:2001-03-23
Milwaukee, WI
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Dear AT&T... said by hamburglar_ :said by Fatal Vector :That's $30, before taxes, about $45 after. $15 in taxes!!!?!? That's 50% of your bill added on for taxes and fees. That is EXACTLY what is wrong with the phone company. Taxes and fees on my cable/internet/phone bill are less than 10%. So you blame the phone company when the government collects taxes from you? The surcharges and other fees are taxes; the government doesn't allow those to be listed as taxes, because they don't want people getting pissed. All of these are outlined in the 1996 Telecom Act. The reason you don't see these on your cable bill, is because cable in not subject to that act.
It's not the phone company charging all of this, it's the government.
--
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom; it is the arguments of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt the Younger | |
| | | | |
luvbiskit
@comcast.net | phone=$16 dsl=$13 u r missing all the line charge bs. the lowest ive seen att dsl is 14.99, lets see a copy of the bill.
what u dont see is the real cost of their dsl cuz they hide it in the pots line charges. | |
| | | | | | | | cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX | A land line is not required for U-verse. So if you want to voip from another provider, you can. VOIP for u-verse should be arriving in the near future... | |
| | jtorre69
join:2005-12-26
Hollywood, FL | Dear Rick,
Guess who's losing the battle in broadband?
Guess which technology is adding more subs per month for over 2 consecutive years?
DSL, so at&t is not so wrong after all. | |
| | | | tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| money money money MoNay what happens when they don't have enough customers because the cable companies eat up those customers with docsis 3.0, and it turns out the 'further upgrades' will come with added labor charges, equipment charges, and massive price cuts to lure the customers back to at&t, they might not be so satisfied with the 'down the road costs' when it comes to the price per share earnings ratio.. they might as well be kicking themselves that in their most competitive markets they passed up the opportunity to deploy ftth/fttp technology. what we have here is a failure to communicate with customers-- a big disconnect... or to put it another way... what the Apple Iphone will do for Apple=product failure. | |
|
Mr Anon
@il.us
| What I'd like to see. Either the possiblity of a Master Uverse account and a slave account the Master is just video or mostly video and the slave is just interent, on two physical connections.
Or every Telco re-urge the feds for money to build out a new national communication network, a fiber network.
Really someone tell me a good reason to keep copper? I could see this solving many problems. Rural access, Speed, future communications, and eventually the cost of ownership. | |
|
kiteZ
@swbell.net
| DSL overheads... if you have a 24 mbps VDSL you can expect 19 mbps actual speeds due to DSL overheads/distance limits. I have 3 mbps DSL but I can never download faster than 2.4mbps... I guess my line have to be 10 feet near the CO to get full 3 mbps... copper is outdated and sucks, at&t fails. | |
| | rratss
join:2004-07-22
La Canada Flintridge, CA
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: DSL overheads... said by kiteZ :
if you have a 24 mbps VDSL you can expect 19 mbps actual speeds due to DSL overheads/distance limits. I have 3 mbps DSL but I can never download faster than 2.4mbps... I guess my line have to be 10 feet near the CO to get full 3 mbps... copper is outdated and sucks, at&t fails.
even if you're sitting inside the CO the speed will not change. it's the ATM, PPPoE and other protocol overhead that chew up about 20% of the bandwidth. | |
| | | |
|
|
