 Gilitar
join:2000-11-20
Mobile, AL | Delay? Looks like this could cause a delay for me as our subdivision was built with their old Tellabs setup. I've given up on getting U-Verse. In fact I just upgraded my Dish Network system to an HD DVR. | |
| bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA
| From the LR link: In a note to clients this morning, Morgan Keegan & Company Inc. analyst Simon Leopold writes that "channel checks indicate that AT&T has plans to deploy Ericsson FTTP gear in applications previously slated for Tellabs, and may even rip and replace deployed Tellabs access platforms." Not sure what T has planned but there is an insane amount of FTTC in BellSouth's territory. For the past several years it was the desired engineering route. | |
|  | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: From the LR link: said by bogey780  :In a note to clients this morning, Morgan Keegan & Company Inc. analyst Simon Leopold writes that "channel checks indicate that AT&T has plans to deploy Ericsson FTTP gear in applications previously slated for Tellabs, and may even rip and replace deployed Tellabs access platforms." Not sure what T has planned but there is an insane amount of FTTC in BellSouth's territory. For the past several years it was the desired engineering route. Yep, the IFITL fiber. Its a shame that technology never got upgraded to anything, basically, it was fiber to a small post (like a CATV post) outside your home, served 4 houses, and inside was a Fiber to 4 ethernet ports converter. The equipment was made by Marconi. Its a shame. CT also had a much more superior to Uverse network (Amerilink), run by SNET before purcheased by SBC. It was HFC cable system. I still see the plant of it hanging on the poles here in CT, although its in a advanced stage of visual disrepair. Its been raided in some areas for fiber to serve VRADs. | |
| | | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA
| Re: From the LR link: Well even though it runs on ATM, the latest generation of fttc(former MX Discs system by Marconi) was designed for throughput of up to 200Mb/s via a VDSL2 card upgrade on up to 12 ports of data. They have the cards. They'd just need to upgrade the actual RDT to support the higher link speeds(>DS3). Most of it would have been updating generics and replacing cards.
This is a mixed bag of news really. I can understand gutting the first gen IFITL fiber but the newer stuff could easily match anything anyone else in America offers without massive capital expenditures. But AT&T loves Alcatel so go figure. | |
| | | Gilitar
join:2000-11-20
Mobile, AL | The setup you describe is exactly what our two year old subdivision has in place. How will they upgrade (read downgrade) us to Uverse? Will they actually tear out the fiber in the subdivision and replace it with copper or are we just SOL? | |
| | | | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA
| Re: From the LR link: It'd be insane to rip up the fiber. As described they'd replace the pedestals with "FTTN" (Which in this case would be FTTN rigged in the exact same configuration as the FTTC) or reengineer it for FTTP.
If they went the FTTN route, I imagine the swap would be painless. If they went FTTC they'd have to set all the fiber drops and network terminals, then cut over each house at a time. I don't know what the cost difference would be but I don't imagine it being wildly different. | |
| | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
edit:
December 27th, @12:05AM
| Re: From the LR link: said by bogey780 :It'd be insane to rip up the fiber. No it wouldn't. ATT abandoned a 1990s built HFC (Hybrid FIBER coaxial) system in CT. Fiber and Coax and Amps now hang broken/ripped apart or missing. Fiber isn't maintained/funded by the Universal Service Fund or by all those POTS surcharges. POTS is. Thats one of the reasons ATT went with Uverse. Copper is cheaper to maintain than Fiber for ATT, accounting and money flow wise. The only reason for Fiber in Uverse is because running a 2 inch line of 100s of copper T1s to feed a VRAD isn't economical, plus whatever amplifers are needed, especially since those pairs won't have customers on them (remember Voice is still generated at Legacy RTs and COs, VDSL is injected in the VRAD, VRADs dont generate voice service). | |
| | | | | | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA
| Re: From the LR link: And it wouldn't be economical to replace the FTTC with copper. Almost all the fttc is greenbuild stuff. Placing copper behind it would be a huge undertaking.
Abandoning the HFC system is different in that it's a whole seperate plant archetecture to maintain. | |
| ricep5
Premium
join:2000-08-07
Jacksonville, FL
 ·Comcast Formerly ..
 ·AT&T CallVantage
 ·AT&T Southeast
| From ATM to IP Configuring & managing LANE on ATM can be real pain in the neck, though it is much easier than it used to be.
ATM was a compromise back in the day when they settled on the 53 byte packet. The video guys wanted more, data guys less.
Ellen Hancock must be rolling in her retirement with ATM headed out the door. She bet the IBM farm on it and lost big time. Telco Inc. still bit and they are just now seeing the light.
With so much telco dollars going into this new IP infrastructure, it would curious to know if they are using IP V6 in any of it. | |
| | | |
|
|
AT&T Switches From Tellabs To Ericsson