 rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | OTT Monster From the linked article: Further, in the U.S. there are no or minimal interworking fees between operators for voice and SMS, but in Europe an SMS from one network to another costs the sending carrier around 6 cents, said Thorsten Trapp , co-founder and CTO of tyntec. Further, fixed line calls to mobiles in Europe result in healthy revenue streams from termination charges that go to the mobile operators, Trapp said.
6 cents per SMS message? WTH? | |
|  |  tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 | Re: OTT Monster Got to support that dumb pipe somehow, so you build billing rules based on what people use.
I hope you got the point that there is real fear that the system will quickly colapse if people find ways around traditional billing models. | |
| | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: OTT Monster So the US duopoly is headed for bankruptcy since they include unlimited SMS and voice in their plans? | |
| | | | tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| Re: OTT Monster No, they just setup their billing models differently than european/international Telcos (about which we hear lots of complaints)
The OTT problem is less problomatic for US carriers flat plans, up to a point, and the pay as you go plans have text and voice set very high with data either not allowed or also highly priced.
The threat over there is people moving towards the cheap or one sided (revenue movement between provider wise) is much like people rushing to one side of a boat, their is no time for the crew (companies) to adjust ballast (rate plans) to maintain stablity. | |
| | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: OTT Monster So another case of "too big to fail". Got it. | |
|
tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| AT&T unveils wireless-based landline replacement service Verizon Home Fusion is still at an advantage because of the deal with the Cableco's but At&t longdistance and business lines still gives them backbone and switching rights into most us cities.
This is the end of copper landlines, which means DSL(or a fiber replacement) will become much more expensive, or just cease to exist.
micro cell fixed wireless is coming fast. | |
| | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Re: AT&T unveils wireless-based landline replacement service said by tshirt: Verizon Home Fusion is still at an advantage because of the deal with the Cableco's but At&t longdistance and business lines still gives them backbone and switching rights into most us cities.
This is the end of copper landlines, which means DSL(or a fiber replacement) will become much more expensive, or just cease to exist.
micro cell fixed wireless is coming fast.
Copper is not dead. Only in select markets.
"The end of copper landlines" will not cause DSL or fiber to be more expensive, but as wireless options improve, they will provide faster service to those currently limited by copper loop length.
But such Wireless does imperil FTTH, since the latter incurs a much greater investment to pass every house, while customers are unwilling to pay for it. | |
| | | tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 | Re: AT&T unveils wireless-based landline replacement service And that's why I believe this will kill copper, maybe not today, but soon.
once they run enough fiber for backhaul on this, why maintain your own copper (sell it cheap) and push hard to kill copper in competitors areas. | |
| | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Re: AT&T unveils wireless-based landline replacement service Nope. No amount of fiber backhaul will overcome spectrum limitations.
Hardwired copper will remain in dense markets. | |
|
| | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | I don't think customers are unwilling to pay. What we don't want to do is pay for it multiple times. Companies get slush-fund money from the government for infrastructure and then decide they cannot make enough profit without ever increasing rates and meters that spin so fast they melt.
What we're seeing is a lack of planning by the telcos. After the turn of the century, cable chewed them up and spit them out. If in the 90s they would have started pushing RTs with fiber back haul, the copper plant wouldn't be in such a pickle. I believe folks have demonstrated technology that can deliver 1Gbps over telephone-grade UTP if it doesn't have to travel over a mile, right?
I just love how politicians focus on the cost of social entitlements and forget about corporate entitlements. While I think there's value in creating behavioral incentives, why do we have to pay corporations to do the right thing? Even when we do and they don't, why do they fight to prevent anyone else from doing it? | |
| | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Re: AT&T unveils wireless-based landline replacement service Sorry, but FTTH hasn't generated a profit at all. It isn't a question of "enough".
Further, if we accept the populist position that Verizon cherry-picked, or skimmed the cream, of the choice areas with the most revenue potential, subsequent, low-density locales would mean even greater losses.
And in those rural settings, customers are unwilling to pay, even when broadband is available (i.e. cable modem) at urban rates. Upgraded broadband will cost more.
And you aren't paying twice. You're asking for a forklift-upgrade, where everything but the the central-office shell is being replaced to deliver your fiber. That's a new cost, across the board. You're also expecting telco to take the chance and run it to every street and home, without any guarantees that you'll buy it, which in turn drives up the risk and the price they have to charge you. | |
| | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: AT&T unveils wireless-based landline replacement service I'm not asking for a fork-lift upgrade. I clearly told you what they should have done in the 90s. Cable did and now they enjoy a tremendous advantage.
Rural is just part of the issue. Despite living in a typical urban subdivision about 1 mile from I-64, I've been told by SBC and then ATT that DSL and then U-Verse was coming. Never arrived. I'm ~21,000 feet from the CO and no effort has been made to improve that distance. Of course I haven't been a wired customer of ATT since 2000 when I went with cable broadband and soon after, VOIP service. Eventually I just went with the cable company's triple play.
Regarding paying twice, correct. We've probably paid several times. The regulated rates are supposed to provide for capital improvements in addition to profit. What did we get? Let's also not forget the USF fund. Billions and billions (think Carl Sagan) of dollars. Sure, it's supposed to help schools, libraries, hospitals and other idealistic things but it's been reported that 59% go directly to the telcos. What have they done with this money? | |
| | | | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
1 edit | Re: AT&T unveils wireless-based landline replacement service Fiber is a fork-lift upgrade. It requires replacing hardware all the way from your house to the central-office. It costs $4K/address, regardless of whether you sign up.
Cable has been better about investing and upgrades, but they also aren't regulated as much as telco was during the 90's, so they were more free to take chances, and many assigned much of their losses to investors via bankruptcy (Charter, RCN, Adelphia), reducing their cost-basis.
Does telco behave badly? Absolutely.
But we can't force them to lose money just because we want "better" broadband.
If we aren't willing to pay a rate sufficient to entice the market, or agree to mutual regulation that assures a rate of return, we can't expect it to happen. Passing the responsibility to the government only means it will cost more once "someone else" has to pay the bill.
USF is a scam, and it always will be. Retire the program, and return the monies to the ratepayers, and let us decide how best to spend it.
Telco isn't regulated except for landlines, i.e. copper dialtone, although that is changing, state-by-state. The rates they've been permitted over the years, in no way covered profit and maintenance costs, and certainly didn't allow for upgrades. In our state, AT&T (Pacific Telephone) and Verizon (GTE) went 13 years without a basic rate hike. | |
| | | | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: AT&T unveils wireless-based landline replacement service Why do you keep making comments about FTTH? I said that the telcos should do FTTN and the node can probably be up to a mile from the residence. This is what cable did/is doing and it's served them well. With FTTN, the telcos could compete with cable and then fund the next round of upgrades which might take it to the curb.
I don't call this a fork-lift upgrade. It's a measured upgrade that leverages the existing plant as far as possible to reduce costs. That's what cable did and that's what the telco could do.
Sure, Verizon's FIOS is better than what I propose but it also cost so much that they decided to stop further deployment.
In the late 90s, DSL was gravy on top of the already-funded and profitable plant. Clearly, they didn't use any of that gravy or USF to start thinking about FTTN. The telcos deserve to fail a miserable death. Instead they're just moving their monopoly to wireless and we'll all pay again and again and again for the same old crap. | |
|
| | AVG blocked the FTTH article from Telecompetitor: AVG blocked the FTTH article from Telecompetitor:
Some sort of Javascript Exploit. This could be a false positive but until it is confirmed safe we might want to take it down. | |
| |  Mr FelFlynn LivesPremium
join:2008-03-17
Louisville, KY | Re: AVG blocked the FTTH article from Telecompetitor: No reports when I went there, on Avast. Gave up AVG a long time ago. But I whitelist my javascript with NoScript, totally recommend it. | |
|
 IowaCowboyWant to go back to IowaPremium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
·Comcast
 ·Verizon Broadban..
| iOS 6: Wi-Fi plus cellular The only Wi-Fi network I use is the Wi-Fi at my house (which has two levels of security, WPA 2 and disable SSID broadcast).
Everywhere else I use cellular, even if free Wi-Fi is available.
--
I wish I still lived in Iowa; Everything there from rent and groceries to Cable TV is much cheaper in Iowa (especially with an overbuilder in town). | |
|
| |
|
