I think what we're going to need to see in the wireless industry, very soon, is affordable medium range (1.5 miles or less) gigabit speed backhauls. I feel that in an urban environment (city, etc) that we could build SONET-style wireless gigabit rings around these areas. FSO / 60ghz type equipment, very little interference, etc. But the problem with this is - to put a pair of these units up at the average multi-story building is not effective cost-wise. Each pair costs $20k+, and I know manufacturers are holding back on lowering the price because they know how much actual fiber costs to bury 1 mile and the time it actually takes.
I have enough high-rise customers I could build a backhaul ring network in my area, and offer unbelievable speeds. From those buildings, wireless pico-cells could offer Wi-Max speeds to 1/2 to 3/4 of a mile. Or secondary slower FSO links could be used for nearby customers. Unlicensed 2.4/5.8 backhauls could also be used from these points. But the cost would be astronomical right now. 10 or 20 of these units could easily cost more than a Ferrari. And would it have an ROI measured in 10+ years... -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Clint Ricker Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 1:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Copper Plant Not even close. The telco's aren't stupid enough to pay billions of dollars ($23 billion expected total cost for Verizon's FTTH project) simply to close off line sharing requirements. Total revenue for "other providers of local service" nationwide (not just Verizon territory) was a total of $22 billion last year. Peter, you may have more exact stats, this is pulling from the FCC Annual Telecommunications revenue report. Considering this includes a lot of stuff that doesn't fall under CLEC status, this isn't enough to really justify Verizon and AT&T's move to fiber. I'm not arguing that line sharing isn't an annoyance. But, the reality is that it is simply an annoyance. Most of the players who really "count" in terms of major threats to revenue either are moving to fiber or fiber/coax hybrid because we are no longer in the 1990s. 5Mb/s was great technology in 1998. We are in 2007, and by the end of the decade most of the major cable companies will be pushing DOCSIS 3 with 50-100Mb/s (with much higher theoretical capacity). The telcos have their backs up against the wall in a lot of respects. The cable companies are rolling out voice, which is a piece of cake these days (well, compared to the challenge of deploying video services, voice is a piece of cake) and are getting their act together in a big way about going after the business market. The telcos are on an old copper network which simply can't handle much data (max even for the next generation is ADSL2 is 25Mb/s down, 5 up +-). The simple reality is that copper pairs can't handle much data. The cable companies don't really have that liability--a coax plant can push about 50Gb/s (albeit "broadcast" rather than point to point) for residential and are doing metro-ethernet stuff as well on the business side. Smart CLECs that target business customers are dropping fiber into multi-tenant buildings and grabbing up lucritive business customers that way. Sticking with copper simply means that the telco's don't have the technical basis to compete. Plain and simple. The market is evolving. Sure, telcos don't like line sharing. However, CLECs buying what is/will be legacy connections (T1s, POTS, etc...) are the least of the ILECs worries these days. They are rolling out fiber because the technology is advancing to the point that it is increasingly a necessitity to offer the services neccessary to gain and keep customers on that level. Now, that's only about 1/3 of the story :). My comments above are mainly centered around the urban markets. You could reasonably make the argument that the copper plant will be dead in major metropolitan areas by 2013, and I might even believe it (although I doubt it will be quite that quick from AT&T side, but not too far off). Rural markets will remain on copper for a _long_ time. If I'm not mistaken, this is the market that most of you on the list (although not in terms of subscribers) operate in. Verizon is rolling out FTTH across its market, sure. Don't forget that Verizon also spun off much of its rural market for the simple reason that rural is less profitable and fiber is not really profitable for rural markets (for the major ILECs--there are some people out there making good money at fiber in rural areas). Many of these areas are still running copper between central offices, if that is any indication. In the end, I guess it doesn't really matter "why" the market is moving away from copper into fiber--it is (although not really in rural). Still, I think you're flattering yourself and the CLECs a little too much if you think that the ILECs are doing a multi-billion dollar fiber rollout simply to get rid of them... even if copper stayed around, the CLECs relying on it would obselete themselves about as quickly. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 6/15/07, Peter R. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > correct > > George Rogato wrote: > > > Isn't the reason they are replacing some of their copper with fiber is > > because they then do not have to allow competition to ride their wires? > > Old wires old rules, new fiber new rules? > > > > George > > > > Peter R. wrote: > > > >> The AT&T (originally SBC) VDSL plan requires copper to the home. > >> Fiber to the neighborhood. > >> > >> In VZ region, they are pulling out copper as fast as they can & > >> replacing it with fiber. (FiOS is FTTH not FTTN). > >> VZ even clips the copper when they install your FiOS. > >> And what VZ isn't replacing, thieves are stealing, since copper is > >> easy to sell. > >> > >> VZ's union is even claiming that VZ is not maintaining the copper > >> plant in some areas. > >> > >> If you watch the FCC network notifications, there is more copper > >> replacement being done this year then ever before. > >> > >> - Peter > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.14/845 - Release Date: 6/12/2007 6:39 AM -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/