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/
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.0/852 - Release Date: 6/17/2007
8:23 AM
