Coax can do 50 gigabit? Fiber can do a heck of a lot more than that. A
32
channel DWDM system can currently do 320 gigs with 1280 gigs not far
off. I
have heard of systems doing more than 32 channels.
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clint Ricker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's
takeon"Broadband"..
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Clint Ricker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:40:19 -0400
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's take
> on"Broadband"..
>
>> I think you missed my point here. My point is that forcing telcos to
>> > resell their network layer does absolutely nothing to connect
>> > additional people. If I resell AT&T DSL to someone on AT&T's
network,
>> > they could have just as easily gotten it from AT&T.
>> So you think that CLEC's and ISP's have never actually brought the
>> Internet or a new service to anyone? That's striking. Yes the
>> footprint
>> does not grow, but certainly the penetration does.
>
> Back when the Internet was new, they were great for this because they
> generally had better customer relationships with the customers. These
> days,
> Internet is commodity--in almost every case, if they didn't get it from
> the
> ISP or CLEC, they would get it from the cable company or telco.
>
> And without the revenue from the rented network, how would anyone build
>> new facilities?
>
>
> Revenue from the services sold on the network through retail options,
> as
> has
> always been the case...
>
> Dynamic T1 and Integrated T1 were CLEC inventions.
>
> VoIP didn't come to the masses from the ILEC's and neither did DSL or
>> dial-up.
>
>
> CLEC style VoIP is not really all that interesting--in the end, it is
all
> to
> often POTS over IP and leaves out much of what is potentially
interesting
> on
> VoIP.
>
> Definitely, without the CLEC competition, Internet access would have
> evolved
> in a much different manner. However, I'm more arguing that the CLECs
are
> more or less irrelevant today (from any sort of policy
> standpoint)--most
> of
> the market forces really do come down to telco/cable in the metro areas
> and
> wireless in rural markets. The CLECs were the forerunners in a lot of
> areas--but, by and large, their era of innovation is long over.
>
>>
>> > I'm not saying that these aren't decent business models, btw, and
>> > can't make people some dough. But, national policy is not
>> > structured
>> > around making sure that an extra couple of CLECs or NSPs are cash
>> > positive... running the same old tired copper to the same old
>> > customers does not increase broadband penetration.
>> National policy! HA! It's about Innovation and Competition.
>
>
> In which case, the CLECs only have themselves to blame :)
>
> Would we have DSL today if not for Covad/Northpoint/Rhythms? DSL was
>> invented in Bell Labs in 1965!
>> RBOC's did not want to cannibalize their $1500 T1 revenue. (Then they
>> went the exact opposite way).
>
>
> Agreed...but that was 1998-2002. What have they done for us lately?
>
>> Does it hurt the ILEC? Heh...probably not all that much. But, are
>> > CLECs really helping the consumer? I tend to argue no, by and
>> > large...why IS CLEC market share so small? Why are independent ISPs
>> > have so little market share?
>> Clint, I could spend days on this. For you even to ask this, ..... it
>> almost feels like you are trolling (or do I hear the clinking of ice?)
>
>
> I'm honestly not trolling here, although, given the forum, it
> definitely
> comes across that way. Definitely, back in the 1990's and early
> 2000's,
> CLECs drove costs down and drove in new services that Bell had little
> interest in offering. That was 5 years ago, though. By and large, the
> bells are usually fairly competitive price wise in the business market
and
> by far the best value out there in the residential / SOHO market. Now,
it
> is largely the cable/telco competition that is keeping prices down, not
> the
> CLECs...
>
> I worked for several years at an ISP that did the whole BellSouth DSL
NSP
> stuff. The FISPA list, etc...continually trashed BellSouth DSL service
> and
> their poor customer service, and so forth, and espoused the the glories
of
> independent ISPs, which I largely agreed with until one day when I
> setup
a
> friends self-install DSL kit from BellSouth. It was a very slick
> automated
> installation procedure that was _much_ better than what we were doing.
>
> The Independent ISP community did _way_ too much talking about their
> own
> value and their own "great customer service" while, by and large, doing
> very
> little to actually improve workflows, improve the customer experience
(in
> terms of ease of turn up) and way too little time / effort spent
actually
> selling and marketing. Simply put, by 2005 the telco offering by and
> large
> was, for most people, a better product. Again, this isn't a universal
> indictment, but a lot of their problems were self-inflicted and not the
> result of FCC meddling. Too much talk, too little action...
>
> Way, way too much time was and is still spent blaming the government
> and
> the
> "evil" ILECs and too little time / effort spent actually selling,
> improving
> business operations, and reinvesting in better infrastructure /
services.
>
> In the end, the market share for the CLECs and independents is small
> because
> more consumers chose to go with someone else. Some of the better-run
ones
> that actually do have a compelling product offering do fairly well...
>
> Honestly, would you say that (insert independent ISP reselling ILEC DSL
> service) has a better DSL offering than (insert ILEC)? By and large, I
> wouldn't...
>
>
>
>
>>
>> > CLECs have killed themselves because they tended to think in
quarterly
>> > and yearly terms for P/L and investment. The cable companies and
>> > the
>> > ILECS tend to think longer term and so have been able to win out in
>> > the long term. NSPs pay ~$30/month to resell DSL service; $3,600
over
>> > ten years to provide DSL service to a residence. That's enough
>> > money
>> > to start financing a fiber buildout, and that's just some crummy DSL
>> > service. Owning the physical infrastructure makes a huge
>> > difference,
>> > something that CLECs, by and large, never learned, and just kept on
>> > paying huge chunks of money to the ILEC rather than building their
own
>> > network and making themselves sufficient (in a lot of cases, it
>> > isn't
>> > feasible, since you do have to have a certain market penetration for
>> > it to be worthwhile.).
>> By and large, most CLEC's are run by Bell-head idiots. Most will be
>> entering BK in the next 18 months.
>
>
>
> But even the ones who built network - L3, WilTel, GX and more -
> couldn't
>> execute a plan to pay back the debt.
>
>
> There are a few that have built networks - NEON, Norlight, Fiberlight,
>> Coretel, CityNet - that are doing fine, because they knew exactly what
>> their market was - and executed well on a good strategy.
>
>
> Most of that is the market...L3, WilTel, and GX screwed themselves over
by
> throwing billions of dollars into an incredibly overbuilt market
(carrier
> fiber networks). Paying $$$$$ to run even more fiber from Chicago to
New
> York when there is already way too much is a MUCH different market than
> last
> mile. The good thing with last mile access is that there is a very
viable
> return on the investment and very little competition (you have _at
> most_
> 2-3
> providers who have physical connections to a given address).
>
>> Put the efforts on getting more people involved in actually building
>> > out networks and increasing REAL competition (yes, wireless does fit
>> > in there to some degree).
>> The FCC can't even force the cellco's to build out all of the spectrum
>> they have hoarding since 1996. Nor has Congress, the FCC or any PUC
been
>> able to force the ILEC's to actually live up to its promises for rate
>> increase, 272 relief, mergers, or build-out. So Clint please explain
>> to
>> me HOW DO YOU FORCE A NETWORK BUILD OUT?
>
>
> That is the multi-billion dollar question!
>
> Ideally,
> 1. Get accurate data about who actually has access to Internet access!
> 2. Eliminate ALL vertical monopolies (ie you cannot sell more than one
of
> three out of physical, network, and application layers except for rural
> markets). At some point, this means that for the physical network
> providers
> to grow, they have to expand infrastructure (among lots of other good
> things). It may make sense for the physical layer to be actually
> muni-owned
> in many areas.
> 3. Heavily subsidize community-based efforts in rural areas. In the
end,
> if
> the people want to get on the 'net, they should be a driving force in
the
> ultra-rural market.
> 4. Place a "bounty" on each rural subscriber added (or some similar
> metric). In other words, subsidize ex-post-facto instead of on a vague
> promise of future network buildouts...
> 5. Use the data from one and go down by population. In other words
> concentrate on the rural market before getting to the ultra-rural
market.
> Now, #2 won't ever happen.
>
> How do you deal with ILECs who don't follow the regulations? That's a
> tough
> one, since most of the legal mechanisms (fines and so forth) aren't
really
> effective because they 1. just become a cost of doing business and 2.
are
> so
> weighted down in court battles as to be, at best, too little, too
late. I
> don't really have the answer to that question.
>
> I think that the government has to be willing to use political leverage
a
> lot more. While I tend to agree with a lot of the major FCC rulings
over
> the past few years, they were given away too lightly. Just because it
is
> the right decision doesn't mean that it can't have strings attached.
> In
> other words, the government has to actually grow a backbone... Want
> DSL
> line sharing requirements dropped? We'll talk AFTER we have X% of
> rural
> buildout.
>
>
> Oh, and where is that investment money coming from? Because once the
>> CLEC's start hitting BK, investment dollars will dry up. In fact, if
you
>> watch VZ and T, you will see that their access to cheap debt for their
>> build outs has ended as well. And the RBOC's have to borrow more to
>> build out 3G / 4G. More debt heaped on top of their billions in debt.
>>
>> BTW, you keep saying DOCSIS 3. Big deal. Collectively the MSO's have
>> $100B in debt from building out to DOCSIS 2. Where do you think that
>> investment money will come from for D3? That's like another $75B. And
>> The Street doesn't even value cableco stock as much as it values RBOC
>> stock.
>
>
> I don't really find the debt that big of a deal...a couple of thousands
of
> dollars of debt per customer financing buildout when the ARPU can be
> $10,000-$20,000 over 10 years for a residential subscriber is a pretty
> good
> deal. The network buildouts on the cable side are _much_ cheaper than
on
> the telco side--the upgrade to DOCSIS 3 is not much different, cost
wise,
> than the upgrade to ADSLv2. However, cable doesn't have to do fiber
> upgrades (coax is much better than fiber--HFC plants can push 50Gb/s
worth
> of data) and cable doesn't have the very expensive capital costs of
video
> network buildouts... DOCSIS 3 will come down fairly quickly simply
> because
> it isn't all that expensive (relatively speaking) and doesn't require
that
> big of an overhaul...
>
> -Clint Ricker
> Kentnis Technologies
>
