Yes.
It costs about the same labor to run anything and the material cost
doesn't
vary much either.
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Ratcliffe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:04 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An
FCCCommissioner'stakeon"Broadband"..
> But if you're running fiber anyways, isn't the labor cost per mile the
> same
> with single fiber vs. say, 100 fibers in a single cable? Virtually
> limitless, I would think.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Clint Ricker
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 7:19 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC
> Commissioner'stakeon"Broadband"..
>
> Fiber is definitely higher capacity than coax; you would be stupid to do
a
> "from-scratch" coax buildout. The two main difficulties with coax
> infrastructure is
> 1. It's broadcast--meaning that's a shared capacity, and, technically
> speaking, everything that goes to one subscriber goes to all subscribers
> (kinda like wireless in a sense).
> 2. Slow return path. It's hard to do a large capacity on the return
path
> simply because the equipment on the subscriber end usually is fairly low
> end
> and has a lot more noise to start out with. If you amp it up to get
more
> power (and capacity) you increase the noise way to quickly.
>
> Not really too different from wireless in those ways, just has a lot
more
> theoretical capacity
>
> Fiber doesn't have any of these problems (although a lot of FTTH
> implementations are vaguely broadcast-style as well), and the massive
> speeds
> we see out of fiber are only the beginning. Still, for the time being,
> cable MSOs are in good shape in terms of the actual physical cabling
> technology and aren't facing the hard physical limits of copper pair
like
> the telcos.
>
> -Clint Ricker
> Kentnis Technologies
>
> On 7/25/07, Mike Hammett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> >
>>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>> > Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board
>> > know
>> > your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA
>> lists. The
>> > current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We
want
>> to
>> > know your thoughts.
>> >
>>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>> > --
>> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>> >
>> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>> >
>> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>> Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board
know
>> your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA
lists. The
>> current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want
>> to
>> know your thoughts.
>>
>>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>> --
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know
> your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA
lists. The
> current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want
to
> know your thoughts.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> --
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
> --
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/897 - Release Date:
7/11/2007
> 9:57 PM
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know
> your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA
lists. The
> current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want
to
> know your thoughts.
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know
your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The
current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to
know your thoughts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
