Tim, I disagree with many of your generalizations. I have worked for over 18 years at an RBOC, and a majority of my co-workers have worked in the cable industry. As a group, we have a fairly good sense of what really goes on at the ground level in both of these sectors.
You are way off base with <<,there is no more monopolistic and inefficient a company than a RBOC.>> In the areas where RBOCs make a majority of their money, i.e., telecom services to businesses, competition is fierce and wide open. From VSAT antennae on the roofs of gas stations to alternative fiber access providers for big businesses, the RBOCs are not the only game in town by any means. If you are a residential customer, in many states you can now have one of many long distance companies become your local carrier as well. The long distance companies pay the local telco for use of the local cable pairs (at an amount that is less than what it costs the local telco to maintain the infrastructure!) and become the all in one telecom carrier for the residential subscriber. I get flyers in the mail at least once a month from the big 3 long distance guys pushing this stuff.
<<The cable companies are much more technological proficient than the RBOC's.>> Hmm, Generalizations like this rarely have any basis. I agree that cable companies have been very innovative at making the most of their resources. However, when you speak of implementation of advanced technology, few entities in the world can compare with major telcos in the US. Have you by chance ever visited a large telco central office in a major metro area? I have yet to take a technology oriented person on a tour of a CO who is not blown away, including many technology experts from the cable industry. If you think major telcos are technology lightweights when compared to cable companies, think again.
<<I would not be betting on the RBOC's,if their infrastructure wasn't so poor,and the line quality so crappy,they could install ADSL services.>> Honestly, when was the last time you picked up the phone and the line was dead?? Why is it when the power or cable fails, people are able to pick up the phone and call in a trouble call? The average availability of a telephone line is 99.99%, or 53 minutes per year of downtime. As far as line quality, I live 2 miles from a central office via copper pairs and I can get almost always get 31.2 kbps from my 33.6 modem. Thats pretty good, and fairly common. I was a telco maintenance supervisor for many years, and most static and phone troubles are due to lousy wiring and jacks inside the customers home, which do not belong to the telco.
ADSL will be a big challenge for many telcos to implement, just like cable modems will be a big challenge for many cable companies. Don't forget that many cable companies are going to rely on what you describe as crappy lines for their "telco return cable modems". Only about 10 percent of all cable customers in the US are served by cable companies with a return path, and even fewer have a clean return path that can support cable modem. A much larger percentage of telco customers served by existing copper pairs will be in reach of ADSL, certainly more than 30 percent. What ADSL will cost, I don't have a clue. Will it be successfully implemented by telcos? Don't know.
<<I think the real winners will be the companies supplying leading edge technology to these companies and can prove their value.>> TRUE!
|
