SteveG: >> What we REALLY need are compelling reasons (ie., killer apps) to drive the customers and PUSH deployment. <<
The chicken and the egg theory. Many software companies just don't have the resources to create applications that can't be sold today. Build it and they will come.
>> In my opinion, where there are cable modems, ADSL will not win - so cable deployment will create only a secondary ADSL/bandwidth market momentum. <<
This is why BA is getting it's act together. In my opinion both will win in this environment. With a total line cost in the $500-$600 range, BA has it's cost advantage over cable. They are deploying the DLC system in the CO and at remote locations, pushing fiber closer to the customer.
>> First, cable companies will upgrade to HFC to carry more premium cable TV services, and are already doing this. <<
Have you surfed cable lately? How is providing 500 channels of worthless programming any better than my present 50 channels of nothing. Not to mention that all 50 channels aren't being used today. Cable has a battle on it's hands from DirectTV for TV programming.
>> Second, again, MY point was that where there *already* are cable modems, ADSL will not have much penetration <<
I disagree, BA is going to compete with HFC systems. Is BA going to be able to charge $100/month?... I don't think so. Can they charge $100/month where HFC isn't installed?... I think they can.
>> This is only the *equipment* cost. This is nowhere near the real telco cost of technical manhours. <<
We haven't started to talk about manhours yet. Let's compute the hardware costs for both solutions. I contend that the RBOC's have the an advantage on hardware cost. Now if you think plugging a line card into a DSLAM and providing a RADSL modem to the customer is time consuming, I disagree. RADSL will adjust to the line quality and give the user the max. speed. ADSL modems will become plug-and-play.
>> The modem cost can be payed by customer upfront, or payed off through renting over 2 years (at the $45/month rate). <<
We can play with these numbers for ever. What does it cost the cable companies to provide a HFC system and cable modem. I contend it costs less for the RBOC's to deploy ADSL.
>> And as has been noted, cable does not have the costs of maintaining DSLAMs with thousands of CO ADSL units for heat/power/space/surge/crosstalk problems, or field problems like taps/coils and old copper. <<
You're correct, cable only have to trench XXX miles of fiber to provide HFC. What does it cost to maintain a DSLAM? Take a look at what Lucent is going to provide. You're not going to see a separate DSLAM unit in the CO. It's going to be integrated into the 5ESS platform. Many of problem you stated are solved with this platform.
....Integrating ADSL in the switch along with existing access choices helps lower service provider costs in several ways. It eliminates the need for a separate link to the voice network, and requires only a single pass through the switch's Main Distribution Frame, as opposed to an overlay option. Service providers also can save money from reduced floor space, lower power requirements, and lower installation, provisioning, administration and maintenance costs...
lucent.com
If you run ADSL from the CO to the customer prem. crosstalk isn't a problem. ISP's aren't going to be allowed to pump ADSL from their location to the CO then to the customer. This creates crosstalk... until later. |
