Dan,
I'm not sure where you are getting justification for your opening premise:
>> if the cost of bandwidth gets cut 95% or more on the backbone, then the only way to make up the shortfall is volume...<<
By "Backbone," are you referring to the cable modem access segment between the subscriber and the head end? If that is the case, then your statement makes sense, but not on the core backbone network, since that bandwidth cost isn't budging so easily. The access loop or segment, on the other hand, could be slashed dramatically, if it followed a cost-based model.
>>My contention is that copper in any form does not have the capacity to deliver the volume required to make the current carriers revenue goals.<<
Extant copper, of varying lengths are unpredictably good or bad, depending on many factors, but I wouldn't bet the farm on its being useful without much pre-qualifications and some re-engineering. So, to that extent I agree with you. But new copper from pedestals, or as Tom Eames liked to reference, from SAC/SAIs, or new serving area cross-connects/serving area interfaces, with distances of under 1500' can do some wondrous things. Properly engineered copper (twisted pair) of the correct lenghts, starring out from strategically located nodes in the neighborhood, with the proper underlying electronic layers, can support 52 Mbps VDSL, more than sufficient for most home uses, including multiple TV channel sessions over MPEG2 and a variety of down/upstream speeds which are "at least" competitive with cable modem. Granted, this is not the motivation to use DSL in most instances, sine the latter are using central office based DSLAMs and copper lengths of over 10,000' on average, depending on serving area specifics.
Usually the motivation to go with DSL is to leverage existing copper for Internet access purposes (now, but it wasn't always that way... earlier there was a dream to use the existing copper plant for cable TV as well as voice and data). New copper, OTOH, requires new builds or overbuilds, including plenty of engineering, and it is being done in some regions as we speak. But that's not quite the same thing as using the existing copper plant, per se.
>>If everything is digital...<<
Let's back up a moment right there. I listened to Mallone and Armstrong yesterday during the interviews, and they took a great deal of license with the use of the term "digital." Most of what they (TCI) are delivering in their existing backbones is analog, and most of what they are delivering to the residence is also analog. We've come full circle here in reinventing the use of analog modem techniques to deliver higher speeds of "digital payloads" over what can only be termed, by any definition, analog technologies. It's going to remain that way for quite some time, unless they un-do the HFC work that has already been done, and unless the price points for digital conversion processes in the outside plant can come down significantly to justify a true digital architecture. Ray... jump in here, if you would.
But we should not lose sight of the fact that the new cable TV stuff being introduced as a result of this deal is for all intents and purposes still analog facilities, in many instances in disrepair (for the purposes of availability and dependability, where telephony is concerned) and will require triage, at the very least, to bring it up to par with normal voice services. Shaping the new network architecture, in order for T to control its destiny and control costs at the same time (as Armstrong reiterated a number of times) is going to take a great deal of investment and a lot of cross-cultural doing.
>>..IP and on the same pipe, how can one charge for voice calls differently from streaming e-commerce video? <<
Voice requires a tenth of the bandwidth when using VoIP or even Low Bit Rate voice alternatives found in other digital multiplication schemes than it does when using PCM,, and can be justifiably priced lower. I don't know where you are getting your assumption that voice will be priced on a par with streaming video. Bandwidth will need to be priced proportionate to its use, in some manner. Don't know how the new T will address that, or they even will, in the early going. Let's not forget we are talking about a lengthy road here to fruition. These changes are going to come about very s l o w l y, if at all.
>>Are we headed for flat rate pricing that is consistent with current rates but with delivered bandwidth rates one hundred times greater than 64kbps PCM?<<
This discussion ceases to be a simplistic one, once you introduce end office switching and global reach into the picture. Also, 64 kbps PCM will cease to be an issue over time, if VoIP is adopted.
If cable modems continue to use contention based access methods, like Ethernet, then the 6.3 Mbps MPEG2 schemes you are alluding to will not be as guaranteed as you would like, and they may be available a lot more cheaply on a probabilistic basis, but on a fold-in capability basis with regular cable modem services, which already exceed the speeds you are discussing.
>>Streaming enhanced DVD video takes 6+ megabits - that's about 100 times. And 6 megabits is an absolute minimum with rates in the 100 megabits range possible.<<
I haven't any comment to make on the last statement, except to state that for commercial deployments to support multi-100 Mbps to the sub, we will have some time to wait, except in those pilots being undertaken where all optical techniques are being used. But there is insufficient reason to believe that many users could be supported deeper into the network, on a simultaneous basis at least, even if access were available at those speeds at the current time. The routers in the head ends and POPs, and their associated links to the next tier up in the cloud, would experience early exhaustion, if that were the case.
Comments are welcome, and
Best Regards, Frank Coluccio |
