Joe, the xDSL service providers needed access to the CO in order to bypass the Telco's switch. Not until a recent FCC ruling could they get past this monopolistic stonewalling. So the venture money went to buying cable companies, which was the only way around the road block. xDSL also had the problem of a splitter being required at the customers premises...at least until AWRE developed the splitterless xDSL.
Now within the last two weeks the ITU adopted the G. Lite standard for ADSL, similar to the 56K preliminary V.90 standard, and the FCC has ruled ADSL is an Interstate connection, making it exempt from local tariffs, it is liable for the Federal tariff only. SO we couple those two things with the access to the CO, and now xDSL hardware, software and service providers can tackle the real deployment problems...not fight red tape and stonewalling.
Cable has three drawbacks which will affect it's service overtime...
1) Most cable is one direction...download.
2) Cable bandwidth must be shared...more users means less bandwidth to each user.
3) Because of #1, a phone connection is required for uploading or two way communications. This also makes it a dial up rather than an always on connection.
The ADSL advantage is that...
A) Nearly everyone is wired to the CO already, where cable has many areas it isn't wired into.
B) A dedicated phone line is not required, voice and ADSL work on the same line at the same time.
C) ADSL is an alway on connection.
You can see why AT&T has made that huge bet on cable, AND you can see why the likes of BA, SBC, US west and so on are forced to offer faster service...the legal monopoly protection is starting to be pulled away from them.
IMO, for now both of these methods are worth investing in and will grow, however, by the time either one can be called the winner we'll be moving to wireless connections.
Btw, can you tell I just had a cup of coffee? <gg> |
