Watch the next generation of our children, who are among us now, squirm as they wonder why they are still "tuning" around analog restrictives in their living rooms and desktops, when the rest of the universe has embraced digital. Fast digital. And the faster it gets, the more it needs optical.
Frank, I agree that, for new houses and apartment complexes that are built, a fiber installations are the best possible choice. However, for existing buildings, given how much the existing coaxial/twisted pair infrastructure can be scaled, I'm not sure if direct fiber rollouts make sense from an economic perspective.
Currently, a VDSL connection can handle 52 MB/s downstream. Likewise, although I'm sure virtually no subscribers have ever seen such speeds, the downstream link on a DOCSIS-compliant cable modem can take in 56 MB/s. The question, of course, is whether, if, a few years from now, a telco or MSO started making huge, cost-effective fiber upgrades on the back-ends of their networks (perhaps a 10 GbE/DWDM setup?), was able to offer 52-56 MB/s of bandwidth to individual homes/apartments, would it be enough to meet the demands of most (i.e. over 90%) of their customers?
To get a better idea, I think it's necessary to take a look at what a best-case scenario might be for bandwidth consumption within a single home based on the applications that would utilize it. The first place to start would be the PC. Here, the most bandwidth-intensive apps. revolve around the now-infamous file-swapping services (i.e. Napster, Scour, Gnutella, etc.). While MP3s aren't too much of a problem for a reasonably fast connection, video files, often taking up over 100 MB in disk space, definitely are. Currently using a (average speed) 200 kb/s cable modem connection, although I admit that this is a highly subjective matter, my guess is that most people would need something 20-25x faster so that they wouldn't feel inconvenienced by the pace of a 100 MB+ video download. After factoring in the increased processing overhead that would come with such speeds, I think that this would amount to roughly a 6 MB/s connection; but since we're looking at a best-case scenario for bandwidth demand, let's put the number at 8 MB/s, to account for other applications (web browsing, streaming video, Flash files, etc.) that might be in use while the downloads are taking place, and assume that there might be two PCs in the same house doing this simulataneously, leading to 16 MB/s of aggregate bandwidth demand.
The next bandwidth-hogging device to take into account is the digital television. If I remember correctly, a full-screen, MPEG-2-quality streaming video clip takes up 8 MB/s. Assuming that there's 3 TVs in this house, that's another 24 MB/s. Throw in another 2 MB/s each for two of these TVs to account for a second video stream via picture-in-picture, and 2 MB/s to account for web broswing/interactive TV services on the third TV, and we've reached an aggregate total of 46 MB/s of needed bandwidth. This leaves 6 MB/s of unused bandwidth over a VDSL connection, and 10 MB/s for a fully utilized cable modem connection. This should most likely be enough for any other applications that might take up bandwidth, such as IP telephony, videophones, streaming video for a couple of internet appliances, MP3 streaming for a stereo, etc.
All in all, this is really a best-case scenario for bandwidth consumption with a single home. I doubt that most homes/apartments will need anywhere as much bandwidth at a given moment. With this kept in mind, unless new, bandwidth applications emerge (perhaps life-sized 3D holograms or network-based virtual reality programs), I think that the existing infrastructure should suffice.
Of course, this, too, is dependent on the telcos and MSOs to start making some huge network upgrades so that the pipes can be filled to the fullest extent; as we all know, it's not happening right now, thanks to the unwillingness of the telcos to cannibalize T1 sales with cheaper DSL offerings (thus they only offer G.Lite ADSL to consumers at a reasonable price), and the unwillingness of the MSOs to make huge, widespread upgrades considering that they're able to sign up plenty of internet subscribers with sub-1MBps offerings. All of this could actually allow a technology such as HDR (http://www.qualcomm.com/hdr/about.html), which isn't half as good as even full-rate ADSL in terms of performance, to attain a significant amount of success, simply due to the fact that it'll be pushed by companies that don't have existing businesses to protect, and are accustomed to operating in highly competitive environments. There's nothing quite like bureaucratic monopolies when it comes to getting on your nerves.
Eric |
