Ian and Ernie, and All,
On Wednesday when Mallone and Armstrong were "pointing and clicking" their way through the future, they made repeated use of the term "Digital," in the context of a new service delivery framework from TCOMA that will feed T's LD Core Network.
Actually, almost all of TCOMA's _newest_ and even _planned_ network infrastructure upgrades are not digital at all, rather they are using amplitude-modulated hybrid fiber/coax analog transmission technologies of the textbook variety.
See a reply from a highly respected industry individual, Ray Jensen, to one of my similar statements in the VoIP thread:
Message 5013422
If coaxial cable television using AM techniques is not analog technology, then what is? Digital functionality, in turn, is actually derived from traditional modem technologies, such as QAM and DPSK, etc.
Ian, I agree with your analysis of the widows and orphans metaphor, but I'll take it one step further. In attempting to shed its image of Bell-Head arrogance and intransigence, and in order for the company to indeed "break away" from the mental associations and stigma that have plagued it for so long, perhaps a complete break away, as in "letting go" of such valued attributes is exactly what is needed. This may indeed be the effects of the recent announcements over time, gradually, it is hoped.
A complete make over is not out of the question, when considering the tsunami or technological advances taking place today that threaten its very existence, both now and into the future. Nothing may weigh the company down so heavily in the eyes of the current and next generations of investors as the association they may sense when being lumped into a category with widows and orphans.
The track is getting too fast for that kind of Model "T" to survive the way it has over the decades. They must meet the changing cyber-scape head on, or be tossed aside, and that means changing their mentality in more ways that the transmission protocol that supports their voice services. I think that Armstrong, whether intentionally or not, has taken the first steps in this direction.
Ernie K,
You ask, >>What type of box, at what cost, will allow them to offer POTS over cable? Where will the -48 come from, if its locally generated then the feature of the phone working when the power is down is lost ? I would think that is unacceptable to many. A local battery for each residence would be very expensive. Who would pay to install and maintain the local equipment? Has this ever been done on a commercially viable, wide scale install? Any comments on any of the above would be appreciated.<<
There will be a variety of home and business service attachment and demarcation architectures available. Some will accommodate circuit-switched services in addition to video, and some will be entirely IP-based piggy-back arrangements on the cable modem architecture. The former will be more expensive than the latter, when fully amortized across all of the elements needed to make it work.
For an interesting discussion on the costs of the various approaches being contemplated on a "passed-home" basis, listen to yesterday's conference call recording, the information for which is posted upstream from here in the thread. PM me if you cannot find it. It will be available through tomorrow night.
On the issue of the lifeline -48 battery, I think that you have touched upon something that most company insiders would want to ignore during this period of euphoria, but it must be discussed, nonetheless. It is certainly a _major_ issue that will factor into buying decisions, as well as being factored into network upgrade and build-out costs.
Providing power for field huts and pedestals in the neighborhood to support the MOD/DEMOD equipment for the fiber is a monumental engineering and financing challenge in itself. It follows then, that providing "backup" power becomes even far more challenging. T will have to decide what it is going to do in this regard. Their decision in this respect will be crucial in many ways.
Will T assume the responsibility of supplying battery at all times under all conditions and circumstances, or will it sell a service that will depend on the subscriber's provisioning of power during periods of normal as well as during power company outage conditions.
There are several permutations of these options, all of which have been explored not only for fiber to the neighborhood, but for existing digital subscriber loop carrier systems, and for DSL and wireless as well. Thus far, nothing has come even close to the economies that can be achieved through the use of battery over copper from the CO. The final outcome of this will be dependent on the nature of the architecture that T chooses going forward, and I am not privy to that, if in fact these policy issues, and the attendant selection of a powering architecture, have even been made yet. Odds are that there will be more than one approach used, with a list of options to fit the particulars of any given situation.
But this does bring up another set of issues, the most glaring one to me being, that subscribers will likely choose to maintain at least one POTS line with their existing LEC, even if they choose the cable modem alternative from the new T.
This assertion can be supported by the fact that many homes and small businesses already have multiple lines coming on prem, and to distribute them between two suppliers will be an appealing method for them to distribute risk, and maintain some leverage with either provider, while also being assured of powered facilities during power outages. It would be a no brainer for a home owner to decide to keep an un-featured (no frills) POTS line (which may be only one of two or three now in place) for directory and reliability purposes, and to elect to use the newer IP modality of the cable modem delivery for Internet access, enhanced services, and LD.
Which brings me to my next question. How will T keep its new subscribers from jumping onto another Internet Telephony Service Provider's (ITSP's) Long Distance network, once the home owner or SOHO businessperson has full fledged support for VoIP and internet access built in to the bundle of its premises-based capabilities? In other words, how will they be able to lock in loyalty? I don't buy the argument of economies of bundling any longer. Perhaps in 1994, yes, when these capabilities were only a glimmer in an oracle's eye, but not today.
These are only my opinions, and comments would be welcome.
Best Regards to All, Frank Coluccio
|
