IMO, this in large part accounts for the apparent intransigence on the parts of the LECs wrt DSL techs, and any movement whatsoever in the direction of deploying open All Optical Network platforms, although they (some of the BOCs) are, in their own way, now deploying some full service area nets (FSANs), under strict architectural rules following the ATM rules set.
In the latter cases, however, end users do not have any latitude to exploit open optical interfaces that lend themselves to channel gain, i.e., discrete DWDM utility, optical add-drop, etc. These remain the province of the carrier, nickel-and-dimin' every photon along the way.
There will not be a smooth transition to All Optical Networking, but it will become dominant nonetheless. For every company that leverages its entrenched position to try and stop the onslaught of progress, another ten or hundred companies are working on new, clever, different ways to deliver value to customers. Telecom deregulation will allow this to happen with a vengence, especially if we can break the logjam on the local side.
Many companies will refuse to use the new vendors and the new technologies, but their competitors will, and some of them will gain advantage because of it. This will cause more customers to switch, upping the pressure on everyone moving slowly. Different approaches can work for different players, but my point is that this juggernaut cannot be stopped, probably not even slowed down.
Staying with the BOCs for the moment, I can appreciate your statement regarding early obsolescence, and I suppose it affects their willingness to take giant steps (or at least gives them some degree of plausible merit for their otherwise sluggish approach to opening up the last mile:
Look at the last mile issue; the Big Kahuna. Telco intransigence re: xDSL is sad, pathetic, and irritating as hell. So what! Cable companies, via cable modems are putting the pressure on. If telcos don't fight back, cable companies could pick up a suprisingly high percentage of the business. Meanwhile, xDSL vendors are re-examining their products to see how they can be changed or enhanced to make their use by telcos easier, cheaper, and faster to implement. If the gains by waiting awhile are larger than the losses to the cable companies, waiting may be the best strategy.
I don't think anyone can predict how it all works out, not even George; it's just too complicated, with way too many variables. It doesn't matter though, if you see the big trend for what it is: a trend. An irresistible force whose only immovable object is government with the power to ruin it all. I don't see that happening, though, at least not for awhile.
The players you mention, while they are the best suited at the techs needed to liberate the clog points, are really targeting the carriers who, in turn, set the rules that preserve their domination over the bandwidth spigots. They do not possess the maverick mentalities needed to go all the way in terms of raising the bandwidth curtains for users, such as MFNX has demonstrated with its dark fiber offerings, IMO.
I did not mean to imply that only Cisco, Lucent and Tellabs would be the winners or should be invested in. I meant to use them as examples of companies that can have an easier time during the storm. It won't be easy for them either, and some, or all of them may be bested by others. I just think that equipment providers can sell to those who are changing the infrastructure, regardless of who they are, and will take less of a beating from the rapid changes coming than the carriers will. |
