NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad

NNSquad Home Page

NNSquad Mailing List Information


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ NNSquad ] Re: ATT tells FCC it wants to ditch land-line services -- let's assist them!

I disagree. Witness the same pairs put up over 70 years ago are still in
service in many places and continue to be written off year upon year by
the telcos.
They recently replaced the cable past me, and when I asked the foreman
when the old one was put up, he said 1927, the same year my house was
built, as well as many on my street.
Now this may be an exception, but not so I'm told, the main reason
cables are replaced is for more capacity. The area Ilive in is 30'x100'
city lots, and pretty easy to plan capacity. Even in 1927.
I found the speeds herebouts is limited by the stray capacity induced by
them connecting multiple runs to the main distrubution, meaning my pair
can be accessed on many side streets. It limited us to 53.3kb on dialup,
and degrades DSL unless they lift every un needed pair, according to the
techs I've talked to.

Richard Bennett wrote:
> Copper twisted pair has considerable maintenance cost, and it takes up
> space on the poles they'd rather use for fiber. Face it, the future of
> networking is fiber and wireless, and the sooner we dump twisted pair,
> the better off we'll all be.
> The building where PAIX is located used to be telco CO. In those days,
> there was an 8 foot hole in the wall for all the copper to come into
> and out of the building, but now that it's all fiber-fed, the hole has
> been all but filled.
> RB
>     [ But of course AT&T has bet the farm -- at least medium term --
>       on copper for U-verse.  A Verizon exec told me (as far as he
>       was concerned -- not for attribution) that the reasons Verizon
>       insisted on pulling out the copper when a customer puts in FiOS,
>       and will never put it back for subsequent persons at the same
>       premises (except under *extremely* limited circumstances) are:
>             1) To make sure that all subsequent persons at that address
>         will be set to go when saturated with triple-play FiOS
>         advertising and will never have the option of simple
>         copper POTS
>         and
>         2)  Indeed, to make sure that government actions down the line
>             don't result in that copper being used by a possible
>             competitor
>       He didn't seem concerned about the maintenance costs of the copper
>       plant, even when I asked him about them.  "What isn't there, can't
>       be used," were pretty much the words he used as I recall.  This was
>       over a year ago.
>       -- Lauren Weinstein
>          NNSquad Moderator ]
> - - -
> On 1/4/2010 6:17 PM, Bob Frankston wrote:
>> Take as in accept.
>> Verizon is a simpler case -- if they say it's a liability how much is it
>> worth? And so what if it's "only" 10Mbps per pair?
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: George Ou [mailto:george_ou@lanarchitect.net]
>> Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 21:08
>> To: 'Bob Frankston'; 'Dewayne Hendricks'
>> Cc: nnsquad@nnsquad.org; 'OIA List'; 'Richard Bennett'
>> Subject: RE: [ NNSquad ] ATT tells FCC it wants to ditch land-line
>> services
>> -- let's assist them!
>> Couple of issues.
>> First of all, when you say "take" that copper plant, you probably
>> mean steal
>> or pay less for the infrastructure than market rate by forcing the sale.
>> That should offend any reasonable person as much as the government
>> taking
>> over individual homes for a public works project of some sort.
>> Second, copper will probably get to 100 Mbps (64 Mbps is the
>> realistic speed
>> with channel bonding) as signal processing technology gets better,
>> but that
>> assumes you're going to spend money building out Fiber to the Node
>> (FTTN)
>> cabinets to within 1000 meters of each home.  But it's not realistic to
>> expect that you'll just light it up to 100 Mbps today even with the
>> cabinets
>> in place.
>> George Ou
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nnsquad-bounces+george_ou=lanarchitect.net@nnsquad.org
>> [mailto:nnsquad-bounces+george_ou=lanarchitect.net@nnsquad.org] On
>> Behalf Of
>> Bob Frankston
>> Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 3:53 PM
>> To: 'Dewayne Hendricks'
>> Cc: nnsquad@nnsquad.org; 'OIA List'
>> Subject: [ NNSquad ] ATT tells FCC it wants to ditch land-line
>> services --
>> let's assist them!
>> ATT is completely correct - they shouldn't be saddled with the cost of
>> supporting two networks. In fact supporting even one network is a
>> burden for
>> a company that makes its money selling services. We have done them as
>> great
>> disservice by requiring they support an infrastructure so that others
>> like
>> Vonage can simply use the bits without ATT getting the a cut of the
>> service
>> revenue they need to fund the infrastructure based a business model that
>> dates back to 19th century telegraph.
>> I say we heed their plea and immediately offer them assistance along
>> with
>> forgiveness for past failures. If they are so foolishness as to want
>> to hang
>> on to their fiber then let them.
>> We should immediately take all that copper off their hands and hand
>> it over
>> to the communities. The communities are then free to use modern
>> electronics
>> to "light" those wires up to 10 to 100Mbps at retail modem prices
>> (<$100/line). That was part of my original plan for home networking
>> and we
>> have over 20 years of Moore's law improvement to catch up on. And since
>> we're dealing with bits and not billing we can be very creative in
>> what we
>> do and we can ignore the artificial distinction between wired and
>> wireless
>> bits. Or, for that matter between fiber and copper bits.
>> The problem is that ATT is right - we don't need redundant
>> infrastructures
>> and the paid-for copper trumps debt-creating fiber. They have tied their
>> fate to the latter. How long can they kite debt?
>> So lets' take ATT up on its offer. Sure it's assisted suicide but then
>> sacrificing companies for the greater good is the very essence of
>> capitalism
>> and the idea of limited liability. Anyway ATT already died - we're just
>> talking about the ghost of ATT's past.
>>     [ Bob, somehow I suspect that the U-verse folks won't be
>>       enthusiastic about your proposal, especially after planting all
>>       those VRADs and dragging fiber out to them to "remonetize" that
>>       (often monopoly-era) copper and other handy physical plant
>>       goodies.  Of course if AT&T hadn't had such largely Ma Bell-era
>>       facilities already in place, the cost of deploying U-verse,
>>       particularly in areas that would have involved digging up untold
>>       thousands of streets and yards, would have been monumentally
>>       higher than it has been.
>>       Telecom Monopoly Status:
>>       The Gift From the Government that Keeps on Giving, Even
>>       When You're Not Officially a Monopoly Any More!
>>       -- Lauren Weinstein
>>          NNSquad Moderator ]
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dewayne-net [mailto:dewayne-net@warpspeed.com] On Behalf Of
>> Dewayne
>> Hendricks
>> Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 15:26
>> To: Dewayne-Net Technology List
>> Subject: [Dewayne-Net] ATT tells FCC it wants to ditch land-line
>> services
>> ATT tells FCC it wants to ditch land-line services
>> eweek.com
>> By Michelle Maisto
>> AT&T tells the FCC that in order to meet Congress' goal of extending
>> broadband access to 100 percent of Americans, it needs to heave the old
>> land-line business off its shoulders so it can focus funds on
>> broadband and
>> IP-based communications.
>> AT&T has told the Federal Communications Commission that in order to
>> meet
>> Congress' goal of extending broadband access to 100 percent of
>> Americans, it
>> needs to ditch its land-line business in favor of focusing on
>> broadband and
>> IP-based communications.
>> <http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/ATandT-Tells-FCC-It-Wants-to-D
>> itch-LandLine-Services/>RSS Feed:<http://www.warpspeed.com/wordpress>