• Photo of gigaom

  BT’s 21 Century Network Is So…Last Century

  http://gigaom.com/2008/10/10/bts-21-century-network-is-solas...
  89 days ago in GigaOM · Authority: 3,877

  Ready for a little Friday humor? Well there’s this British carrier called BT that’s spending £10 billion ($17 billion) to build out an all-IP network that would handle the massive influx of converged data, voice and video traffic coming over the next few years on one network. They’ve been trashed and mocked, as so many visionaries often are, but they’ve kept on building, with the goal of finishing the network by 2011. Only they apparently didn’t build it to talk to the next-generation protocols, which is like spending £10 billion for a machine that translates spoken Latin. BT told a high-speed broadband provider in the UK that it doesn’t support IPv6, which is a protocol backed by the Internet Engineering Task Force. There are all sorts of dire warnings explaining how as more devices connect to the Internet (like your digital picture frame or thermostat), we’re going to run out of IP addresses to give them. That means we need to upgrade to IPv6 before we’re forced to share IP addresses or take other measures. This requires a big effort from equipment vendors and site owners who have to build and host IPv6 sites. With the doomsday predictions saying IPv6 IPv4 addresses will run out some time in 2012, it would appear that the BT 21 Century Network will be finished just in time to become obsolete.

  • Author unknown

    Was FiOS a smart bet for Verizon? Yes, but…

    http://gadgetforlife.info/2008/08/22/was-fios-a-smart-bet-fo...
    138 days ago in gadgetforlife.info · Authority: 4

    Was FiOS a smart bet for Verizon? Yes, but… Posted by: in General News The New York Times has an interesting article on the debate among some investors about whether Verizon overspent (about $23 billion) on its fiber optic FiOS network. For most consumers, though, the investment debate is kind of academic. As the article points out, for a $100 billion-a-year company like Verizon, even a FiOS-level expenditure isn’t a back breaker, so it’s not like the managers at Verizon are scrambling to figure out if they can afford pens and toilet paper at the executive offices. The more massive issue, I think, is not whether Verizon can afford the tech investment (they can) or whether the technology is a large upgrade over existing systems (it is). The real concern I’ve, as a FiOS customer, is that Verizon is putting far too much focus on signing up new customers and not enough on expanding its FiOS services to those customers once they sign their contracts. In other words, where the heck are my new high definition Television channels, Verizon? Satellite companies, in particular, are soaring past Verizon in this area, and I’m considering dropping my FiOS TV service this fall when Netflix streaming finally goes live on the Xbox 360. At that point, I’ll be able to get the networks in HD for free via an antenna, stream TV shows from Netflix to my Television via my XBox 360, download HD movies from Microsoft’s own Xbox 360 video store or the Sony PlayStation 3 video store, rent movies from Netflix’s regular rental service, or hook up my laptop to my Television to watch legal videos on a variety of streaming services. In other words, I won’t be missing much, and I won’t have to pay a monthly fee, other than for my Netflix account, which I’m already paying now. Now, if Verizon does roll out a bunch of cool HD channels, I might stick around. But, at this point, they’re not doing much to earn that loyalty. Share This Popularity: 2% [?] Share This

    • Photo of samc

      FiOS: Too Risky?

      http://www.dailywireless.org/2008/08/20/fios-too-risky/
      140 days ago in dailywireless.org · Authority: 156

      Four years ago, Verizon Communications embarked on an ambitious and expensive plan to run fiber optic cables past 19 million homes, roughly half its territory, reports the NY Times. When it was announced, Verizon’s $23 billion planned investment in the service, called FiOS, was met by a chorus of skeptics, both on Wall Street and among rivals. Verizon rejected cheaper broadband alternatives and decided to build the fiber system at an estimated cost of about $4,000 for every customer. Now, as Verizon begins to roll out FiOS in its hometown, New York, the company argues that the service is proving to be more successful than it promised when it started the project. Despite prices that average well above $130 for a bundle of Internet, TV and voice services, 20 percent of the homes where FiOS is available have signed up for its video service, and 24 percent buy the Internet service, which offers speeds up to five times faster than cable competitors. Still, it might be a decade before anyone really knows whether Verizon’s bet on FiOS is a smart investment in the future or a multibillion-dollar black hole. Craig Moffett of Sanford C. Bernstein, has a bearish take on both the traditional wireline phone business and on Verizon’s FiOS effort. Through 2010 the company will pay an average of $817 to run the fiber past the 19 million homes, on poles or under the ground. It will also incur $172 per home passed in other costs related to the video infrastructure. He assumes that 40 percent of the customers passed will buy at least one FiOS service. That makes the cost of building the network $2,473 per home. Once someone decides to buy FiOS, Verizon will spend another $718, as Mr. Moffett calculates it, for equipment in the home and labor. There is another $130 in marketing expenses, and $576 for interest on money spent to build the network before it is completed. All this adds up to $3,897 in capital cost for every FiOS customer. FiOS brings fiber-optic to the house but distributes television using coaxial cable inside the home. The City of Portland is set to mount a city-sponsored “fiber-to-the-premises” initiative (staff report), according to Portland’s Willamette Week newspaper. Commissioner Dan Saltzman is heading the charge along with David Olson, who runs Portland’s cable and franchise office. Count me among the skeptics. I wouldn’t bet against wireless for the last mile. For starters, consider that Clearwire has some 120 MHz in their pipe. That’s ten times the capacity of cellular data — and cheaper to deploy than DSL. And don’t forget speed will be boosted to 100 Mbps (with 802.16m) in a couple of years. Whoa, baby! A public/private partnership with city-sponsored, net-neutral, fiber backbone to neighborhood hubs might make sense as a first step. Fiber to the cell tower. A “net-neutral” approach to hubs might be a good fit for municipalities, lower costs and risks, and draw support from industry. Sell the backhoe. Spending $4K per home seems risky if wireless competitors can deliver 100 Mbps for $100. Look at the options; “white spaces” (in the television band), 700 MHz (licensed), the 1.7/2.1 Ghz band (licensed AWS), the 2.155-2.180GHz (”free” munifi), 2.4GHz (unlicensed wifi), 2.6GHz (licensed wimax), 3.65 GHz (lightly-licensed), 4.9GHz (licensed) public service, 5.4-5.8 GHz (unlicensed wifi/wimax) and 60 GHz (unlicensed). Verizon’s FiOS can deliver 20 Mbps for $70/month — but if wireless can deliver 20Mbps service in a couple of years, it might deliver all you really need — with mobility and open architecture. Triple play. Other fiber optic articles on Dailywireless include; Municipal Fiber: Fits and Starts and Be Your Own Fiber Net.

      • Author unknown

        "They Have 100Mbps Internet In Korea........We Don't Have It Here Because of CORPORATIONS Having Too Much Power!! We Need GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS...."

        http://withintheblackcommunity.blogspot.com/2008/08/they-hav...
        140 days ago in Politics, Policy, Pathology and Hope WITHIN The Black Community · Authority: 9

        I have been hearing this talking point from certain "Technology Socialists" for more than a decade. In their mind such a claim makes for a business case as to why telecom companies should be forced to spend billions of dollars to built out high speed data networks so that they can watch Internet porn on their high definition computer screen yet only pay $14.95 per month. The New York Times did a good job laying out the delicate balance that Verizon Communications faces with its $23 billion investment in their FiOS fiber optic network that they plan to install in all houses in their service footprint. NYT: Verizon’s FiOS: A Smart Bet or a Big Mistake? NYT Blog: A Bear Speaks: Why Verizon’s Pricey FiOS Bet Won’t Pay Off Here is the key point that probably was not stressed enough in either of these two pieces: there is stiff competition in the telecommunications business. Verizon after having paid $4,500 per home must seek to get a return on investment from a customer base that can choose from cable television, wireless and the upcoming WiMax challengers who are all fighting over the same customer base. Throw in the FCC which might force Verizon to resell its fiber access to a competitor who will then use Verizons own fiber to "cut their throat" and you begin to see the high stakes game where you are actually bludgeoned in the market place for daring to put large amount of capital down on building an advanced infrastructure. I am most disturbed by the "Telecom Actor-vists" though. As with most leftists their goal is to shift LIABILITY upon the corporation as they project BENEFIT upon the consumer. In their world - after having forced Verizon to build this fast network at $23 billion and growing - if a new technology came a long in which they are able to achieve their Nirvana - FREE INTERNET FOR THE CONSUMER - they would have no problem casting Verizon aside like last week's fish. These people show little to no understanding about how CAPITAL INVESTMENTS work and the GOVERNMENT POLICIES that are necessary to attract such investments which ultimately work in the public good. They are inclined to, for example support a local government's plan to build fiber to each residence, having government enter into business and thus competition with the telecom firms - for the sake of their spite of these firms. When the government plan CRASHES AND BURNS because of the capital requirements to sustain such a network or because the consumer demand was not as ample as the rosy projections they used in their justification - the tax payer eats the resulting losses. It is far more efficient to have the investors take the hit with a corporation. At least these investors voluntarily chose to put their money in the pot.

        • Author unknown

          Analyzing FiOS from an MBA perspective

          http://journals.aol.com/buckyhoo/UNC/entries/2008/08/19/anal...
          141 days ago in In my mind I'm goin' to Carolina · No authority yet

          Today’s New York Times had an article on the progress that Verizon is making in its endeavor to use fiber optics to deploy internet, video, and landline voice services to major markets around the country. The article interviewed various analysts and industry experts on whether Verizon will ever be able to recoup the $23 billion invested into the FiOS product. The paper’s web site features a very detailed walkthrough of the analysis by Craig Moffett, Harvard Business School alum and analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein, who has been extremely bearish on Verizon’s latest investment. Moffett carefully weights the amount invested into FiOS versus its benefits. His analysis touched on many of the major topics I learned during my first semester in business school. It talked about strategy (a disruptive innovation created a need for traditional telecom companies to respond), finance (tax shield, discounted cash flow), financial accounting (how FiOS allows Verizon to make its balance sheets look better), cost accounting (how to allocate costs to calculate a cost per customer), marketing (lifetime value per customer ), some of the major topics anyone with an MBA is expected to understand. I hope the folks at the Harvard Business School Press decide to write a case on this sometime in the future.

          View all reactions »

Advertise on Technorati

Advertise on Technorati