Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Technology

SBC Planning 15-25Mbps DSL Networks 387

Posted by timothy from the planning-is-one-thing dept.
Tuxedo Jack writes "The Register reports that SBC has begun planning a massive network upgrade which will push fiber connections deeper into subdivisions and neighborhoods than before, resulting in incredibly fast DSL speeds for home users. Their current estimate for down/up speeds are 15-25mb/s down and 1-3mb/s up (mega_bits_, not bytes). SBC's press release goes into depth about this."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SBC Planning 15-25Mbps DSL Networks More

SBC Planning 15-25Mbps DSL Networks

Comments Filter:

  • Deregulation is working (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SIGALRM ( 784769 ) * on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @12:27PM (#9509204) Journal
    From the SBC press release [sbc.com]:

    The recent decision by the Bush Administration to allow unlawful telephone wholesale rules to lapse and let stand the FCC's decision not to unbundle broadband is a positive step

    As much as I disagree with the administration on many issues, last year's decision by the FCC [com.com] to deregulate fiber networks was a positive step in the right direction. Loosening broadband rules will restore some competition in the industry; and we may see lowering prices for telephone and internet services.

    However, although I look forward to fiber-to-the-curb, it'll be awhile, at least in my subdivision.

    • Re:Deregulation is working (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Monkelectric ( 546685 ) <slashdot@monkelectric . c om> on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @12:39PM (#9509362)
      um? Bundling broadband is a travesty. In my town there are two choices for broadband internet: Adeplhia Cable or Verizon DSL. Verizon DSL is *HORRIBLY* oversubscribed and slow, so I choose adelphia internet. But I can only get adelphia internet by subscrining to adelphia cable TV.

      Adelphia cable TV is *TERRIBLE*. Digital Cable looks like *CRAP* and they keep moving services over to it and taking them away from analog cable. They lie, cheat, steal (sending out letters telling you to "come pick up" a new cable box -- not telling you they charge for them monthly!) And no cartoon network! And did I mention all this service costs far more then dish?

      Basically, bundling is a bend over and take it.

      • Re:Deregulation is working (Score:5, Insightful)

        by SIGALRM ( 784769 ) * on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @12:42PM (#9509404) Journal
        Bundling broadband is a travesty

        I don't disagree. However, the FCC decision was aimed at not forcing service companies to unbundle broadband from their other offerings.

        • Re:Deregulation is working (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Penguinshit ( 591885 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @12:49PM (#9509503) Homepage Journal

          If you think Michael Powell is deregulating to benefit the consumer, you're drinking too much of the Koo-aid...

          That same FCC decision, IIRC, also allowed the local baby-Bells to charge whatever they want for access to their networks by other carriers. That effectively *destroys* competition for last-mile service.

          I have yet to see a decrease in consumer prices in any such circumstance...

          • Re:Deregulation is working (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward
            I have yet to see a decrease in consumer prices

            What planet have you been living on? I used to pay $90 for what now costs me $29/mo. And who cares what Powell's motives are. As long as it *does* benefit the consumers, isn't that the most important thing?

            I think parent is a tiny part flamebait.

            • No flame at all.

              And you don't think that price decrease is because the technology is pretty much ubiquitous and widely used? Sorry bub, but deregulation has exactly *zero* to do with the decreased price of broadband.

              Just look what deregulation did for California's electricity customers...

              • Re:Deregulation is working (Score:5, Insightful)

                by Ranten_N_Raven ( 220310 ) <[ranten.n.raven] [at] [sbcglobal.net]> on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:54PM (#9510387) Journal
                Just look what deregulation did for California's electricity customers...

                Horsepucky.

                California did something they called "deregulation," but it was actually screwed-up re-regulation. They actually forbade local power companies from entering into long-term contracts. This forced them into the spot market, where prices rise fast. Enron took advantage of that -- they were under no long-term contracts for that power, so let the buyer beware. Negotiated, long-term contracts would have saved the CA public $Billions, but the legislature said "no,"

                The government set the rules in a way that ensured somebody would get rich off the taxpayers. Isn't that how it always works?

                Don't blame "deregulation" when real deregulation had nothing to do with it.
              • Just look what deregulation did for California's electricity customers...
                California didn't deregulate utilities, it just removed consumer protections. It reaped what it sowed.
          • That same FCC decision, IIRC, also allowed the local baby-Bells to charge whatever they want for access to their networks by other carriers. That effectively *destroys* competition for last-mile service.

            A little clarification - the FCC decision affects UNE-P access, but not UNE-L access. The difference is that UNE-L is just the twisted pair from the CO to the premises, UNE-P is where the CLEC would be using the ILEC's DSLAM or switch. Unfortunately the FTTP and FTTN would be covered by the UNE-P rules.

          • Re:Deregulation is working (Score:5, Insightful)

            by daviddennis ( 10926 ) * <david@amazing.com> on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @02:13PM (#9510620) Homepage
            Pacific Bell (well, SBC but I still like to call them by their old name) was forced to offer their services to wholesalers at giveaway rates to produce "competition". Considering that the same network was being used, I'm unsure as to what kind of benefits this really provides; it's still SBC's lines and network no matter who you use, and lower rates for the free-riders like MCI make it harder for Pac Bell to invest and maintain their network. The only real consequence of this "competition" is marginally lower prices and annoying telephone calls asking you to switch your local service.

            If there was some way we could encourage parallel networks to be built and create real competition, I'd encourage it - and in fact, we have this with telephone and cable companies fighting for our business with separate networks.

            This massive investment proposed by Pacific Bell gives me real hope for huge speeds right to my door, letting me run a serious web server farm or whatever else I wanted to do. (And yes, that's permitted under their DSL contract for my $79.95 a month static IP, 1.5/256 service). If I could get 25mb/3mb service instead, you can bet I'd be pleased as punch. And you bet I'd be grateful for the suspension of this "competition" rule that allowed SBC to make this enormous investment.

            Although I know SBC is a wretched monopoly, I've always thought it as best of the Bells. Their DSL technical support may be abysmal, but service and speeds are a heck of a lot better and cheaper than I got with Covad.

            At least from my point of view, Hurrah for the Evil Monopoly - sometimes, even thought we may hate to admit it, they're better than their competition!

            D

            • Re:Deregulation is working (Score:4, Insightful)

              by fingusernames ( 695699 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @06:21PM (#9513174) Homepage
              AT&T was given a government mandated monopoly. They were given access to public ways often for free. They were given all sorts of benefits with the aim to provide telephone service to every last house in the nation. I find it difficult to feel that it is 'their' network.

              Today, the network built over the last century belongs to the dwindling number of Baby Bell (RBOC) descendants of AT&T. The public deserves to get something back in return for all the benefits accrued to the RBOCs over nearly a century. Mandating that that network be shared in order to promote the public interest is an insignificant price to pay.

              Agreed, however, PUC mandated rates are sometimes too low, sometimes too high. Public commissions deciding tariff rates is a problem.

              An infinitely better solution would have been structural separation years ago: force the Bells to separate into multiple companies. One which manages the physical network infrastructure and charges all competitors the EXACT SAME rate for access to that network, and other company(ies) that provide services to business and consumer customers.

              The fact is that for a long, long time, competition was ILLEGAL. RBOCs had a protected monopoly. Forcing other companies to build parallel networks rather than forcing the sharing of the existing network built with public legal protection and often public funds along the limited public right-of-way in our alleys, along our railroads, and beneath our roads is just wrong. It is a viewpoint which is oblivious to the history of the regulated and subsidized telecommunitions history of this nation. The Bells were given those protections because it is terribly expensive to build those networks. Same for the monopolies given to cable companies. Yet now we expect new entrants to the market to incur those network costs, sans the decades of monopoly protection to recoup the investment?

              The only saving grace is that wireless technologies will be able to provide competition without needing to string wires all across the nation again. Hopefully it will be true competition, among multiple nimble local/regional competitors, not national goliaths like Comcast or SBC, which will be only too happy to stamp out all other competition and maintain a duopoly.

              And one last comment. SBC in Illinois claimed that the POTS line (UNE-P) lease rate of about $12/mo paid by CLECs was *FAR* below their cost, and they lost big money every month on that. Looking at my SBC bill, I pay $5.61 for my line charge, and $4.50 for my "federal access charge" which is actually money SBC gets but they get to call it that. Everything else on my bill is option and tax (though some of that goes to SBC too).

              Yet, did SBC lobby the PUC to raise the tariffs for what they charge me? No. They're apparently at least content with my $10.11 a month. I'm sure they make most profit on the extra optional services, but I'm also sure they squeak out at least a little from my $10.11.

              So what did SBC attempt to get the CLEC UNE-P lease rate set to? Nearly TWENTY FIVE DOLLARS per month. Well over twice what SBC charges me, the consumer. My total phone bill, for TWO lines, including local long distance, with caller id, name display, second ring tone, taxes and fees is less than $35 a month from SBC. With SBC's proposed rate hike, a competitor would have had to charge me nearly $50/mo, BEFORE extras, taxes, fees and so on to provide the same.

              In the end, the rate hike was to $19/mo. Meaning that a competitor would have to charge a bare profitless minimum of $38/mo to pay SBC for what SBC gives me for $35/mo total.

              Yes, I feel so sorry for poor, poor SBC.

              Larry
        • Yea, but when I go to the store to buy macaroni and cheese, they don't say "we'll only sell you macaroni and cheese if you buy this stick of butter for 8$ You probably wanted butter right? That GOES WITH macaroni and cheese, right? Oh, by the way, the butter is expired, and its terrible butter...BUT! You can only get broadband errr macaroni and cheese at our store."

          Bundling is the anthesis of a free market. If I want dish network and a cable modem, theres no reason I shouldn't have it.

          Ever notice ho

          • Fiscal conservatives never do that. Robber barons, on the other hand, do that all the time.

          • Re:Deregulation is working (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Douglas Simmons ( 628988 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:18PM (#9509873) Homepage
            Bundling is the anthesis of a free market.

            Bundling is *not* the antithesis of a free market. Not being able to offer bundled services is.

            Now, that one can't find what they're looking for like unbundled and cheaper services, as in this case, that suggests that the market is young and not enough competition has moved into town. Also, keep in mind for these larger providers that providing someone with one service in addition to the other, both of which they are mass providers, may not add much to their overhead; so to debundle and offer something at half the price might narrow their profit margin.

            So, if you think there are enough people like you who are getting the shaft and that there is demand for what you want, start your own ISP or whatever and tap that market yourself. If you do and you don't make money, well, it looks like the ISPs were making the right business decision regarding their pricing models for their services.

      • But I can only get adelphia internet by subscrining to adelphia cable TV.

        I have Adelphia Powerlink (in Buffalo, NY), and don't have cable. Just the internet access, nothing else.

      • Comcast sells cable modem without cable tv. They do charge $10/mo more though.

        The reason they're taking stuff away from analog cable is that every analog channel they free up lets them air several more digital channels, or support hundreds more cable modem subscribers on the same segment.

        • Nah, not in this case. They took away cinemax and hbo from basic cable and moved them to digital. Curiously, they did it *THE WEEK OF THE SOPRANOS SERIES FINALE*. Thats no co-incidence my friend :)

          And BTW, BZBOYZ is bullshit :)

      • I agree whole heartedly about Adelphia! But Verizon lies, cheats and steals too. Their internet lookup for DSL availability said it was available for my phone number. After 5 postponements pushing my start date back, they finally cancelled my order with no explanation or anything. When I called to find out why, they tell me it isn't available. After talking to a dozen different people and departments, some of them promising to call me back with a reason (never did) all I could get was I was to far from thei
      • I agree about Adelphia. I was stuck using them for broadband for 2 years and had countless periods of downtime. Downtime would often be for days. Tech support had a horrible wait time and never admitted to network problems.

        So what did i do when I moved and I had a choice of broadband providers? Any provider but Adelphia and it will stay that way as long as I had a choice.

    • Re:Deregulation is working (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dasmegabyte ( 267018 ) <das@OHNOWHATSTHISdasmegabyte.org> on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @12:54PM (#9509565) Homepage Journal
      Actually, if history has proven anything it's that deregulation in a telecommunications industry decreases overall expansion.

      The idea is that, outside of regulation, telecommunications tend to settle on "safe" levels of service, where margins are highest but R&D suffers. With regulation, that same level becomes unsafe as margins decrease and competition on the regulated low-end service becomes stagnant. The thought process goes something like this: We are regulated. We have to charge a specific price for baseline service, where both the price and the baseline are mandated. Therefore, if we want to raise revenues, we will need to create a demand for a more expensive service ABOVE baseline, and we will need to push our boundaries into new territories. The cable industry developed cable broadband, digital cable, addressable cable and on-demand pay-per-view as means to maximize profits during their strong regulation period (from 1992 on).

      Of course, if you're in a regulated industry it's hard to see the forest for the trees. It looks like the government is forcing you to do what you don't want to do, and that's lose money on a cheap baseline service (many cable companies broke even on regulated "basic" cable). Therefore, when you exit regulation the natural reaction is to raise prices, let service fall off and enjoy your freedom. Some say this is what killed various airlines after THEY became dereg'd.

      Anyhow, it's good to see SBC upping their network. But I'd say that deregulation of fiber had little to do with the decision. I'd also like to point out that regulating all broadband providers to offer 512/128 service at $30 would create a ton of very profitable high speed options at the same price we pay now for that speed. Prices stay the same, but service goes up...or did you think SBC's new supercoolfast DSL was gonna be $50?

      • Not quite true... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by sterno ( 16320 )
        While that may be the trend, it's because of lack of competition more than anything else. Historically, there's been very few ways of getting information into people's homes. At first there was only phone lines, then cable came along and more recently wireless has started to show up.

        Ultimately if you control those pipes and you are the only game in town, you have no incentive to innovate. Why upgrade your network to charge another $5/month for services when you can just charge another $5/month.

        I don't

      • Re:Deregulation is working (Score:4, Insightful)

        by BryanR1977 ( 676402 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @02:06PM (#9510543)
        "I'd also like to point out that regulating all broadband providers to offer 512/128 service at $30 would create a ton of very profitable high speed options at the same price we pay now for that speed." That's a joke right? As I CLEC I know 1st hand what the costs are involved with delivering DSL. $30 for 512/128 might work for the ILECS, but we're charged $28/mo per copper loop to deliver DSL, now that the FCC has taken Line-sharing out of our hands the telso's won't provide it (because the no longet have to). Think about it all but $2 of your proposed price point just cover loop charges. $2/mo isn't a lot of money to cover bandwith/staff/co-location facilities. Now before the FCC stepped in and diluted the 1996 telco act we could get loops for ~$9/mo and lineshare at $0/mo and would have been happy to provide DSL at damn near dial-up prices, instead we're locked into 256/1500 @ $40/mo with slim margins (dial-up is more profitable at $15/mo) The only way we can increase margins now is to bundle it with our local phone service. Too bad we just got a letter from the ILEC saying that they will no longer allow that practice in 6 months, we can however resell their service for a (substansially) higher cost. Bottom line, if you're not Verizon,SBC, other ILECs, the FCC has made it so you can't play ball only 8 years after making it look like you could.
    • Out here in the more rural areas of our nation, we're still struggling to get halfway decent modem connections. Deregulation may be helping people in the city get boatloads of bandwidth, but those of us unfortunate enough to live in the boonies have to fend for ourselves.
  • Another network for SBC to get blacklisted at dsbl. They need to learn to administer their network before they expand it.

    • Re:Oh goody (Score:3, Interesting)

      by putzin ( 99318 )

      No, this is a marketing ploy. They say they increase the speed, then give you the run around when you subscribe so you never actually get the service, and SBC essentially becomes a bank. They keep your money for a while, take the interest, and then eventually give it back when they can't deliver or stall anymore. Not a bad deal if you ask me. They are guarunteed not go out of business for doing this, and they can probably turn millions on the interest payments alone. Nice racket if you can swing it.

      That sa

  • I hope they include firewalls (Score:4, Interesting)

    by PornMaster ( 749461 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @12:30PM (#9509224) Homepage
    I sincerely hope that SBC includes managed firewall appliances with the service. Pricing should be high enough to include a minimally managed CPE for those who want one.

    -PM

  • and a price increase? (Score:4, Funny)

    by WormholeFiend ( 674934 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @12:30PM (#9509225)
    My cable ISP is offering me an upgrade from 3 to 5mbps for a 50% increase of my bill...
    • I had a cable modem from comcast. One day I recieved a letter in the mail telling me to reboot the modem to update the firmware and I would see a speed bump. It went to 3 megs/sec and I didn't pay a dime extra for it. This is why competition works and regulations suck monkey balls
      • Comcast did the same thing for me, and they were the only option for >1Mbps service in my area.

        They might be competing for service in your area, but when my only other options are dialup or 512k DSL, there's not much competition.

    • My ISP, Comcast, just doubled my speed for free (I think 1.5 to 3.0). All I had to do was unplug my modem for a few minutes, then plug it back in (well, that's what they said; in reality, I just turned it off).

      I hate Comcast as much as the next guy; bundling, shitty customer service, moronic tech support ... but I'd rather pay $40 and hassle with them (and my dynamic IP) occasionally than pay an extra $20 for speakeasy.

  • Piracy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xplosiv ( 129880 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @12:34PM (#9509288)
    The MPAA is going to love this, NOT. I can imagine the day already where they will convince ISP's (or lobby the right people) to slow down network speeds in order to curb piracy (just like most cars have speed governors, eventho it is mostly for safety reasons).

    • Re:Piracy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by thedillybar ( 677116 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @12:42PM (#9509407)
      >just like most cars have speed governors, eventho it is mostly for safety reasons

      They're not exactly governors, but the speed-limiting devices on automobiles these days are for safety, because automobile manufacturers fear lawsuits. They're set at the maximum speed that the tire manufacturer (original tires) will certify their tires to withstand over a long period of time in less-than-ideal circumstances.

      As soon as ISPs start being held responsible for their customers downloading movies, they will consider bandwidth limitations and other methods to prevent customers from downloading movies. Until then, I doubt they'll even think twice.

    • Re:Piracy (Score:3, Insightful)

      by NanoGator ( 522640 )
      "The MPAA is going to love this, NOT."

      The attitude in general they have pisses me off. They don't see a new broadcast medium that offers exciting new capabilities, they see their customers magically becoming thieves. Then, they cause that prophecy to become fulfilled by airing anti-piracy commercials that inform people they can download movies for free of the internet.

      Hey McFly?!

  • Bottleneck (Score:5, Insightful)

    by blackmonday ( 607916 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @12:34PM (#9509290) Homepage
    With all those zombies mailing out spam, I have to wince at the possibility of removing the 128k upload bottleneck. Stay in your seats, more spam is on the way. On the good side, with a static IP address you can now host an (amateur) radio/video site from home, thats important to me and my band.

    • >With all those zombies mailing out spam, I have to wince at the possibility of removing the 128k upload bottleneck.

      I haven't seen any data to backup the fact that bandwidth is the limiting factor in how much spam these zombies can send. They constantly need to be updated with new address lists and new spam messages to be effective. I think these limit them more than bandwidth. But I have no data either...just guessing.

      • Re:Bottleneck (Score:2, Insightful)

        by trentblase ( 717954 )
        They constantly need to be updated with new address lists and new spam messages to be effective

        That doesn't seem to stop them from sending me the same offer a few times a week.

    • Re:Bottleneck (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @12:45PM (#9509437)
      Actually, some engineers at SBC are working this very moment to implement an opt-out outbound port 25 blocker. With proper advance notice, all customers will have 25 blocked on the router (except to our SMTP servers), and a simple web page will allow customers to enable this if they choose. This works on the assumption that if someone needs to hit an alternative SMTP server, they are probably competent enough to keep their systems clean. Even if optted-out customers do get zombified, they will be a very fraction of a small minority.

      (Posted anonymously because I work for SBC Operations, and don't want to pass this by legal)

      • Re:Bottleneck (Score:2, Interesting)

        by BitchKapoor ( 732880 )
        Why can't the zombie program just connect to the website and enable port 25? Many people probably have their browsers remembering their passwords.
        • I'm just speculating here; but it might require a captcha (yeah, I know, easily beaten) or some series of info that's not necessarily "remembered" - address, phone #, the CC# of the account, mother's maiden name, whatever.

          Knowing how smart these companies are, I doubt it'll happen. But hopefully ...
    • Exactly. Plus a fat upload would allow better game servers, which need much more than 128kbps

  • Fiber (Score:5, Funny)

    by L. VeGas ( 580015 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @12:34PM (#9509295) Homepage Journal
    I guess it's true that fiber is good for you.

  • This would be an awesome upgrade (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TheMadPenguin ( 662390 ) * on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @12:34PM (#9509297) Homepage
    I currently run on a 3MB/256k cable connection for home usage and it works well, so I can only imagine what a service like this would be like... and COST. It seems to me that it would be out of the price range of most home users for quite some time. I definitely don't see myself running out to buy one anytime soon, even though the added bandwidth would be nice. I run a VoIP connection for our phone service (which utilized 90k up/down total) so it would be nice to beef up the upstream. This is lacking on most providers from my experience. Everything works great for me unless I happen to be talking on the phone and uploading large files to the Internet at the same time... then it makes for hard conversation as the upload chokes the phone.
    • and COST

      The thing you have to bear in mind about the services that the telcos provide is that the price you pay doesn't actually have much relation to the cost to the telco. So just because an X bps connection costs Y today, doesn't mean that 10xX bps connection will cost 10xY tomorrow. At least where I am, the streets are full of dark fiber (fiber optic cable that is not being used).
  • I've RTFA, but couldn't find any information to answer this:

    As an SBC user currently considering switching to cable, I'm wondering if, when they upgrade the lines, I will be upgraded for free, or if they'll charge me for it. I can probably assume it's the latter, but I can only be hopeful until then.

    Then again, if I can get 25 Mbps for a few extra Franklins a year, who really cares?

    If anyone knows any information about the upgrades regarding pricing for users (SBC has always been really dodgy about
  • After growing accustomed to the Internet connection speeds available on most campuses, I will gladly pay extra and switch services for this increase in bandwidth.

    And anyone who says it costs too much...why are you still paying the ridiculous rates for cable TV or satellite TV? If you refuse to pay the high rates for Internet or TV, then you may actually have a point. Most people don't.

  • 15-25mbps... (Score:4, Informative)

    by __aambat2633 ( 758228 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @12:36PM (#9509315)
    15-25mbps...
    Here in Sweden we have had 24mbps dsl network for quite some time now... both vdsl and adsl2+

    • Re:15-25mbps... (Score:3, Informative)

      by Paulrothrock ( 685079 )
      Yes, but Sweden is a very small country compared to the US. I doubt I'll ever see a 25Mbps DSL line in my neighborhood, being 17,000 feet from the CO.
    • .. we have states bigger than your entire country. So the distance problem comes up a lot.
    • 15-25mbps...

      Here in Sweden we have had 24mbps dsl network for quite some time now... both vdsl and adsl2+

      And in Tokyo the porn stars personally come out to give you the blowjob.. it's that fast.

    • Re:15-25mbps... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by NanoGator ( 522640 )
      "Here in Sweden we have had 24mbps dsl network for quite some time now... both vdsl and adsl2+"

      I have 3 megabits now, and at my previous job we had a 7-megabit line. I've only run into a couple of sites that could saturate either one. (Microsoft has kick ass hosting, btw.) Have you found a lot of benefit for having that much speed? (I imagine that in Sweden, you look at different sites than I do?) Just curious if you'd notice the difference between the two. I saw a huge difference going from 768k to

  • About fsking time, but don't hold your breath (Score:4, Informative)

    by HotNeedleOfInquiry ( 598897 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @12:36PM (#9509325)
    Anyone remember Pacbell's (aka SBC) 80's statement that "Fibre to the Curb" was just around the corner. Well, I'd say it's just about time.
  • ...is that they're going to be using VDSL to go from nodes to homes.

    Pushing fiber farther out and closer to customers is a good thing, and concentrating on putting FTTH in new neighborhoods rather than having to tear up old ones is a smart thing. Me and my 6M/512K SBC DSL will be happy to upgrade when this becomes available.

    • Pushing fiber farther out and closer to customers is a good thing, and concentrating on putting FTTH in new neighborhoods rather than having to tear up old ones is a smart thing.

      It's a stupid, stupid thing. You'll give people one more reason to leave their old homes, further increasing suburban sprawl, further lengthening the distances people have to drive, and further increasing our reliance on fossil fuels to simply move our asses around.

      I like where I live. I don't want to move just to get high-speed I

  • Where? When? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by crotherm ( 160925 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @12:41PM (#9509389) Journal

    Being an SBC DSL customer, this would be welcome news, but the question I have is, Where will this happen, when? Living in a neighborhood that is not quite on top of the charts, I wonder if it may take years before I see any activity in this area.

    Are there any SBC folks who would know of any pending time schedules?

  • heh (Score:5, Informative)

    by TheHawke ( 237817 ) <{rchapin} {at} {stx.rr.com}> on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @12:44PM (#9509428)
    We'll see this in about 5 years or so once sbc get's done with the litigation with the ILECS and CLECS regarding the so-called "free" useage of sbc's equipment. By that time, the last mile may be owned by either cable, ElectricDSL or wireless. Here in the rural areas, it maybe ten years before we even get to see the entire community sees full coverage by the CLEC, particulary how sbc is dealing with their repair crews and logistics.

    They baited my company with their sales pitch, saying that DSL was available at the new office we were moving into, then a week later, the day before opening day, the tech comes in and shoots us down, saying that we were 19,753 feet from the CO.. I turned to cheater (Charter) cable and they bent some corporate rules getting us a business account forged and a line put in the next day. The reserved IP was assigned that same day, just needed to feed them the MAC address of our router to make it formal. We opened our doors a day late.

    The day I trust a telco to do their job properly will be the day I die.

  • Faster drop-outs, too? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Penguinshit ( 591885 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @12:45PM (#9509443) Homepage Journal

    Does that mean I can expect a commensurate increase in the frequency of network outtages? I consult for an SBC (PacBell) customer. Most of the employees there also use PacBell DSL at home. Every one of them, including the business account, frequently drop off the 'Net for periods ranging from 5 to 45 minutes at least once per week. SBC-Yahoo-PacBell doesn't seem to see this as a problem.

    It was also an exercise in frustration to get the business account (one of PacBell's first business DSL customers) switched from an all-copper-to-the-CO connection to a short copper run to the fiber BBox in the parking lot. The original line had been moved so far down the chain that the signal had degraded to the point that the SiNR was well below minimum service level. It had been this way for quite a while (before I started servicing this small office). It took me a year to diagnose (by working with the local technicians responding to my trouble tickets) and get PacBell to do anything about it. At the suggestion of one of the field techs I worked with, I actually had to drop the original account and sign up for "new" service (which would automatically be assigned a circuit routed through the fiber drop less than 100 meters from the customer).

    PS: I've advised the customer to switch carriers, or at least get a dedicated line (so as to combine voice/data, solving a whole host of other issues) but the owner is a cheap-ass (who I know doesn't read Slashdot...) and doesn't want to "change email addresses".

    <Sigh>...
    • and doesn't want to "change email addresses".

      So many people and companies get screwed because they get thier bandwidth and email from the same provider. I tell all my clients to get thier bandwidth separatly from email, and that way they can change either provider with out problems like this.

      This one item is a dirtly little secret that most IPSs will not tell you about.

    • As a business customer of a competing telco outfit we had issues a few years ago with their provided DSL uptime too. But unfortunately there wasn't an official Service Level Agreement in place. All I could so was complain and issue status updates to our endusers.

      Back at a prior job we had an SLA in place with another carrier. But it paid pennies on the dollar in terms of compenstation for downtime. Just some meaningless service credits.

      Here's an example. You state that your client is down up to 45 minutes

    • Does that mean I can expect a commensurate increase in the frequency of network outtages? I consult for an SBC (PacBell) customer. Most of the employees there also use PacBell DSL at home. Every one of them, including the business account, frequently drop off the 'Net for periods ranging from 5 to 45 minutes at least once per week. SBC-Yahoo-PacBell doesn't seem to see this as a problem.

      I hate to sound like a jerk, but you get what you pay for. Furthermore, 5-45 minutes a week isn't the end-of-the-worl


      • Sorry, I should have stated that the "once a week" is just a loose average. Many times it would drop out a few times per day (once for the entire day).

        The office is a mortgage broker, and most of the lending institutions have gone to on-line submissions. Having the business go off-line for a day (or towards the end of the day, near the deadline for loan approval submissions) can mean the difference between 1/4 and 1/2 percentage rate for a mortgage (which is "locked" at the time of initial loan approval

  • "In most cases, SBC companies would deploy Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) for new network builds, such as developing subdivisions. While well-suited for new construction, the cost, deployment time and customer inconvenience required for FTTP deployment in existing neighborhoods makes widespread deployment impractical for SBC companies and potentially undesirable for some customers.

    In existing neighborhoods, SBC companies would use Fiber to the Node (FTTN) technology to run fiber much deeper in its network t

    • I know that in Nothern Virginia, where I used to live, despite that fact I lived 10 minutes from AOL and Worldcom headquarters in a housing development less than 5 years old and was 10,000 ft from the CO, I wasn't able to get highspeed internet access. I know a couple of people who chose areas that specifically promised high speed. I instead moved into DC about 5000 feet from the CO, into an area over 200 years old where high speed is available.
  • NTT DoCoMo announces they'll be upgrading Tokyo and the surrounding areas' lines to 15-25 tbps.

  • Just a way for the phone company to do cable TV (Score:5, Insightful)

    by shoppa ( 464619 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @12:50PM (#9509507)
    Remember all the companies in the late 90's announcing that backbone bandwidth will be cheaper than air? (QWest, etc.) Here we are in 2004, and Slashdotters reading the press releases seem to assume that their cost for bandwidth to the backbone will be nearly free, yet a T-1 (1.5 Mbps, a tenth of what the article is about) is still realistically several hundred dollars a month. Yeah, if you buy a T-3 or OC-whatever that peers to the Internet then it gets cheaper in volume, but not by a whole lot.

    I mean, it's great that we are making progress in bandwidth and reducing cost to get from the phone office to the house, but with connectivity to the backbone still costing as much as it does, do we honestly believe that the effective bandwidth to what we now call "the Internet" backbone will be so cheap that we can ignore it?

    I see this as just a way for the phone companies to become another media company and sell the usualy junk on commercial and cable TV, with the phone company now getting some of the profits (where some == "as much as they can gouge the user for").

    Just me being cynical.

  • To quote from this [newsfactor.com] article:

    "The speed of fiber make advanced broadband offerings -- especially high definition TV -- possible, SBC says, because the technology allows download speeds as high as 25 megabits per second and upload speeds of as much as 3 Mbps. Television services will be based on Microsoft's Internet protocol TV platform, which has been tested by telecoms in India, Canada and Europe.

    "IPTV uses the newest Windows Media Series 9 video-compression technology, but some experts question whether

  • After years of no cable and me being 22,000 feet from the CO, will they finally upgrade the network so I can get DSL? I can only pray. Hell, at this point I'm praying for something other than flakey 26.4k. Even 48k would be nice.
  • I'm not familiar with Microsoft TV IPTV. Any competing products, presumably FOSS ones?

  • Block incoming ports (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Twillerror ( 536681 ) * on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:12PM (#9509802) Homepage Journal
    These ISP should consider blocking incoming ports for homes, minus ports need to say run an IP over phone service. Of course smart people will use the port, but if the port is actually rated differently then they might not.

    This would stop the spread of viruses, because no one could be connected to. I'm behind a firewall, and except for my Overnet forwarded ports I have no need ( and you know that I really don't need Overnet ).

    This would be the biggest difference between home and business accounts. On the home side opening up a port for their IP phone based service would be key. They could allow unlimited calls in their network, and charge lower fees for others.

    If made standard enough then a whole slew of other companies could compete against each other. You pay SBC for the open port, then pay the other provider for the phone services. 5 bucks a month for the port, and then the rest based on usage with the actually phone company. Phones calls made to other Voice-IPs on a different network are rated lower, then those with a normal POT line.

    At the same time they should allow ports to be opened, and then charge bandwith. So you could run a web server they open up port 80, at the same time you actually get a free firewall of sorts.

    Piracy would not happen so much if the entertainment industries would get there heads out of their buts and offer good digital forms of albums and movies at affordable prices. The fact that no one has come up with a good "record" file that contains all the tracks of a record is proof of this.

    Being able to download movies that are playing in the theatures for 15 bucks is essentially the same thing as going to theature. Yes you loose some money when two or more people see it, but you don't have to pay to distribute it, or take cuts from the venues themselves.

    Chances are you might loose some DVD sales, but people buy DVDs to have a permanent high quality copy of video. I'd still buy the DVDs so I could then encode them to Tivo like device ( at the least my current favorites ) and then be able to do it again when I upgrade, or the hardware fails.
    Backing up 100s of movies can be kind of a daunty task for a technical person, and impossible for your average consumer.

    Even if the viewer program deleted the file after 2 weeks that would keep most people from keeping them forever, most people feel better about doing something the right way.

    In short I think we need to find a balance. The wild west days of the internet need to stop for better security, and better QOS. Yes I think we need the ability for people to distribute information more freely, but that is what bloggs are doing. How many of use really need to run a web server on the internet anymore, especially with all the blogs, and free web space provided by ISPs. The answer is your really don't, except that it feels like freedom is being taken away by not having them. Freedom comes with cost, and the cost of this freedom has shown to be great, the cost has been spam and worms.

  • This is just a lobbying piece (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:18PM (#9509882) Homepage
    This isn't a product announcement. It's a lobbying push. SBC is trying to make unbundled fibre, "naked DSL" and third-party ISPs go away. Again.

    It's the same bogus promises the telcos have been making for years. If only they were given unregulated monopoly power, they'd provide more bandwidth.

    Here's SBC's announcement of fibre to the home in 2002. [fibers.org] Where is that now?

  • Better phone quality?!? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Controlio ( 78666 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:26PM (#9509998)
    I can't wait for FTTP, if only so it lowers the buy-in cost of upgrading the phone system as a whole.

    I mean, come on. It's 2004. Why is it that we have private individuals developing spacecraft, yet it still takes me an entire sentence to describe to someone on the other end of the phone whether I said "S" or "F"?!? It makes no sense.

    Increasing the quality of the telephone should be a major priority, for a great deal of reasons. Reduction of errors in transmission or understanding, safety reasons (911 calls or voice matching a criminal), far superior modem capabilities... the benefits would be endless.

    And before you say "no one would spend the money on a better quality phone line", think about all of the people who make money off of phone calls. Broadcasters who have reporters do lives from a phone line to save costs on microwave trucks, radio call-in shows, news services who rely on phone-in reporting... a lot of people would help invest in a better telephone network - mainly because they would all benefit greatly from it.

    If we finally get FTTP, and the majority of the phone network becomes packetized (VoIP or not) so that you're only transporting data and not voltage, the buy-in and initial investment in getting "Hi-Def Phones" to work will be minimal, and maybe it'll push things along much quicker.

  • That would explain the questions... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DaoudaW ( 533025 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:27PM (#9510003)
    That would explain the questions I was asked before I could get help for my sbc telephone account this week. I called the help desk regarding long distance usage and they started asking me all kinds of question about whether I use cable or satellite for my television. No. No. How much would you be willing to pay? Etc, etc. It bugged me at the time, but if they're willing to give me that kind of bandwidth it'd be worth the price.

  • Interesting part of the article... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by GPLDAN ( 732269 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:27PM (#9510013)
    The Microsoft TV IPTV platform would make it possible to deliver standard-and high-definition TV programming to multiple TV sets in the home over an FTTN network while leaving ample bandwidth available for super high-speed broadband and Voice over IP (VoIP) services.

    A motion JPEG stream of a NTSC signal takes about 8Mb/s. With Divx and Xvid and other newer MPEG compressions that may have come down.

    Cable's value is that it can package analog or digital offerings on the same coax that brings you data digitally. DSL was just about data. But with Video Over IP and de-regulation, we reset the table. Now Telcos have an advantage again. Converged services over IP, esp. voice and video. This puts Vonage and their ilk and Comcast in a position to ward these off. Why use Vonage over the Internet with no service levels, when you can use IP telephony over the DSL provider network with service guarantees? The only reason would be cost.

    Comcast may fight back with partnerships to offer voice in a bundle. Vonage's offering already goes a long way to destroying the E.164 convention. I live in one state and have 4 phone numbers on my line, the last 3 being in different states so people can call me without toll to them. International prefixes and U.S. area codes will simply vanish.

  • SBC distracting its customers.... (Score:3, Informative)

    by NeoSkandranon ( 515696 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:46PM (#9510264)
    SBC is basically providing an "OOOoh shiny!" to its customers to cover for its absolutely pathetic service. I have friends in kansas city and texas who have SBC DSL, and I'd be willing to wager it goes out at least once a day if not more so, for often enough to disrupt downloads and instant messaging, if not for hours at a time

  • SBC = huge spammer (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mabu ( 178417 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @02:15PM (#9510648)
    Let them pump broadband wherever they want. It just means they connect to my mail server a little faster before I refuse to accept their mail and hang up on 'em. SBC has been one of the largest sources of spam in the last year.

    They'd be wise to spend some of their resources to stop the huge flow of spam across their network first and foremost. Or their broadband customers will be further alienated from the Internet proper and all that bandwidth won't make a difference.

  • I just want freaking DSL... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by silicon not in the v ( 669585 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @03:33PM (#9511553) Journal
    of ANY kind to my house--I don't care what speed. I'm stuck with ^%&*#$ CableOne internet for $45 a month, and DSL isn't supported on my line. Qwest just started offering unbundled DSL service for about $15 a month (plus a few bucks for a cheap ISP), and I can't get it!

    This is Boise Idaho, so we're not exactly on the leading edge of technology.

  • WHATEVER..... (Score:3, Informative)

    by 4ginandtonics ( 455958 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @03:50PM (#9511726)
    Yeah, WHATEVER, SBC...

    I'm still waiting for SBC's Project Pronto [internetnews.com].

    Where'd that go? Well, it went nowhere fast [broadbandweek.com]

    Sometimes I wonder if SBC says these things just to scare away their competition.

  • 15-25Mbps? Pathetic... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by The Lynxpro ( 657990 ) <lynxproNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @04:02PM (#9511821)
    SBC should be able to do better than that. Surewest Broadband here in Sacramento is fibre to the house. They hit 100Mbps.

    Further proof that the dinosaur Bell telecos need to be taken out to the dustbin of American history once and for all.

  • Kind of off-topic, but.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by thisissilly ( 676875 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @04:28PM (#9512150)
    Do any DSL companies offer DSL in a "reversed" asymmetry? For instance, 256Kb down, 1.5Mb up?

    It would be nice for those of us who want to serve (legitimate) files, as opposed to download tons of stuff.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Conversion, fastidious Goddess, loves blood better than brick, and feasts most subtly on the human will." -- Virginia Woolf, "Mrs. Dalloway"

Close