Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
WHPO3:
Spoke claims that there is no need for Embarq because VDSL2 has surpassed the speed and reach requirements which Rim has announced.
I found a press release on the web which states at 4000 feet VDSL2 is achieving 20-25 mbits. That is far less than Rim's graph from the shareholder's meeting.
The problem with 20-25 mbits at 4000 feet is that it will not give the bandwidth for more than one stream of HDTV.
Embarq may not achieve the results from their graph - that remains to be seen, but Spoke is 1000% incorrect with his claims regarding VDSL2 based on what is available online from the industry from actual field trials.
There is a need for superior tech that can deliver 3 channels of HDTV without spending billions on fiber.
Spoke:
You really think that the trials are not with the new VDSL2 chips which you insist have been released to the market many months ago? What purpose would further old standard VDSL testing serve?
Spoke:
"Using FTTN, the companies plan to bring fiber to within 3,000 feet on average of customers' homes."
"Using VDSL in conjunction with gigabit Ethernet technology, bandwidth of 20-25 megabits per second bandwidth was achieved, sufficient to provide four streams of high-quality video (including one high-definition stream) per line, high-speed Internet access and, in the future, consumer VoIP service."
SBC CIO Confirms Project Lightspeed Timing, Milestones at Analyst Conference
Successful Technical Field Trial of IP-Based Video, High-Speed Internet Access
San Antonio, Texas, November 3, 2005
Providing an update on Project Lightspeed, SBC Communications Inc. (NYSE: SBC) announced the SBC companies have recently concluded a technical field trial of IP-based services, which successfully demonstrated that the technology works in a real-world environment.
During the two-month trial, which concluded last month, SBC companies successfully delivered Internet Protocol (IP)-based TV programming, video-on-demand (VOD), high-speed Internet access and other features to employee households in San Antonio. This was the second of two employee field trials.
"The conclusion of our field trials and successful delivery of these new IP-based entertainment services was a significant program milestone," said Andy Geisse, chief information officer, SBC Services, Inc. "IP is the next big thing. We're going to change the face of television with an IP-based platform that enables integration, personalization and a high-quality entertainment experience."
Addressing a group of industry analysts hosted by IBM in New York today, Geisse confirmed that the next phase of Project Lightspeed — a controlled market entry — is set to begin around the end of 2005/early 2006 in neighborhoods in San Antonio, Texas with a limited number of subscribers. SBC companies expect to scale the offerings beginning in mid-2006 — adding features and functionality and entering more markets across the companies' 13-state operating region.
The technical field trial tested IPTV and high-speed Internet access at approximately 40 SBC employee homes. The trial evaluated the installation process, platform capability, and network equipment and customer-premise equipment performance.
Using VDSL in conjunction with gigabit Ethernet technology, bandwidth of 20-25 megabits per second bandwidth was achieved, sufficient to provide four streams of high-quality video (including one high-definition stream) per line, high-speed Internet access and, in the future, consumer VoIP service.
"We've taken our plans to deploy this new, IP-based technology from concept to reality in one year," said Geisse. "While there is still work to be done, I'm encouraged by our fast progress and confident in our ability to scale this market-changing entertainment technology."
The SBC companies are evaluating the results of the field trial and evolving its offering, systems and equipment. Ongoing lab testing will be conducted in part at a systems integration lab jointly created with Alcatel and housed at an Alcatel facility in Plano, Texas. The lab tests the end-to-end functionality of the IP-based platform. SBC companies will use a similar approach to prepare for the scaled launch.
About Project Lightspeed
Project Lightspeed is the SBC initiative to expand its fiber-optics network deeper into neighborhoods to deliver SBC U-verseSM TV, voice and high-speed Internet access services. SBC companies expect to reach approximately 18 million households by the first half of 2008 as part of initial deployment, using fiber-to-the-node (FTTN) and fiber-to-the-premises technologies. Using FTTN, the companies plan to bring fiber to within 3,000 feet on average of customers' homes.
Instead of using a traditional broadcast video system, in which all content is continuously sent to every customer's home, SBC companies will use a switched IP-video distribution system. In the switched IP-video network, only the content the customer requests is provided to the customer, freeing up bandwidth to be used for other applications and more content.
SBC is using the Microsoft® TV Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) Edition software platform and working with Alcatel to provide access, routing, and aggregation infrastructure equipment and video system integration services.
SBC companies are working with Scientific-Atlanta to provide IP video network equipment that would enable SBC to acquire, process, encode, and distribute digital media content to subscribers.
The company is working with Amdocs for billing, customer relationship management (CRM), ordering and payment mediation products, and Amdocs consulting and systems integration services.
SBC companies will use next-generation Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) set-top boxes from Scientific-Atlanta and Motorola for the scaled launch.
IBM servers will be used in SBC IP video offices. These servers — including acquisition, distribution, notification, video-on-demand and other servers — will encrypt video, add digital rights management, allow for fast channel change and other features that will allow delivery of a high-quality, IP-based video service to customers. Additionally, SBC companies are working with IBM to develop a service delivery platform (SDP) that will be used to collect and aggregate transactions from the billing, customer relationship management (CRM), ordering and billing systems. SBC plans to use Leapstone software, which provides subscription and content management capabilities, channel mapping information, and product package information within the SDP.
About SBC
SBC Communications Inc. is a Fortune 50 company whose subsidiaries, operating under the SBC brand, provide a full range of voice, data, networking, e-business, directory publishing and advertising, and related services to businesses, consumers and other telecommunications providers. SBC holds a 60 percent ownership interest in Cingular Wireless, which serves more than 52 million wireless customers. SBC companies provide high-speed DSL Internet access lines to more American consumers than any other provider and are among the nation's leading providers of Internet services. SBC companies also offer satellite TV service. Additional information about SBC and SBC products and services is available at www.sbc.com.
Spoke:
At this point, the emperical evidence being published is that VDSL2 does not have everything one needs to deploy any application.
Care to explain why in field trials 25 mbits at 4000 feet was only achieved? Why is SBC looking for 3000 foot loops for 25 mbits? That must cost billions.
Why would telcos be purchasing or planning to purchase billions in fiber if 6000 feet at 25 mbits was being achieved in real world tests?
I believe the intent of the standard was to achieve 25 mbits at 6000 feet, but nothing being published on the web supports that being accomplished.
This is not to say that Embarq will accomplish the 6000 foot 25 mbit goal either but if it does - enough said.
I do agree with you that at very short distances VDSL2 appears to beat Embarq - but that is all.
Deeba: let's hope so - it may never happen even if it is superior, but telcos can still use what ever products they want - would sure beat spending billions on fiber.
Enough said.
Who knows what is happening without a press release in over a month.
427Cobra:
I think you're wrong with your last paragraph - if Embarq can achieve even 25 mbits at 6000 feet that would save US telcos about 100 billion dollars. At that point do you think they would care about standards?
427Cobra:
I read a press release from SBC that they are now targeting 3,000 feet copper loops for 25 mbits service based on recent field trials in TX -
one could assume that without a few thousand feet of fiber added, the new VDSL2 chips will fail to deliver the speeds and reach required.
Deeba:
RIM needs to make a product that is proven to work and get into volume production before anyone would be interested in purchasing the company in my opinion.
Right now the superior results are only theoretical - meaning not proven in the real world.
Deeba:
I would not make too much out of the Microsoft link - the target customers for RIM are telco equipment makers. I doubt Microsoft would be a customer.
Deeba:
Consider this, if verizon spends 20 billion on fiber to get closer to 15,000,000 homes - that is about $1,300 per home.
The reason they need fiber is to achieve speeds of 25 mbits which is capable of delivering their tripple play service.
The average loop size in the US is 6,000 feet - VDSL2 at 6,000 feet is only slightly better than ADSL2 which will not have the reach and speed to deliver IPTV (HD).
If the telcos could cut their spending and use the existing copper infrastructure, ROI would be immediate vs. about 10 years to maybe turn a profit.
Regarding bonding - the RAQ was incorrect that the competitive products require bonding - just without the telcos will not achieve even 25 mbits at 4500 feet without running a few thousand feet of fiber at enormous cost (billions).
If Bellsouth uses two lines to achieve 30 mbits down that will reduce the number of homes they can service because there will not be enough copper lines per home.
Everything You Need to Know About Next-gen Broadband
New DSL flavors, DOCSIS 3.0, Bell TV, and more...
Posted on 2005-07-07 15:05:23
Written by Karl Bode
ADSL2+? VDSL2? Fiber to the Curb? Fiber to the Home? DOCSIS 3.0? It's hard to get to the truth behind the constant stream of belligerently optimistic press releases. We sit down with industry reporter Dave Burstein to try and make sense of next generation broadband deployment, and find out when (if ever) you'll begin to see next gen speeds from your broadband provider.
BBR: What can we really expect in regards to a bell next-gen deployment timeline?
DB: In three to four years - because constructing facilities for millions of people take that long - expect that half of Verizon should have fiber at 15-100 meg, otherwise slow DSL. Half of SBC should have DSL at 10-20Mbps, from existing boxes 2,000-5,000 feet away (FTTN). The rest will be slow DSL and satellite resale. One-tenth of BellSouth customers should have 50Mbps+ service from fiber to the curb. Half of the rest should have 10-30Mbps DSL, often using two lines.
BBR: As we discussed yesterday, Verizon seems like the poster child of how to do a next-gen deployment correctly. Your thoughts on their Fios plans?
DB: Verizon is going as fast as it can building fiber; one newspaper reported 2,000 crews working just in Virginia! It's really that big a job to rewire a third of the U.S. All the others are constrained more by their decision on how much to spend, not construction limits.
Verizon wants fiber to the home. That's the big deal. Three million homes passed by the end of 2005. They've budgeted for, and are likely to deliver - a total of 7 million by the end of 2006 and 15 million by the end of 2008. That's about half of their 1/3rd of the country target - an enormous build costing $15-20 billion. Verizon and NTT in Japan are the only two large carriers in the world doing large volumes of fiber.
Currently, Verizon has a BPON network with video that matches cable on one wavelength and 19 meg down/ 6 meg up. They intend to switch to GPON for new builds as soon as it's ready, and have pushed manufacturers to have equipment by mid-2006 and accelerated the international standard. That's designed for 100 meg symmetric and higher, for real.
For the 20 million plus other Verizon subscribers, they will continue offering DSL and have given no indication they'll jump from the 1-5 meg ADSL speeds to the 10-15 meg ADSL2+. They stopped the DSL build at 80% or so to concentrate on fiber, but I believe are now going back to reach 90%+. Because they were considering selling rural lines, they didn't invest, leaving half of Maine unserved.
BBR: How about SBC's "Project Lightspeed"? Our understanding is that SBC was testing an ADSL2+/VDSL hybrid, but was unhappy with the results; they should should soon announce the use of VDSL2 for their next-gen network and U-Verse IPTV services, correct?
DB: SBC is selling satellite to 50% of their users -a fancy TIVO style set top and a slow DSL connection, and upgrading the rest to low profile VDSL2 they call fiber to the node. From the projected 2,000-5,000 feet, low profile VDSL2 is maybe 20 meg down, 1-3 meg up, most of which will be used for their video. They've slipped a year, with 2008 now the goal for 18 million homes completed out of their 30 something million home target. Also called "fiber to the press release" (it's really DSL) and "fiber to the rich" (they are only building the "high-value" customers). Investment is less than 30% of what Verizon plans.
BBR: How about BellSouth? Our understanding is they had run more fiber than the other two bells previously - and first settled on ADSL2+ - but now say they'll eventually embrace VDSL2?
DB: BellSouth has 13 million lines, a million of which have fiber to the curb from a quiet build begun years ago, yes. Those are the lucky ones, because they will be upgraded to 100 meg symmetric VDSL over the next few years. Think 60 megs in practice, but still pretty good. BellSouth has just picked that build up to 200,000 lines for 2005 after slowing down for a few; unfortunately, at that rate it will take them fifty years to complete their rollout.
The others at BellSouth are getting a build ready that will be much like SBC's, with DSL from a fiber node in the neighborhood. They intend to bond together two lines for most customers, to give you speeds closer to 30 meg down - more than the 15-20 meg SBC plans - because they think you'll need that for HD video.
Nominally ADSL2+, will morph into VDSL2 low profile soon. But VDSL2 low profile really is a slightly improved ADSL2+ (2-5 meg faster at these distances), not the 100 meg "high profile" that only works 500-1000 feet they are using for the lucky fiber to the curb types.
BBR: There has been a lot made of Swisscom's trouble with Microsoft's IPTV software overseas. Do you think these troubles will cross the ocean, and if so, will any of the big three bells - who've all tied their horses to Microsoft - be exploring alternative options?
DB: Microsoft's software is incredibly ambitious, and like many big software projects will be late, delaying most big deployments until late 2006 or 2007. Moshe Lichtman of Microsoft recently claimed everything was going fine. It's not.
Most carriers will just accept that, because the other software available (Siemens/Myrio, Minerva, etc.) doesn't promise as much. That may be why the other software works already, of course. They also decided Microsoft was a safer partner. Amazing conclusion - SBC even testified against Microsoft in the antitrust case - but the senior folks decided to go along rather than fight. In at least one big telco, that was against the recommendation of their technical staff.
This spring, all the Bells (including Canada) announced for Microsoft, and I wrote the battle for the large U.S. telco TV standard was over. But I soon heard from folks who know, not to assume that's how it will play out. Everyone was checking other options, just in case. But they are more likely just to slow things down than to actually switch away from Microsoft middleware. They probably won't use Windows Media 9/VC1, opting for MPEG-4 AVC for the encoder, even if they use the Microsoft middleware (channel guide, switching, billing, etc.)
Right now, Microsoft is only delivering some of the promised software, and will be late with some. The first to roll services, SBC, is deeply committed to Microsoft ($400M purchase), so will probably go with the flow. The result will be some limits on what SBC IPTV service will be, annoying but probably not crucial. Schedule of heavy testing and first customer rollout in 2005 will probably be honored in form, but things likely will go slowly until Microsoft bugs fixed, probably late 2006. SBC has already added a year to their schedule.
BBR: IPTV in general, do you see it as a serious competitor to Satellite and cable?
DB: Single channel, not HD IPTV is working well, with a million customers around the world and tens of millions coming in the next few years. Multichannel, HD, to several sets turns out to be much harder and takes more bandwidth, which is why it's coming slower. But $30B in planned investment is coming, and almost surely by 2006-2010, millions will be buying fancy TV programming from telcos.
They don't want to cut prices, but behind all the puffery is essentially a me-too service. They'll claim lots is new, but picture in picture multiple camera angles isn't new, and Sky satellite is already making hundreds of millions with "interactivity", mostly gambling. Comcast will have more video on demand than any telco, while net based services, especially Google, will has loads of video as well. So the telcos will either price aggressively or have limited market share. Expect that to be disguised with a lot of advertising about great "new" services that cable already has in some places.
BBR: So is VDSL2 a minimum requirement if the bells really want to enter the market? Can you clarify your statements on the various VDSL2 flavors mentioned earlier?
DB: Everyone's confused because the next upgrade of ADSL is called VDSL low profile, but isn't that big an improvement. VDSL2, as planned by SBC, is only slightly faster than ADSL2+, perhaps 15-25Mbps rather than 10-20Mbps. Useful, especially when you need bandwidth for HD (9 meg per live encoded channel), but not an earthshaking improvement. Since by late 2006, VDSL2 low profile will be within $10 of the cost of ADSL, most carriers will switch over even for the small improvement.
The real VDSL2 - the 50-100 meg plus of the high profile, including a fast upstream - delivers those speeds less than 1,000 feet or so, so requires new construction most places. Fiber to the basement or curb, advancing hard in Korea, Japan, and soon where BellSouth already has fiber. Verizon may do some of it where running fiber in a building is impractical.
Don't be confused because a medium speed ADSL is named VDSL2. It won't give 50 meg to most people in the U.S.. An accident of what came to what standard committee, and the choice of the linecode technical parameters gave VDSL2 low profile a good name, but not the speed you need.
BBR: If VDSL2 is so promising, why is BellSouth still planning on starting out with ADSL2+? Faith in compression?
DB: VDSL2 is just moving from lab samples to first, untested chips. BellSouth will move when the chips are reliable, late 2005 or more likely 2006. They just aren't announcing things that aren't ready, but they are completely on top of the technology and will move soon as well. They've accepted that getting the speeds they want will often require bonding two lines (24-35 meg, although the press releases wisely promise a little less). With the doubled capacity, they can use either ADSL2+ or VDSL2, so they are waiting till VDSL2 works well and comes down in price.
SBC instead was betting that VDSL2 would get here fast, and have enough extra performance they wouldn't need to give many customers two lines. They also were betting compression would reduce the bandwidth they needed. Vendors of course promised all this, but SBC (and everyone else) is waiting for the chip guys to deliver this month. SBC's tech guys knew they were taking a risk, but management decided that was a better option than spending the money Verizon is.
BBR: What are your thoughts on the various compression flavors the bells are exploring for IPTV and HD?
DB: MPEG-4 and Windows Media 9/VC1 are separately fighting out the war for the codec and the associated royalties. Microsoft in particular muddied the waters by showing great demos of carefully pre-encoded HD movies that ran at 6Mbps, and some uninformed CEOs and COOs didn't realize live TV, especially sports, needs much more bandwidth.
Two HD channels at 6 meg require 12 meg, maybe 14 with overhead, which sounds like it can fit in 20 meg and leave some room for data and a third standard definition set. But the real codecs for live TV, shipping late in 2005, will need 9.3 meg per channel, and even the companies selling them know they've sacrificed some quality to get it down that far.
So to watch one HD show and record another requires about 20 meg, and leaves things very tight unless you designed for 30 meg in the first place. Verizon looked at that, and said we better go for fiber; BellSouth and Bell Canada are thinking two lines bonded, and SBC is praying they can squeeze everything in without critical compromises.
Currently, MPEG-4 AVC 264 is a little ahead of the Microsoft codec, probably a quarter or two. So most telcos are going MPEG-4 even if they are using the Microsoft IPTV software for copy protection, network management, channel switching, etc. Microsoft is pushing hard to get in, so the situation is dynamic.
BBR: While we're only starting to see DOCSIS 2.0 deployment, and the higher speeds it can bring (Adelphia & Cox 15Mbps), DOCSIS 3.0 should only be a few years behind. Do you see the cable industry having any trouble keeping up with these bell plans?
DB: The "15 meg" speeds Cox is offering where they compete with Verizon fiber are mostly advertising. It's really 38 meg shared among 100 or so users, the same speed as the current services advertised at as 3 and 7 meg. That's too much oversubscription to deliver 15 meg most of the time, if even 5 or 10 people are downloading on the node. To regularly get past today's 5 meg or so, you need to bond more channels, which is what DOCSIS 3.0 offers.
DOCSIS 3.0 is real, mostly agreed, and the key vendors have the details and are making equipment for 2006. It's a shared 160/120 or higher, easily expandable to a shared gigabit. Real speeds to users will often be 20-50 megabits. It was developed to compete with higher speed DSL in Asia. Early in 2005, the U.S. cable companies realized Verizon was serious about fiber, and pushed CableLabs and suppliers (Cisco, Motorola, Arris, Broadcom) to get DOCSIS 3.0 ready for the U.S. ASAP, and 2006 is realistic with some pricey gear.
What we don't know is whether the Verizon will scare the cable companies into actually doing the upgrades. It's not terribly expensive. CableLabs chose the Arris/Motorola/Broadcom 160/120 proposal over Cisco 1 gigabit alternative because it can be done with software in the CMTS and a new modem, relatively cheaply. It doesn't require running new fiber or anything terribly expesive. But it's more capital spending than the cablecos planned.
Like the telcos, they've cut 20% or more from what they were investing in 2001. Very dynamic situation with some tough choices - no one outside the companies really knows, with the analysts busily watching every comment and reading tea leaves. I'm pretty sure the cablecos haven't decided yet. Inside at least one giant, they have plans to delay the upgrades but a very vocal disagreement trying to move the company faster.
So maybe Verizon will inspire the cablecos to upgrade, which will in turn put pressure on SBC/Bellsouth. But maybe that won't be enough, and they'll hope marketing and program selection will beat technology. We just don't know yet.
BBR In the end, which solution do you see as the best of the next-gen options?
DB: Verizon's fiber is the best stuff out there, especially after they switch to 2.4 gigabit shared GPON in a year. That's why the smart cablecos are worried. What BellSouth and SBC are doing is essentially matching cable of 2002. By the time they deploy in 2007, cable should be well ahead.
But better technology doesn't always win. Perhaps SBC, by spending less, will be able to price lower and do ok after all. Nobody really knows, although everyone has an opinion. My opinion is that the best tech is needed, especially in an HD world, and Verizon is making the right choice. But some very smart people have looked me in the eyes and said "the fiber numbers just don't work. Still costs too much," and other similar comments.
BBR: Any insider information on how soon before Time Warner and Comcast cross into the 10-15Mbps range?
DB: Both will be experimenting with how to fight Verizon, but remember the 10-15 is mostly illusion once loads go up. Your mileage will vary. It's the same physical system that now often doesn't hit the promised 4 and 7 megabits, with a faster connection from the modem to your computer.
Where they do good traffic engineering (splitting nodes when necessary, etc.) performance will be good; where they are sloppy or cheap, Broadband Reports is sure to be the first with the story. I mentioned to a top Comcast guy recently how many disappointed California users were writing in to BBR, and he said he'd look into it. Company policy is to solve problems like this, but it's sometimes expensive and timeconsuming.
BBR: Wimax: Is it a serious player in the next-gen broadband battles, or simply a niche-solution?
DB: I'm the guy who writes about DSL, TV, and fiber, so the wrong person to ask. But everything's related, so I do keep my eyes open. Some very smart people (Dewayne Hendricks, David Isenberg, Robert Pepper, Eben Moglen) believe wireless could be a big part. Needs plenty of spectrum for the 10 meg plus speeds that will be common in a few years here (and already are in Asia); the current services at a meg or two won't be competitive in most cities.
Meanwhile, Verizon's EV-DO is getting raves for delivering 500K surprisingly reliably to people on the move. Watch for it to become as ubiquitous as Blackberries in the business class. WiFi should be able to cover most cities with an interesting service for $15-20, so I've testified in its favor and hope it shakes things up. Meanwhile, TD-CDMA is working surprising well in London and elsewhere.
None of which answer your original question about Wimax, the most hyped of the many wireless technologies on the way. Both Bill Smith (CTO BellSouth) and Balan Nair (CTO Qwest) tell me the trial results are impressive, although neither is committed beyond trials today. It won't handle mobile outside of Korea before 2007-2008, which is the key niche. Alvarion, the key supplier of "pre-standard" Wimax, just announced a down quarter as Telmex cut orders.
Some things are clear. Wireless can be very cheap (if slow and not rock-solid reliable), so where it plays it is interesting competition. The stuff coming from the cellphone world is working well, and might turn out to outdo the more hyped Wimax. We desperately need more choices, so I hope some of the above proves out.
BBR: One final question, do you see a future for independent ISPs?
DB: AOL admits its dead as an ISP over broadband, and MSN has also given up in favor of other strategies. Earthlink and some of the local keep trying, but it will be very tough for them to remain a factor. Covad is too small, undercapitalized, and afraid of getting the bells fighting back to matter. For most Amreicans, everything but the cable company and the telco is of little relevance. I fear wireless data and power line won't be interesting players, but hope I'm wrong.
It doesn't have to be so. In Japan, two independents (Yahoo BB and eAccess) are consistently beating NTT. Hanaro has a third of Korea. Free.fr signed up over a million in the last year. In the UK and France, regulators set wholesale prices low enough that neither BT nor FT dominate.
Killing the ISPs and most of the CLECs was a political decision, that might still be reversible if wholesale prices were dramatically changed. But I doubt Kevin Martin will make that decision, although I will editorialize about why he should.
Thanks Deeba EOM
OK Spoke: You can have the last word on this subject whether or not the article regarding VDSL2 claims is bogus.
Spoke: You've got to be kidding that I am being directed to spread the company "FUD" - I am merely disagreeing with you that VDSL2 is performing to telco expectations and that Embarq claims are outdated.
I have been clear that Embarq is only theoretically better.
I am merely stating that if there is a product which does in fact get released and if it does perform as advertised that there is a strong possiblity that Embarq will be competitive in the market place.
Spoke:
My reason for posting was in response to your original message # 39910 which stated:
"Even "if" they actually do have what they claim, it is no longer competitive with the state of the art.
Even Ketch has admitted this, at least tacitly, by telling us that those who claim to have VDSL2 products that are *much* better than Embarq's claims are lying."
I believe that your comments are out of touch with reality if you read the DSL trade publications. You admitted that you had no idea Verizon was laying or planning to lay fiber.
I am not making claims that Embarq will perform as advertised and have been clear that I am comparing theoretical test results.
You are an intelligent person and should be able to see that the VDSL2 claims appear to be bogus - which does not mean Embarq will do any better, but does mean that there is an opportunity to be better.
Spoke: I have been very clear to state that Embarq's results are theoretical because there is not an FPGA or ASSP - I know that is different than real world results.
I am only stating that reality for VDSL2 does appear to be significantly less (in regards to lower speeds and reach )than advertised.
The telcos can spend billions to run fiber closer to homes to make their business plans work with VDSL2 if another product does not materialize, but the potential is there to save billions if it does.
COSMO: I concur with what you are saying. It definitely remains to be seen if they will deliver this time.
My point is simply that there is a need for a better product because the VDSL2 claims vs. reality are not the same.
Spoke:
I am only attempting to be factual with my comparison because without an FPGA or ASSP, the comparisons can not be apples to apples.
But at least on paper 10% faster speeds (up and down 50/50) or 100% faster downstream and 1000 additional feet would give the telcos at least 25% more reach and the ability to deliver IPTV (cable TV).
At 4,000 feet Embarq could be much faster given that it is faster at 1000 additional feet. But 4,000 feet is not the true requirement.
From what I have read, the need is for 5-6 thousand feet with the fastest possible speed (at least 25 mbits).
Real world results for VDSL2 do not support the requirement and that is why fiber is being brought closer to homes at enormous cost to the telcos.
Embarq may or may not be embraced, but there is a need for a faster chip with better reach than VDSL2.
I also read that the telco(s) have asked Stanford University for assistance with reach and speed. You should know that is the place where DMT was invented.
Spoke:
I am comparing the actual real world results in Bernstein's article to theoretical results from the shareholders meeting.
For IPTV, most of the data requirement will be downstream with a much smaller amount upstream. But let's agree that it is 50/50 downstream and upstream eventhough it likely is not.
At 50/50, Embarq at 5000 feet would achieve 27-1/2 down and 27-1/2 mbits upstream - that's 2.5 additional mbits and 1000 additional feet than the VDSL2 results. And how do you know that the results in Berstein's article are not mostly downstream because the article does say downstream and does not mention upstream speeds? It is possible that 55 mbits at 5000 feet is the correct comparison.
Regarding Verizon, I'll agree that they may have only announed billions to be spent on fiber vs. actually spending the money, but they appear to be running fiber to the curb and home. Search FIOS in Google for the source regarding Verizon.
Stoppmann:
If you read http://www.dslprime.com/ you will find an enormous amount of information regarding VDSL2 written by the same person.
I have been reading for quite some time regarding all of the potential problems with VDSL2 chips. Why do you think Verizon is in the process of spending billions on fiber if these existing VDSL2 chips really do the job?
Embarq, if performance is as published, - 55 mbits at 5000 feet blows everything away. At 6000 feet, IPTV, VOiP and fast internet would be possible without fiber.
Stoppmann:
The article which you posted states downstream tested performance is as follows for unknown company's VDSL2 chip:
2500 feet 40 mbits
4000 feet 25 mbits
I have found other articles which describe performance about within the same parameters.
Remember 4000 feet at 25 mbits is less than a mile.
From the RIM shareholders meeting presentation (untested):
3000 feet - 80 mbits
5000 feet - 55 mbits
If the phone companies are looking for 6,000 foot reach (which is the average loop size) with at least 25 mbits, unknown VDSL2 chip from above will not make the grade. Will Embarq really perform is still unknown, but there is a telco need for superior performance.
Goldrusher: You can deduct gains vs. losses either way or $3,000 per year against income if you do not have gains. "bankrupsy" or "shutdown" as you stated will not make a difference for tax consequences.
COSMO:
I do not believe in my opinion there are any guarantees that we will have an FPGA by December - if simply producing was the goal why would they (NV) have not delivered prior to now?
I believe that there is more of risk that they will not deliver on time vs. whether the product is viable based on the favorable comments Hellosoft made via press releases.
The information from the October 3rd RAQ regarding a competitive product test being less than par looks favorable to RIM, but then silence after that...so who knows what is happening.
To me, Hellosoft looks extremely solid.
IOWN: My guess is that the accumulated deficit is the total for NV Entertainment since its inception and is more than a 7 year total...
CARRIERS GET THEIR WISHES: ITU APPROVES VDSL2 STANDARD
by Vince Vittore
Jun 6, 2005 12:00 PM
Increase Flexibility and Profitability with These Infrastructure Solutions
Optimize your wireless network with Modular Building Blocks, Advanced TCA, and IMS architecture. Learn More.
Read White Papers Now.
Sponsored by Intel.
SBC Communications has made no secret of its desire to begin testing VDSL2 equipment as soon as possible. That day is now significantly closer after the International Telecommunications Union's grueling two-week meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, which concluded with the ITU announcing a finalized agreement on a VDSL2 standard.
The standard, which was accelerated at the urging of several large carriers, provides for a number of bandwidth options. At its highest level, the standard will allow carriers to transmit data at 100 Mb/s in both the upstream and downstream paths over relatively short copper loops. From a more practical perspective, particularly in the North American market, the standard provides for 30 Mb/s at 6000 feet.
“We worked a lot of 12-hour days, and there were a couple of sessions that went until three in the morning,” Ed Eckert, director of strategic standards for chip vendor Ikanos, which announced a pre-standard VDSL2 chip set late last year.
The result, like most standards, includes a little something for everyone, he said. As expected, it will include three profiles for chip vendors to build to: one at 8 MHz, one at 12 MHz and one at 30 MHz ( mostly for Asia and some select European markets).
SBC has specified that it wants equipment that will operate in the 12 MHz profile and expects to provide for 30 Mb/s at 6000 feet. “We are absolutely putting out a requirement that we go no higher than 12 MHz,” said Gene Edmon, executive director of broadband for SBC Labs, before the Geneva meeting.
At that level, the company will be able to provide a true triple-play package of one high-definition video stream, two standard-definition video streams and two voice-over-IP channels and still have enough left over for high-speed Internet access, according to Ken Madison, senior product marketing manager for Centillium. The carrier also included a bit of a “fudge factor” in its requirements, knowing that all copper plant isn't equal.
Despite agreement by most sectors of the industry that the VDSL2 standardization will go a long way toward making it a widely deployed technology, there are several hurdles. Key among them is how the standard will be interpreted by chip vendors and others.
Just days after the official ITU announcement, a spokesperson for Infineon said the company has developed a chipset that complies with the standard. “It's sampling now, and we expect to have it in production quantities in the third quarter of the calendar year,” the spokesperson said.
Making the standard work in a real-world environment will take time, though, Madison said.
“It has become a standard that means everything to everyone,” he said. “The question is how the standards are going to be translated.”
Eckert said he wasn't surprised by a competitor timing its announcement to be immediately after the ITU meeting, but getting the chipsets functional is another thing. Ikanos is one of only a small group of VDSL chip vendors
“It's going to take six to twelve months from the time chipsets are out that they're going to get this right,” he said. “We know that from experience.”
Beyond implementation, carriers also will demand interoperability, Eckert said. Eckert is editor of the VDSL2 interoperability group within the DSL Forum and expects that group to have its first plugfest by the end of the year and an interoperability document out by September.
“I'm really hoping we don't go down the same path that ADSL2 and ADSL2+ have gone down because that's been an interoperability nightmare,” he said. “There were a lot of bells and whistles in ADSL2 and 2+ that frankly didn't get used in the field.”
VDSL2 PROFILES Band Best case throughput
8 MHz 20-30 Mb/s downloads between 2500-4000 feet
12 MHz 30 Mb/s at 9000 feet
30 MHz 100 Mb/s symmetric at 700 feet
Sources: Ikanos and Centillium
DSL Prime: Trials Continue
Tests of DSL chips continue as vendors fight for an advantage.
by Dave Burstein
of DSL Prime and Future of TV
[March 10, 2005]
Centillium asks "ADSL2+ or VDSL2?"
For 3,000 to 6,000 feet, is the added performance worth the price?
Without a doubt, the 50 to 100 Mbps speeds of VDSL are the best option under 2,000 feet. But carriers who want to minimize investment are looking at 2,000 to 6,000 feet away, using field boxes already in place. Faraj Aalei of Centillium believes the actual performance of VDSL2 in the field will be little better than his new Pharos generation of ADSL2++ for those middle distances. The Ikanos target price for CO chips is $25, while ADSL2+ is going for a quarter of that price.
The new Pharos chip has scored an important win with Dasan, the Siemens company in Korea. Siemens needs an IP-DSLAM, and Dasan's units have always had top of the line capabilities. That gives Centillium hope of a major customer outside their Japanese niche.
DSL Prime's position is to ask all involved for more data, and to remain skeptical until volume field shipments prove who is right. I chose to put the Ikanos data in a headline because a third party (SBC) recently reported favorable testing as well. That story should have included the fact the testing was with 24, not 26-gauge wire. There was no deception from Ikanos, just my mistake not asking that question.
A respected engineer offers, "A word of caution about VDSL2 results. VDSL reaches high enough into the frequency spectrum to be self-FEXT (far-end crosstalk) limited. The only meaningful results are ones that are derived with the use of real distribution cable binder groups loaded up with multiple operating VDSL pairs. Make sure that the spectacular numbers that people are reporting are measured in that way. Otherwise, the results may be optimistic." The Ikanos data included simulated interferers, helpful but not the same as field data.
Likely non-standard deployments
The best guess is that a VDSL2 preliminary standard will be agreed in May, early enough that SBC will be able to pay lip service to standards. However, there are several features, including advanced coding, still in dispute and unlikely to make it into the standard, several participants tell me. A carrier doing HD video, such as SBC, needs every bit of performance possible, which will tempt them into "non-standard" choices.
One result may be a rapidly evolving standard, with a VDSL2+ coming quickly because the same carriers rushing VDSL to agreement want the higher throughput. The downside is higher prices (acceptable) and no option to switch chipmakers (totally unacceptable to major carrier outside Asia previously, but possibly that is changing).
Entrisphere Comes Out of the Closet
Inferno, Plan 9 and now ya do-everything
The elegant Pathstar, designed by Entrisphere's Phil Winterbottom, was once the future of Lucent. It was the ultimate voice and data switch and promised to deliver all the dreams of the marketing department. Lucent's many struggles resulted in discouraging early field trials, and ultimately Lucent bought Telica for a soft switch to have a product with some of the capabilities.
Winterbottom and Unix legend Ken Thompson had already left, and with millions of venture capital created Entrisphere. Mark Floyd joined them later as CEO, bored with a life of unlimited golf although he stayed with Siemens for a while after selling Efficient to them. The combined reputations gave them entree to every major bid in the U.S., including a dark horse shot at the Verizon fiber PON bid. Don McCullough of Entrisphere tells me their interoperability with several vendors' home units was welcomed by telcos reluctant to choose proprietary systems.
After several years, the company is now opening the curtains that literally surrounded their SUPERCOMM booth. Despite the stealth cover, TDS, a million line U.S. carrier, has been using Entrisphere's BLM 1500 to serve customers for nine months. McCullough believes Entrisphere has more checklist items for carriers than anyone else, but recognizes intense competition.
McCullogh's customers are sometimes buying just DSL and voice today, not fiber, and McCullough believes that requirement is keeping the price of this kind of equipment very attractive. "With Entrisphere, they can just change blades and offer fiber when they choose." They currently feature BPON, because "that's what customers are asking for," but McCullogh agreed with me a clear path to GPON or GEPON is absolutely required today. Calix, announcing a BPON card, sees the coming shift as well, "With 200 Gbps of backplane capacity, the Calix C7 is uniquely positioned to facilitate the migration from BPON to GPON and active optical approaches"
Winterbottom re-engineered the "Plan 9 From Bell Labs" operating system that was not Unix, although they shared many of the same parents. According to the Plan 9 FAQ, the name was chosen from an Ed Wood movie "in the Bell Labs tradition of selecting names that make marketeers wince." The symbol of the system is white bunny Glenda. Bunnies are faster, more (re)productive, and more cuddly than Linux penguins. Despite that, Linux is more popular, partially because Lucent did not release Plan 9 as open source until far too late. A related Winterbottom project, Inferno, has theoretical advantages over Java and also coulda been a contenda. The team is pictured here.
Spoke: I am obviously not an engineer so your reply goes well beyond what I can understand. To me, it seems to be logical that one chip being compared to two is not the same comparison, but I could easily be wrong.
Couldn't in theory an OQAM VDSL chip be combined with OQAM ADSL using the same methods?
Excel: I have no idea who Cobra is
Spoke: doesnt the Infineon product require two chips (VDSL2 + ADSL)?
If yes, is an offering with two chips an apples to apples comparison to Embarq?
Spoke: I am not suggesting that a new tech has been invented, but in the filings they used to say 90 Mbps, now they say 100 Mbps.
Spoke: Thank you for your reply. Has RIM announced performance of the proposed tech since '02? How do we know what Hellosoft is really comparing when making the statement?
Lycus: Just stating that standards do not determine potential sales in my opinion. If (and I do mean if), the tech is viable which remains to be seen, phone companies can use it if they please. I am not dreaming about anything.
Spoke: For wireless, for example, there is a standard (CDMA)but there still are others such as GSM, WCDMA and TDMA in production. The carriers select their preference. WCDMA could end up being larger than CDMA.
Lycus: Infineon has a current VDSL chipset solution which uses QAM in production - on their website it states:
"Very-high-bit-rate Digital Subscriber Line
The highest bandwidth of all DSLs, Infineon's QAM VDSL provides wire-speeds from 5Mbps to 75Mbps over single-pair copper telephone lines to support simultaneous broadband services such as video, interactive multi-channel television and voice."
Spoke: Vesting of options does not cause the amount of shares owned to increase so does not make sense that you are adding the vesting amount to the total. An option for the purchase of shares is an instrument that can be used to purchase the shares.
WHP03:
From Ikanos:
"Ikanos has been a proponent of discrete-multitone (DMT) line codes, and the VDSL2 standard is slated to preserve the use of DMT. Ikanos director of product marketing Piyush Sevalia said that extending speeds to 100 Mbits/s did not require any changes to the DMT codes, but involved extending use of available spectrum from 12 MHz to 30 MHz, along with enhanced resolution of noise effects."
Spoke: Thank you. I was just attempting to learn something about bandwidth - that is all.
Spoke: from Ikanos...
"Ikanos has been a proponent of discrete-multitone (DMT) line codes, and the VDSL2 standard is slated to preserve the use of DMT. Ikanos director of product marketing Piyush Sevalia said that extending speeds to 100 Mbits/s did not require any changes to the DMT codes, but involved extending use of available spectrum from 12 MHz to 30 MHz, along with enhanced resolution of noise effects."
From your post:
"You make it sound as though a bunch of new bandwidth has suddenly been made available for DSL. That is simply not the case."