A list of links to the day's news stories about FTTP, FTTH, FTTN, and FTTC. Use this as a research tool to keep track of what is happening and what has happened in the various FTTX fields.
Additional editors are solicited and welcome. Please contact the administrator.
I recently spent some time in Texas with some U-Verse and FiOS customers. Nearly all of them mentioned the "one HD channel" problem as a reason to avoid U-Verse.
Folks from the areas around Dallas where both FiOS and U-Verse are available claimed that neither they nor any of their customers were choosing the AT&T product over the Verizon product. Side by side, it's hard to imagine Verizon losing due to quality and features.
Folks in the AT&T only areas claimed that the single HD channel was explained to them, but that the whole-house DVR feature was supposed to already be there (it's now supposed to be in July). The combination of problems is making them consider satellite instead.
It would be interesting to find out how AT&T is now delivering 2 video streams. Is it just for customers right next to the CO? Are the HD streams more compressed than before? Why no more details, AT&T?
If AT&T is using some sort of channel bonding, it would be very interesting to see how that is affecting their cost per subscriber - the reason that they chose the FTTN architecture.
As the conversion from analog to digital occurs next year, I suspect more and more people are going to have multiple HDTVs in their house. Why buy a new standard def TV when a new HDTV is not much more expensive? The industry (and AT&T) assumption of slightly more than 1 HDTV per subscriber is about to get turned on its ear.
1 Comment:
I recently spent some time in Texas with some U-Verse and FiOS customers. Nearly all of them mentioned the "one HD channel" problem as a reason to avoid U-Verse.
Folks from the areas around Dallas where both FiOS and U-Verse are available claimed that neither they nor any of their customers were choosing the AT&T product over the Verizon product. Side by side, it's hard to imagine Verizon losing due to quality and features.
Folks in the AT&T only areas claimed that the single HD channel was explained to them, but that the whole-house DVR feature was supposed to already be there (it's now supposed to be in July). The combination of problems is making them consider satellite instead.
It would be interesting to find out how AT&T is now delivering 2 video streams. Is it just for customers right next to the CO? Are the HD streams more compressed than before? Why no more details, AT&T?
If AT&T is using some sort of channel bonding, it would be very interesting to see how that is affecting their cost per subscriber - the reason that they chose the FTTN architecture.
As the conversion from analog to digital occurs next year, I suspect more and more people are going to have multiple HDTVs in their house. Why buy a new standard def TV when a new HDTV is not much more expensive? The industry (and AT&T) assumption of slightly more than 1 HDTV per subscriber is about to get turned on its ear.
This should be fun to watch play out.
Post a Comment