Re: [External] Re: 10g residential CPE

[Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>]

On 12/25/20 2:32 PM, John Levine wrote:
> In article <3b0bc95b-c741-7561-1692-75fac74d5883 () mtcc com> you write:
> > I'd definitely appreciate symmetric, or at least better in upstream.
> > Obviously zoom and all of that has made a lie of us not needing
> > upstream. It would make cloud based "filesystems" more feasible too.
> >
> > But the larger point is why bother going to all of that effort if you're
> > just going roll it out with low bandwidth? I mean, 100Mbps isn't even
> > competitive with cable these days. But they're a somewhat crazy amalgam.
> > They have POTS everywhere, cable tv everywhere, cable IP in some areas
> > and DSL in others. I wish I knew somebody there to talk to this about
> > because it's really odd.
> I agree it is odd to make 100/100 the top speed. The fiber service I
> have from my local non-Bell telco offers 100/100, 500/500, and
> 1000/1000. FiOS where you can get it goes to 940/880.
>
> The obvious guess is that their upstream bandwidth is
> underprovisioned, or maybe they figure 100/100 is all they need to
> compete in that particular market.

What's weirder is that it's most likely not going to allow them to 
retire their copper plant since they are a phone company and i'm fairly 
certain that regulations won't allow them to say "get a battery for this 
phone dongle". Given PG&E's antics, this is no small thing. I assume it 
would allow them to retire their cable plant eventually, but then they 
become yet another over the top provider without adding much if any 
value. But they are an odd and very old family run company, so who knows 
what's going on in the C-Suite.

Mike