[99semaj]

Stefan Anninger, introducing himself as the firm's new cable and satellite company analyst, predicts that just 15% of all broadband users will have DSL in 2015 -- half of its market share today.

Incredible pressure will come to bear on the telcos to update to a viable technology like fibre.

It's a terrible time to be a Bell/Telus investor...they just committed billions of capital to stay in the mobile game, and that will probably pale in comparison to what they will need to do to protect share in internet.

Good thing POTS and being a traditional BDU is so lucrative.

Simple upgrades won't be enough to keep DSL competitive: Anninger says providers may be able to offer 18 mbps in five years -- but cable operators will be able to rev their systems up to 200 mbps.

 

[ScaryBob]

The problem for DSL, Anninger says, is that providers transmit data at only about 4 megabits per second. That can handle most of today's tasks, including videoconferencing. But by 2015, most broadband subscribers will want at least 7 mbps -- with many demanding much more -- to serve homes where different people simultaneously use the Internet to watch videos, stream audio, make phone calls, download files and surf.

What a giant pile of bull hockey. In most urban areas, DSL2 will replace DSL by 2015 and supply up to 50Mbps. Many people have 7Mbps DSL or faster now.

 

[Jake]

Many people have 7Mbps DSL or faster now

If you examine the histograms of the DSL provider speed tests at BBR you will see that is not true for the majority.

 

[99semaj]

...and even if it were true, I think a key point of the analysis is that cable and fibre will far outperform that anyways. DSL just has no legs left.

(which really bums me out, because when I move in two weeks, my only option is 6Mbps DSL)

 

[JamesK]

^^^^
It is true. It is difficult to provide that much bandwidth over a telephone pair to the central office. In another thread here, someone was saying that even though he pays for 10 Mb/s, he can only get 5!. With fibre to the curb, it's possible to greatly increase the bandwidth to customers. However, once you start doing that, you start thinking that fibre to the home isn't much more of an investment, particularly in new areas.

 

[hugh]

Random notes:

What the article does not say is why do consumers need 15 or 20 Mb/s? 5 Mb/s is more than sufficient for most people. What many consumers need in the future is lower prices and greater bandwidth.

Download speeds of 50 Mb/s really aren't that great when your cap is 60GB or so!

DSL can maintain market share by offering a lower price and greater bandwidth caps.

 

[ScaryBob]

that is not true for the majority.

That's why I said many not most.

 

[JamesK]

What the article does not say is why do consumers need...

That question is often asked when new technologies appear. Years ago, it was asked about computers. If all you do is email and surf the web, then no, you don't need more bandwidth. However, we now have video available over the internet. If you get people in a home watching different shows, then current bandwidth limits are not enough. As it is, most people do not have sufficient bandwidth for two 1080i video streams, many can't even manage one. There's also voice over IP phone, live audio & video chat, internet radio and perhaps other uses that haven't been invented yet.

 

[ScaryBob]

Fibre to the curb is being implemented because fibre to the home is more problematic and more expensive. Fibre to the home requires equipment in every home instead of using one piece of equipment to serve many homes. I agree that DSL will lag behind cable due to the fundamental difference between bandwidths over currently used twisted pair and coax. However, DSL bandwidths could be improved dramatically by improving the quality of the cable entering the home. One possibility would be shielded 300 ohm cable that has the same (or better) bandwidth as RG6. Combined with IPTV (vs current cable TV technologies), that would blow cable out of the water as far as DSL bandwidth is concerned.

 

[JamesK]

^^^^
If you're running new shielded cable into the home, you might as well run fibre and avoid all the issues with DSL over copper. With this sort of thing, the major cost is not the cable itself, but the installation. Fibre can carry much more bandwidth than any copper cable and even then, it can be increased several times again, by using Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM uses different colours to create more channels over a fibre), instead of a single colour over the fibre. Another advantage of fibre is that it can be run along side power cables, without worrying about the safety hazards that would occur with copper.

 

[ScaryBob]

I agree with everything you say. OTOH, I like the reliability of POTS. Twisted pair upgrades can be done selectively for service upgrades or on an as required basis for cable replacement, without requiring new equipment on the street or in the house. From a provider point of view, it's a soft cost vs a large up front cost for area upgrades.

 

[JamesK]

^^^^
Unfortunately, "twisted pair", as currently installed, has gone about as far as it can. While it may be possible to squeeze out more bandwidth, doing so will become more difficult and expensive. At some point, you have change to something better. Fibre has been around for a long time and now used almost exclusively for carrying voice, video, data etc., over long distance. Even short distances are now frequently covered by fibre or microwave. Short distance POTS, cable and DSL is about the only place copper is still commonly used. Again, if you're replacing cable, you might as well run fibre. It will deliver much more in the long run. BTW, fibre tends to be much more reliable than copper, because it's simply not sensitive to many of the things that cause problems with copper. Copper is sensitive to interference from a variety of sources, leakage due to moisture, corrosion and other issues. With fibre, you pretty much have to cut the cable to experience a failure.

 

[ScaryBob]

A balanced line, like shielded Twinaxial cabling has the potential for higher bandwidth than RG6 coax and would be cheaper to install than fibre. It could also preserve the benefits of POTS while supporting very high speed DSL (or other communication standards.) Again, I agree that fibre would be the ultimate in communications bandwidth but from cost and other practical viewpoints it is less than ideal. It's also unnecessary.

 

[jvincent]

Figured I'd weigh in on this one.

What's the current success rate on analyst predictions?

I wouldn't argue that DSL might decline over the next few years but what is really driving that? Since the report is US centric it makes sense that as cable penetration increases, DSL will decrease. Fiber to the home is economically impractical for existing construction. New neighborhoods are likely to be serviced by fiber to the curb.

And while fiber is immune to many of the problems of copper, it has it's own set.

Many people and companies have been looking for a silver bullet to solve the last mile problem but there just isn't one. There are two many factors at play.

I predict many years of healthy life for DSL.

 

[JamesK]

would be cheaper to install than fibre

Whatever gave you that idea? Fibre is cheap these days. If you're running in from the street, you can use multimode cable. Single mode cable, which is more expensive to work with, is generally used for long distances (i.e. 40 Km @ 10 Gb/s or more) Again, the major cost of running any cable is the installation. Other than power from the C.O., what benefit does copper have?

BTW, industrial grade networking equipment often supports fibre. A lot of it will take SFP modules to connect to fibre. Even if the equipment doesn't directly support fibre, you can use stand alone media converters.

 

[Mozza]

I don't entirely understand the issue here - I'm currently pulling down 32MB/s with my current ISP, which to my knowledge is a DSL provider...?

 

[JamesK]

How far are you from the C.O. or other equipment? DSL is very distance sensitive, as the telephone cable pairs were not intended to carry that sort of bandwitdth. You may be getting 32 Mb/s (I doubt you're getting 32 MB/s), but a lot of others can't get anywhere near that. On the other hand, fibre is capable of an incredible amount of bandwidth, far greater than the entire radio spectrum that's commonly in use. In fact, it's the electronics that's used for transmitting and receiving the data that's the limiting factor on fibre. And this is even before using wavelength division multiplexing to increase capacity many times.

 

[Mozza]

How far are you from the C.O. or other equipment? DSL is very distance sensitive, as the telephone cable pairs were not intended to carry that sort of bandwitdth. You may be getting 32 Mb/s (I doubt you're getting 32 MB/s), but a lot of others can't get anywhere near that. On the other hand, fibre is capable of an incredible amount of bandwidth, far greater than the entire radio spectrum that's commonly in use. In fact, it's the electronics that's used for transmitting and receiving the data that's the limiting factor on fibre. And this is even before using wavelength division multiplexing to increase capacity many times.

I'm probably about 3 km away from the CO if I'm not mistaken. I currently get about 8MB/s down, 2MB/s up... but I also have television with my provider, and it runs at 24 MB/s. My provider does give an option that allows access to the entire amount of bandwidth when not watching TV.

 

[ScaryBob]

Whatever gave you that idea?

There is more than the simple cable cost at play. Higher grade twisted pair or twinax is a direct replacement and works with existing equipment in the house or on the street. It also requires little or no retraining for installers. Fiber optic cable requires new equipment in the house, on the street and installer retraining. The customer also loses POTS reliability, something many of them value.

 

[Steve604]

What a giant pile of bull hockey. In most urban areas, DSL2 will replace DSL by 2015 and supply up to 50Mbps. Many people have 7Mbps DSL or faster now.

I have cable, I already have 50Mbps, 100Mbps is an option