Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SBC Planning 15-25Mbps DSL Networks

Posted by timothy on 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."

33 of 387 comments (clear)

  1. Deregulation is working by SIGALRM · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the SBC press release:

    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 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.

    --
    Sigs cause cancer.
    1. Re:Deregulation is working by Monkelectric · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    2. Re:Deregulation is working by SIGALRM · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Sigs cause cancer.
    3. Re:Deregulation is working by Penguinshit · · Score: 4, Insightful


      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...

      --

      I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...

    4. Re:Deregulation is working by dasmegabyte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    5. Re:Deregulation is working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Deregulation is working by Douglas+Simmons · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

    7. Re:Deregulation is working by IvyKing · · Score: 3, Informative
      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.

    8. Re:Deregulation is working by Ranten_N_Raven · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.
      --

      READ the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the other amendments! http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/const.html
    9. Re:Deregulation is working by BryanR1977 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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.

    10. Re:Deregulation is working by daviddennis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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

    11. Re:Deregulation is working by fingusernames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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

  2. I hope they include firewalls by PornMaster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

    --
    500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
  3. and a price increase? by WormholeFiend · · Score: 3, Funny

    My cable ISP is offering me an upgrade from 3 to 5mbps for a 50% increase of my bill...

  4. Piracy by xplosiv · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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).

    1. Re:Piracy by thedillybar · · Score: 4, Insightful
      >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.

  5. Bottleneck by blackmonday · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Bottleneck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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)

  6. Fiber by L.+VeGas · · Score: 5, Funny

    I guess it's true that fiber is good for you.

    --
    Best Windows Freeware
  7. This would be an awesome upgrade by TheMadPenguin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Linux with kernel panic...
    MadPenguin.org
  8. 15-25mbps... by __aambat2633 · · Score: 4, Informative

    15-25mbps...
    Here in Sweden we have had 24mbps dsl network for quite some time now... both vdsl and adsl2+

    1. Re:15-25mbps... by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 3, Funny
      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.

  9. Re:Pedantic by b1t+r0t · · Score: 4, Informative

    I don't know what conventions you've been going to, but a small "b" means bits, and a big "B" means bytes.

    --

    --
    "Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
    "Open source is evil." - Microsoft
  10. About fsking time, but don't hold your breath by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
  11. Re:Gonna be tough to utilize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just because there isn't a need now doesn't mean there won't be in the future. If they have the money to upgrade their networks, let them! Let them plan for the future. What harm can it do?

  12. Re:Pedantic by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Funny
    Occasionally you'll see people saying that MB or Mb is megabyte and Mb or mb is megabit, but obviously this is far from consistent. The above is the most common that I've seen, or just avoid the whole subject and explicitly say 10mbit.

    And here I wasted my time in college learning 'M' is the abbreviation of Mega (million) and 'm' is the abbreviation of Milli (thousandths).

    Imagine the disappointment of subscribers finding that they get millibits per second.

    "Look, Dad, somethings coming in on the Teletype!"

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  13. heh by TheHawke · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
  14. Re:Gonna be tough to utilize by LincolnQ · · Score: 3, Informative

    /agree for the most part. When I am downloading a file from random website, the bottleneck is usually them, not me, on my 3mbit cable. But a lot of stuff I do crushes my 256kbit upload. For example, the World of Warcraft beta was distributed via Bittorrent, and most of us can't get decent speed downloads because 90% of the peers are stuck at 16 or 32kb/sec. If people had more upload bandwidth across the line then we would have a much easier time. I like to host files for my friends to download off my home server, but it's unpleasant to move anything of significant size at 32 kb/sec.

  15. Just a way for the phone company to do cable TV by shoppa · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

  16. Re:Locations? by lurker412 · · Score: 3, Informative

    According to an article published in the San Francisco Chronicle, the first trials will be in Wisconsin and Michigan.

  17. Re:Oh goody by putzin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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 said, my list of complaints with SBC and the laundry list of issues I've had with them have nothing to do with this post. The couple of months that I had DSL service (well, sorta, I think it worked on alternate thursdays between 9am and 2pm) was the best SBC service I've ever had. And yeah, I still use them for my phone (My roomate's fault). Nothing beats customer service reps giving an audible "Wow" every time they pull up my records.

    --
    Bah
  18. Re:Gonna be tough to utilize by GPLDAN · · Score: 4, Interesting

    99% of home users cannot use that much bandwidth regularly. But I think some of this will be licensed by Covad and other national DSL providers to provide business class service over.

    If you look at Covad's web site, they have restructured the business offerings to offer DSL and Fractional T1 as EQUAL alternatives. And the large reason, I feel, is that DSL has issues with troubleshooting and reliability. It's hard to offer an SLA on DSL, when it was designed to adapt for noise. I've seen people get 8k of throughput on a 512k DSL line, just because the line has so much interference or has been bridged tapped too many times, that it is almost not useable. Almost. it costs money to train help deks to go into CPE and look at the db levels. With T1, it's a bit more cut and dried. You may need to adjust the CSU for power, but once it is going - well, that's what it is. ESF is going to give you the number of channels x 64k (56k if you need bit robbing).

    But T1s get expensive as you start to bundle them. Multiple CSUs start adding up. Covad has them equal for now, because the fastest business class DSL they have is also 1.5Mb/s. Probably because they backhaul it over DS1.

    With offerings of 25Mb/s, I know alot of companies that would like to get that for ROBOs. Very attractive. An office of 50 people can use that much bandwidth, I've seen it happen.

  19. This is just a lobbying piece by Animats · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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. Where is that now?