Slashdot Mirror


All-IP Network Produces $100B Real Estate Windfall

Hugh Pickens writes "Daniel Berniger writes that one of the unexpected consequences of AT&T's transition to HD voice and all-IP networks is that the footprint of required network equipment will shrink by as much as 90 percent, translating into a $100 billion windfall as the global telecom giant starts emptying buildings and selling off the resulting real estate surplus. Since IP connections utilize logical address assignments, a single fiber can support an almost arbitrary number of end-user connections — so half a rack of VoIP network equipment replaces a room full of Class 4 and Class 5 circuit switching equipment, and equipment sheds replace the contents of entire buildings. AT&T's portfolio goes back more than 100 years, even as commercial real estate appreciated five fold since the 1970s, so growth of telephone service during the 20th century leaves the company with 250 million sq ft of floor space real estate in prime locations across America. 'The scale of the real estate divestiture challenge may justify creating a separate business unit to deal with the all-IP network transition,' writes Berniger, who adds that ATT isn't the only one who will benefit. 'The transition to all-IP networks allows carriers to sell-off a vast majority of the 100,000 or so central offices (PDF) currently occupying prime real estate around the globe.'"

16 of 229 comments (clear)

  1. So... by Bradmont · · Score: 5, Funny

    So this means they'll be able to charge less for service, right?

    1. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Being able and actually charging less are two very different things.

  2. Please mod parent Funny by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They're reducing their costs, not their prices.
    Prices will go down if there is competitive pressure. Which apparently, is largely absent from the US market.

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    1. Re:Please mod parent Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes. Cheaper running costs, not only from the reduced equipment demands, but from all the staff that they no longer need to employ to fill all of those buildings.
      So, they make hefty profits from all this, a lot of people lose their jobs and naturally prices will rise, because customers need to pay for this amazing new technology that'll give them 'better service quality.'
      I may love technology and improved efficiency, but I can't help seeing this kind of thing and thinking that we (i.e. everyone except the telecom companies) might be better off without it.

    2. Re:Please mod parent Funny by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is unlikely that the costs that these properties incur are significant compared to the total operating costs of AT&T. The $100 billion is in the value of the properties themselves, and as such the sale of them arent supposed to effect the price of service that AT&T provides.

      Car analogy: You are an independent contractor and own a $60,000 car. You wouldn't charge less for your services just because you sold the $60,000 car.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    3. Re:Please mod parent Funny by GLMDesigns · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Look at movies from 50 years ago and see the floors full of secretaries. Those jobs are all gone now. Look at movies from 100 years ago. There were horses. The horse-shoers all lost their jobs. 120 years ago 80% of Americans worked in farms now 2% do. Look at all those lost jobs.

      Efficiency is good. It helps.

      If what you were saying was correct we should get rid of concrete mixers and pumps and have slews of people mix the concrete and carry it in buckets to where it needs to be poured.

      That would be silly wouldn't it. Again increasing efficiency in the system is a general good.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    4. Re:Please mod parent Funny by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Look at movies from 50 years ago and see the floors full of secretaries. Those jobs are all gone now. Look at movies from 100 years ago. There were horses. The horse-shoers all lost their jobs. 120 years ago 80% of Americans worked in farms now 2% do. Look at all those lost jobs.

      I get what you're saying, but sometimes the details are more complicated than a first impression would suggest.

      For instance, the population of horses in the US has been increasing since the 1950s, but is still only half its peak of roughly 20 million which occurred about a century ago. The number of farriers in work has probably tracked the number of horses (farriers also put shoes on mules, but there is much less demand for this). Of course, many horses are used for recreation nowadays rather than for work, so the breed proportions have shifted from mostly coldblood draught horses to mostly warmblood and fullblood riding horses. Also, the geographic distribution has changed so that most horses live in regions just outside urban areas, rather than in farmland; the farriers' work has followed the horses.

      If you dig around on the web, you can find some historical estimates of US horse populations, which can be taken with as many grains of salt as you think appropriate:
      1867 = 8 million
      1915 = 21 million
      1940 = 6 million
      1950 = 2 million
      1960 = 3 million

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    5. Re:Please mod parent Funny by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is old story.

      An economist goes to visit a small South American country. As a visiting dignitary the a representative of the local government takes him to see the canal project the country is working on. Men are their laboring away in the heat amongst the pests with shovels and picks.

      The economist asks, "Surely it would be cheaper to use power equipment even if you had to get loans and by the equipment abroad?"

      The representative replies, "You misunderstand sir this a jobs program for the people."

      The economist responds, "Then why the picks and shovels, would not spoons be better?"

      The representative strokes his chin and says "Perhaps."

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    6. Re:Please mod parent Funny by swillden · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That will affect your bottom line and allows you to charge less for your services and still earn the same amount of profit. If you're in a competitive market, then you probably will do so to some degree in order to get or keep business.

      That makes no sense. If I'm a business owner, I'm interested in maximizing my profit. If the competitive nature of the marketplace means that charging less will enable me to increase my profits by acquiring more customers, or maintain my profits by not losing customers, I'd already be doing that with or without the windfall. No, if I have a $60K immediate windfall, plus an ongoing decrease in operational costs, I just improved my profitability. There's no reason to lower my prices, assuming I'm already competing successfully -- which means that my customers are happy with my services at my current prices relative to the competition.

      The only way your scenario makes any sense is if I'm already bleeding customers because my prices are too high, and I'd already cut my profitability to the bone and still can't lower my prices enough to be competitive without losing my shirt. In that case, the $60K windfall is at best a short-term band-aid. I can lower my prices to shirt-losing level and still stay afloat for a while by living on the windfall, but once it's gone, I'm right back where I was. So it really only works if the difference between me being able to stay afloat and not is the cost of the ongoing operational expenses related to the truck.

      But assuming I'm already competitive and profitable, why in the world would I want to lower my prices? If your long-lost aunt left you $100K would you go talk to your boss and say "Hey, you can lower my salary because I have this other money I can live on"?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  3. Re:Watch it be sold off for a song by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Oh I don't know, back in the late 70's I was paying $2/min + operator's fee to call the UK from Oz, equivalent to about an hour's minimum wage per min. Now it's about $4/hr and min wage is ~$15/hr. By my reckoning that's a couple of orders of magnitude drop in prices over the last 35yrs.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  4. Office space? Data center space. by snsh · · Score: 4, Informative

    Many of those telco facilities will probably remain as data centers, not office space. They're already built out as data centers.

  5. There's a problem here by overshoot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Regulated monopolies are generally allowed a fixed return on investment. For instance, all of that copper laid down in the twenties though the seventies is listed as an asset that the telcos get a few percent profit on each year. And that includes those buildings.

    That means that AT&T will make a windfall of billions, but will also reduce their capitalization (and thus profits) going forward. They'd best invest wisely.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    1. Re:There's a problem here by tgd · · Score: 5, Informative

      As a monopoly, they should be required to invest some of the windfall into running DSL to rural locations. In fact, they should want to do this anyway, because people who have data, don't need a land line. That's the one ace in the hole they have, to make people keep a land line and pay for a cell phone, otherwise, it's just a cell phone.

      But in our culture of greed, the choice between smart investments that will pay off later, vs. HUGE bonuses now....that's a tough call.

      Infrastructure run to rural locations *never* pays off later. It never has, and it never will. The only reason rural places even have phone service is because the government taxes everyone else and pays the telcos to provide it. For some strange reason in the US, we believe that you have a right to infrastructure no matter where you live. You can pay 1/10th the cost of living of being in a city, and make the people in the city pay for your subsidized access.

      Verizon was smart in New Hampshire when the state pulled that BS on them. The state said "if you run FTTH in any town in NH, you have to run it to EVERY town in NH". The problem with that? Northern NH is very rural and very poor -- a combination that means the cost for running fiber is astronomical and very few people would even buy the service. Verizon told the state to screw, and sold everything to Fairpoint and pulled out entirely. The end result? Not a single new town in the state has fiber service, everyone who had it has dramatically lower quality service, and Verizon avoids a money pit. Everyone loses except Verizon.

      I find it strange that you're advocating forcing corporations to subsidize people who don't want to take the responsibility of the choices for where they live, and you've got a Ron Paul sig. Very strange, that.

    2. Re:There's a problem here by JoelClark · · Score: 4, Interesting

      NH politics aside, I don't think we want to build a society where you must live in an arcology just to get basic infrastructure. Yes I am using hyperbole, but it is to shed light on the obvious flaw in your thinking. Believe it or not, corporate america could actually have the aim of making our country a better place if our society actually valued that.

  6. Re:Watch it be sold off for a song by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Then you need to practice your unit conversions, here's a trick I learned in engineering - put each conversion ratio in parentheses and make sure the numerator and denominator are equivalent. Then add as many ratios as necessary to convert all unwanted units into something relevant. This technique makes it possible to do complex unit conversions while guarding against careless mistakes. A quick double-check that each unwanted unit occurs exactly once in each a numerator and denominator so they can be canceled, and you're good to go.

    Old price = $2/min * (1 man-hour/$2) = 1 man-hours/minute
    New price = $4/hr * (1hr/60min) * (1 man-hour/$15) = 0.0044 man-hours/minute
    Or 225 times cheaper for a minimum-wage worker, clearly more than 2 orders of magnitude.

  7. Berninger is simply full of guano by isdnip · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The huge savings in telephone company real estate happened over 20 years ago. Their big buildings were built for electromechanical switching systems, mostly installed between 1920 and 1970. The digital switches mostly installed in the 1980s were a fraction of the size, leaving lots of empty space in the big buildings. Some space has already been repurposed. And some is available, but the Bells don't want to give it up because it would make competition easier.

    Most of the real estate still used by telco gear is for line drivers, the stuff needed to run analog phones. Whether these are fed by VoIP or TDM doesn't matter; 90 volt power ring and 48 volt battery take space. They also take power, but home-based analog terminal adapters (local battery) use even more, so centralized power (common battery) is a net savings.

    Berninger is simply repeating Cisco memes, that somehow the magic pixie dust of IP makes everything wonderfuler. It's bullshit, but somebody has to call them on it.