AT&T shrugs off FTTH, says it's satisfied with copper

If you think AT&T is troubled by Verizon's direct FTTH route while the company sticks with copper, you'd apparently be mistaken. The firm's CFO, Richard Lindner, recently shrugged off concerns that AT&T would need to get on the ball with regard to implementing their own fiber optic infrastructure. While select customers are already receiving U-Verse content, it appears that the majority of AT&T's future will rely on tried and true copper wiring, at least for the time being. Lindner stated that he was "pleased with the bandwidth that they're seeing over copper," and felt that there wasn't any urgent need to "get fiber to the home." He also boasted that the company's current pipes were "producing about 25Mbps," noting that "some locations" were receiving "substantially more than that," but curiously omitted the locales receiving substantially less. As expected, industry analysts have mixed views on the outfit's hand-to-the-face approach to fiber, with many suggesting that "it would need to upgrade its network again" when more consumers start to demand even more HD channels / movies. Nevertheless, AT&T seems to be holding its own at this point, but we're not so certain the old coax can do the same for very much longer.

[Via eHomeUpgrade]

[paul34 @ Dec 6th 2006 12:20PM]

Of course not. If you're almost back to being a monopoly, wouldn't it just be easier to say "no high-speed for you, just because we don't feel like it. And there's nothing you can do, stupid slave! I mean, our valued customer..."

I love being ruled over and owned by corporate America! Where can I get some Kool Aid?

[telepheedian @ Dec 6th 2006 12:22PM]

This all comes from the common misconception that consumers are stupid and don't want or need fiber speeds.

[Phil @ Dec 7th 2006 9:46AM]

No this is more of a problem that ATT has had for a looong time. They told Paul Baran that they were the phone company and that packet switched networks were a waste of time (back in the early 60s).

So it was left to the DoD to develop what became the internet we know and love today. Can you imagine if AT&T had realized what its potential was? We'd definitely not have the type of inexpensive access we currently enjoy.

[Mrmean @ Dec 6th 2006 12:43PM]

AT&T, go figure...these fools will be sunk again

[Steve Packard @ Dec 6th 2006 1:02PM]

copper would be more that adequate if it were switched microwave coax (with each home having it's own link, unlike cable tv, where it's shared). It would even be alright if it were some quad-shielded cat-5e, which ought to be able to do a good ~300 mbps over reasonable distances and 1000 mbps over relatively short distances.

But 2-pair copper phone cable? Not so much.

[Scabies @ Dec 6th 2006 1:05PM]

What was that ludicrous number that Bill Gates said oh so long ago? "No one is ever going to need more than 128kB RAM?" (misquoted, likely)
Ignorance. To think that demands will not increase over time (or to adopt a 'fix it later' mentality) just stagnates development. This is me shrugging off AT&T.

[Spencer @ Dec 6th 2006 1:15PM]

"640k ought to be enough for anybody."

This stance from AT&T seems just about as wise..

[kynetx @ Dec 6th 2006 1:19PM]

Not too bright. They should be scrambling to replace all that old copper now. The longer they wait, the more it'll cost.
Are enthusiast users satisfied with DSL anymore? I don't think so.

[gorkon @ Dec 6th 2006 1:20PM]

We've been deploying copper for all of our 2 GIG and better runs. We have some fiber, but fiber is starting to go by the way side at least in the Data Center. The fact is copper is cheaper and there have been some good advances in the speeds on top of copper. Just 5 years ago we'd never have thought that we'd see 2 Gig or 4 gig speeds on copper but we're seeing it now. 10 gig is on the horizon.
http://www.computerworld.com/networkingtopics/networking/lanwan/story/0,10801,76977,00.html

[J @ Dec 8th 2006 11:26AM]

To gorkon who posted the ComputerWorld link about 10GigEthernet:

What? 10Gig Ethernet is on the horizon? It's been out for years! That article you linked to is from 2002. Also, 10GigE uses Fiber, not Copper. Get it in your head: Ethernet != Copper.

[Mrmean @ Dec 6th 2006 1:22PM]

this article is about "to the home"...

not the corporate sector.

[righouse @ Dec 6th 2006 1:30PM]

Phuk AT&T and the rest of the phone companies, they literally owe us fiber to the home.
http://www.newnetworks.com/BroadbandScandalIntro.htm

[DaLa @ Dec 6th 2006 1:31PM]

The fiber-fanboys are missing the point! Do not love the wire, love the speed/cost. Copper is here to stay, for a very long time. We are still learning to squeeze all the speed we can. And do you realize the limitations with fiber? The cost of fiber is much higher, and when a line breaks you must fuse the pieces together. There are also wire routing precations suchs as 90 degree angles and such. It's just not as simple as copper. Cable companies already deliver you the goods via Hibrid fiber/coax. So there is fiber to the node, copper to the house.

I'm not saying copper is superior, but the best scheme is to maximize effeciency.

[Tomas @ Dec 6th 2006 1:41PM]

The copper isn't the problem - not yet. It's companies that aren't spending the money on network capacity and hardware. I had 25 mbit ADSL internet access (right out of the plain old phone jack) in Paris for less than I'm currently paying for my Road Runner.

[Buzzcut @ Dec 6th 2006 2:04PM]

Okay, who's got the WORST SBC/AT&T DSL download speeds?

I had a home a few years ago that had 118 kbps downloads! You got that right, twice the speed of a modem. I did everything I could on my end to fix the problem (5' long Cat5e homerun from NIC to modem, MTU tweaks, etc) but nothing worked.

I moved and fixed the problem! I average 2 Mbps now, even though I pay for 3 Mbps.

Oh, also, I recently broke the original DSL modem. Maybe a static discharge, maybe it just crapped out on its own. It was about 4 years old. Anybody else have a DSL modem die with age?

[Brian @ Dec 6th 2006 2:49PM]

yes! Our second router from SBC recently fried or something; lights were blinking quickly and was buzzing. Then we were told the warranty was expired, and they didn't use that router type anymore (now how come we never got word of that?) with this new one we continue to have problems with SBC/AT&T DSL, not a day goes by where I don't have to reboot it. All they do on the phone after explaining our problem to them, is go quiet for about 10 seconds then come back saying "it should work just fine now", then the problem is fixed for 2 days or so. We use something called "2Wire Gateway" now, that we had to buy from them to replace the one that died. For downloads, we get about a 75kbps max.

[clarkitekt @ Dec 6th 2006 2:20PM]

This sounds like a pretty smart stance for AT&T. Anyone remember what happened to most of the companies running fiber across the US? Many of them lost money and were bought up by others for pennies on the dollar.

And why spend the money on fiber (or copper for that matter) when wireless is advancing so quickly?

AT&T almost back to being a monopoly? How do ya figure?

[Limestallc @ Dec 6th 2006 3:01PM]

I have SBC/ATT it works good for me, my old modem crapped out at 6 years and this new one kinda sucks so i may buy a 3rd party one. i started off with 1.5Mbps(~150KB/s) the moved to 3Mbps(~300KB/s) and now I have 6Mbps(~600KB/s) and I have always gotten the speed I'm supposed too, i even get 90KB/s upload which is good.

[Ian @ Dec 6th 2006 4:30PM]

All you gusy yacking about your datacenters don;t get it. This is about "to the home." Not "to your corporate 50TB multihomed pr0n pit."

I just got teh FIOS. Comcast charged me for 8mbps/768kbps, only delviered 4.5/500 and shrugged.

Fios. 15m/2m. Seeya Comcast. Adios. The bummer? The block ports. No biggie. FIOS pwns.

Competition good.

[Soulwanderer @ Dec 6th 2006 4:59PM]

They did the same damned thing with their wireless service. They refused to upgrade their TDMA service until it was too late in the game to pull it off financially and ended up selling their customers to Cingular. I wonder if history is going to be repeating itself here.... =/

[Phatman @ Dec 6th 2006 5:03PM]

When digital cell phone networks were just starting Motorola was doing great with their analog sets so they decided not to spend the money to upgrade their networks to digital. Eventually, they had to switch to digital just to compete but by that time they had lost their edge in the cell phone market. That mistake cost them a lot. It's too bad AT&T didn't learn from Motorola's mistake.

[Jay Patterson @ Dec 6th 2006 8:51PM]

http://carloversdream.com
Jay Patterson, American Auto Consultants, Overland Park, Kansas. We have been battling with our Satelite Internet provider for almost one year to no avail. The problem was simply cable that did not contain "copper wire". Can you believe it? Installed the copper wire cable and the strength and of course speed is tripled; copper has my vote.

Jay Patterson
American Auto Consultants

[ScooterJP @ Dec 7th 2006 1:59AM]

I've been on 100Mbps FTTH for four years (in Japan) and it's sweet (especially with an unlimited plan).
However of late I've come to see the limitations (despite an upgrade to 1Gbps to the neighbourhood node, to guarantee the throuhput) and am looking forward to 1Gbps to the home sometime soon (though my equipment will also need an upgrade in that case, and 802.11n will be part of that solution).

Maybe if antiquated telcos like AT&T can hold off long enough they can just switch directly to gigabit fibre without investing in 10/100 equipment.

[Laura @ Dec 7th 2006 1:22PM]

Hmm, I wonder if ATT realizes that there isn't enough copper left in the world to wire an city equivilant to New York City, as evident by the rising copper stock prices.
Hmm, the technological advanement (and urban growth) of China seems worrysome...

[Brett L. Scott @ Dec 7th 2006 1:36PM]

I am a consultant to a company about to offer very high speed data over an unshielded pair of copper and centering its offering on media delivery. I have been playing with it for nearly a year now. It is a very compelling argument to offer extremely high speed data over existing "copper plant". No doubt some new communities will install newer technology, but this allows everyone to enjoy very high speeds without breaking the bank... or does every telco need to go bankrupt again? Things are better than most seem to think.

[Marcus @ Dec 11th 2006 7:50PM]

AT&T is by far the best ISP I have ever had.

I pay for 3 and only get 2.5 but compared to Time Warner where I paid for 5 and didn't get near 1 its a great bargin considering it costs half as much.