Newsletter
Google Left Banner
Qwest CTO: We Will Be Fine With DSL
25 Aug, 2008In the past couple weeks, there’s been a lot of discussion and debate about which telco strategy will win – Verizon’s FTTH play with FiOS, or AT&T’s FTTN strategy with U-verse. Lost in that debate was this country’s third largest telco, Qwest, who also yields significant influence over the telecom landscape. Qwest is following a similar strategy to AT&T, with one major difference. They are not pursuing an IPTV strategy, and are instead (at least for the time being) leveraging a DirecTV partnership for the video portion of their triple play. Qwest CTO Pieter Poll gave an interview to ZDNet’s Between the Lines blog and offered Qwest’s view of the broadband landscape. Here are some interesting takes from the interview:
- For the time being, Qwest is content with a FTTN strategy, utilizing VDSL2 to the home, and delivering a top end speed of 30-35 Mbps
- Poll is not concerned with DOCSIS 3.0, commenting that the 100 Mbps speeds that are associated with it are “a marketing game,” and will not be the reality in the marketplace
- FTTH is simply unrealistic for Qwest because of the cost associated with retro fitting their extensive buried plant assets – a challenge that Verizon does not face with its extensive aerial plant
- Qwest is moving forward with application development and intends to offer their “Q Home” application platform that will among other things, integrate phone service with instant messaging, email, and click-to-call type services
Qwest has taken their fair share of criticism for appearing to be somewhat slower to move into the future than their other “bell” brethren. They’ve punted on IPTV and have no wireless assets of their own, leading to speculation that they will face long term consequences for not being more aggressive with their strategies. But love them or hate them, at least you know where they stand. They’ve decided to follow a different strategy, and are not ashamed to talk about it. All these predictions of winners and losers are somewhat pointless right now. We’re way too early in the broadband game to figure out who wins. Anyone dismissing one strategy over the other is simply speculating. Qwest’s strategy adds some diversity to the mix. They’ll all be worth observing.
DOCSIS 3.0
I disagree with his assessment of DOC 3.0. Will it deliver 100 Mbps? I don't really think it matters. What it will do though is create a hard to match broadband "experience" and cable companies will market that to the tilt. I really think telcos that face DOC 3.0 with a DSL only product will be in serious trouble.
Post new comment
About Telecompetitor
- Comcast Brings Wideband to the Northwest
- Muni-Wireless Not Dead Yet
- Is Three Screen Convergence a Pipe Dream?
- Verizon Joins CDN Movement
- iPhone 3G Coming to WalMart
- Verizon’s Turn for Smartphone Spotlight with BlackBerry Storm Launch
- Verizon Business Teams With Nortel for Managed Telepresence Service
- Full Speed Ahead for Clearwire and WiMAX
Channel
Webinars/Events
Upcoming Webinars
Packet Optical Networks – Enabling Your Future
Dec 16, 2008
Upcoming Events
NTCA Wireless Symposium
Jan 7-9, 2009 - Austin, TX
Featured Article
Should Telephone Service be Free?
12 Oct, 2008
Comcast announced a new promotion last week that offers 12 months of free basic cable service for new customers who also sign up for an additional service. Customers who don’t want an additional service can get Comcast’s basic service of about 20 -30 channels for $10/month. The promotion is tied to the digital TV transition of February 2009 and entices potential customers to avoid the transition “hassle” by getting “free” cable service. “The simple fact is that basic cable is the easiest path through the digital transition and now consumers can get it for free,” said Derek Harrar, General Manager and Senior Vice President, Video Services for Comcast in a company statement. This move is similar to strategies pursued by other video service providers, who are hoping to leverage the digital TV transition for new subscriber additions.
But is this strategy a leading indicator for the future? Should basic core services like basic cable and basic telephone service be offered for free, used as a “carrot” to entice customers to buy “more important” services like broadband? Maybe a very basic phone service, with no LD, access to landline 911, and maybe outgoing service only (to avoid telemarketers) should be a free component of a bundled offering. Such a wireline service may appeal to a customer who previously cut the cord for wireless only, but also needs broadband. There is a growing portion of the population who find the value of traditional wireline phone service elsewhere – either through wireless or broadband/IP services. But, if they could get the security of landline 911, and an extra dial tone in their home as a free value add for subscribing to broadband (or video from a telco’s perspective), maybe a telco’s bundled offering may look more attractive than a comparable cable offering. I realize this idea is not appealing to the hundreds of ILECs who are a part of the current access/settlement system (in fact, it couldn’t work in the context of today’s regulatory structure), but I wonder whether it’s inevitable. In this possible future scenario, the current settlement system adapts to broadband as the underlying service, as opposed to voice.
This scenario cuts both ways. From a cable company’s perspective, a growing portion of the population is turning to the Internet as a source for their video content, and no longer see value in paying for a broad package of video as a part of a traditional subscription pay-TV service. But, if they could receive basic TV (which includes local broadcast affiliates) as a free value add for buying broadband, maybe the cable bundle is more attractive. In a true IP/broadband world, very basic phone and video service is relatively easy to deliver, and has little impact on bandwidth and network performance. Maybe the digital transition is opening the door to a future where free basic services are a regular component of a bundled offering. Thoughts?

digg this story
google

Unanswered question re Qwest's VDSL strategy
One question not addressed here is the range of robustness of Qwest's VDSL-based plant. AT&T's VDSL field transmission equipment (VRADs) has very limited range, reportedly able to service premises only within 3,000 feet of a VRAD. This is requiring AT&T to install a lot of these units, increasing the cost of and crimping its U-Verse rollout.
How is Qwest overcoming VDSL's range limitations and costs to ensure the telco doesn't like AT&T for example leave gaping broadband black holes in its service area?