The Wall Street Journal got hold of a secret Cable Labs report, that essentially says that CableCos will not be able to withstand a bandwidth challenge from Verizon’s fiber network. They will have to spend money to upgrade and keep up with fiber. The cable industry executives are spinning the story and saying not quite true. Folks are more knowledgeable are rubbing their hands in glee and pointing out, I told you so!
Cynthia Brumfield, who is quite wise in the ways of cable companies writes a very good response to the WSJ report, and it is worth reading to get a full understanding of the issue. Andrew Schmitt has posted a good analysis as well. Here are my two cents on this issue:
It is Cable Labs job to be the canary in the coal mine, and if they don’t then why are they being funded by the cable companies to begin with. Moreover, this is a warning signal to the cable providers, telling them: Sure there is lot of headroom right now, but dudes’ don’t get too comfortable.
However, lets look at market reality. The cable companies can offer a semblance of real broadband: 6-to-10 megabits per second, right now. They have video, and they have just rolled out voice services. Some forecast that the cable companies will have 11 million voice customers by end of 2007, which are coming at Phone Companies’ expense. Now if you have these three services, you are making money, and building up a war-chest to fight the phone companies, even if it means spending on upgrades.
Upgrades are inherently cheaper than building a new network from ground up, including digging streets, and fighting the municipalities and city governments. In short, cable operators have time (and money) on their side. Phone companies in general, and Verizon in particular, is in bit of a financial bind. It is selling off its yellow pages, rural lines and what not!
Of course, will the phone companies ever make the bandwidth so freely available that it undermines their IPTV plans. Unclogging the tubes to handle higher capacities of data also means that phone companies could be reduced to the role of bit carriers. And we all know how much they hate that.
Sure technology might be in Verizon’s favor, but their incumbent thinking, and financial realities still give cable companies a bit of an advantage.
Does cable have a problem right now? Only if Wall Street starts to get worried about capex required soon.
Will they have a problem in the future? Of course.
Of course they will have problems in the future, but that is if they sit and do nothing. I don’t think these guys are going to sit still. they have time on their side, and hopefully that will be enough for them to take rear guard action.
But will Wall Street view any big investment well? They have been telling the street that they were done for quite a while. What happens when they have to not only explain why they will beat Verizon and AT&T as new competitors, while also having to invest bigtime (again) or try to compete with inferior technology?
Then again, maybe by waiting, new advances come quicker, pricetags get smaller. Verizon is going all in, AT&T just called the small blind, taking a wait and see view, and it will be interesting to see how it all turns out.
Actually, this debate was covered in the Cable Digital News in February 2006.
http://www.cabledatacomnews.com/feb06/feb06-2.html
I’m not so sure if ‘Upgrades are inherently cheaper than building a new network from ground up’.
In the Netherlands a big cablecompany (Essent) announced it would test etth, with fiber to streetcabinets and from thereon to the premises the old coax. 100 Mbps symmmetrical should be possible. But at what cost? 400 euro (500 US $) per house passed.
In the small town of Hillegom a company valled Lijbrandt has rolled out ftth to some 7500 houses. At 1200 euro per house passed. 100 mbps symmetrical to start with, 1000 Mbps possible at hardly no extra cost.
With hdtv and 3D-tv coming up, 100 Mbps is not enough.
Essent recently got new owners, who paid some 1400 euro per subscriber for the cablenetwork. That’s more then a new fibernetwork now costs. Add to that 400 euro for upgrading to a network that still isn’t what ftth delivers.
Who’s the fool out here?
Vincent Dekker, telco journalist at the Dutch daily Trouw
Obviously the cablecos will have to upgrade at some point, just as Verizon will eventually have to upgrade from PON to an active network, the real question is when. Based on AT&T’s unabitous Lightspeed and Verizon’s (not Wireless) traditional desire to squeeze as much out of the customers as possible for slight incremental imporvements, I’d say the cableco’s have 5 years before they need to spend big (i.e. when there is a need to offer > 100 Mbps). 5 real-life years is like 100 Wall Street years (or Tech years, or Telecom years, for that matter). Wake me in 2010 when this is a real story.