No doubt FTTH is superior to VDSL and no doubt carriers are deploying FTTH vigorously around the world. Still, deploying FTTH in brownfield and MDUs is still much more expensive and slow than any form of VDSL. Don’t forget that VDSL costs are also in constant decline due to competitive pressure and interoperability.

There are almost 200M DSL subscribers around the world plus many other Dial-up subscribers. What precentage of them would be served by pure FTTH in the coming several years? is it possible to deploy FTTH to extent so it would serve hundreds of millions of subs in just several years? VDSL is a viable option imo, but it still remains to be seeen.

In Korea FTTH winning over ADSL2, In Japan it the same FTTH beating out even fast VDSL2. DSL always needs a constnt upgrade. Telecoms getting tired of UPGRADE CYCLES. With cost of upgrades in time Money and LABOR why not just upgrade once and FUTURE PROOF the NETWORK to 100MPS only once! FRANCE TELECOM doing just that installing FTTH EXCLUSIVELY.

VERIZON Looking like it will continue with its FIOS plans despite all naysayers. ATT/SBC rethinking how it got into this mess as its PRIME CUSTOMERS in TEXAS will settle for nothing less than FTTH. Thats what GWB has in Crawford, the FTTH line extends miles just to the ranch. They didn’t care how much it cost in labor to get it there either. UVERSE and SLOWSPEED projects cut back to 1/2 their deployments this year and may be even more next year.

CHINA cut back on using FTTN even with the Olympics coming up in 2008, they want FTTH. Australia Zestra Cancelled 4 Billion dollar FTTN NETWORK. So you say your ‘invested” in Ikanos? Its almost down to its yearly low; not sure it has an upside because the cost to deply true FTTH keeps dropping. Who wants to spend $$$ to only get 1/3 the speed of FTTH which can only handle 1 channel of HDTV and the internet ? With HDTV taking off telecoms rethinking deployments. The Customer who wants HDTV rules.

I will keep on following this site as I find it informative but don’t worry, I won’t bother you with any “troll” questions.

If you listened to the IKAN call last night (I did) they specifically said most of their upside is Europe/Asia.

AT&T is using conexant chips, and IKAN is supposedly in the Verizon build (which I don’t think will be big).

So as an investor in IKAN, you think that the potential for their VDSL2 is mainly in Europe and China? What about AT&T’s FTTN or Softbank FTTR trial ?

http://www.telegeography.com/cu/article.php?article_id=13175

btw,

what did u mean by : “This post looks a lot like a VDSL troll, but I am more than happy to oblige given I’m currently an investor in Ikanos.” ?

As for Japan, all indicators point to the fact DSL is dying. Fast. VDSL in the MDU is a marginal technology. Landlords who grant NTT access to their facility are demanding that fiber be put all of the way to the apartment. Fiber has become a must-have item for consumers, and hence a must have item for landlords who wish to rent apartments. Sure, VDSL will be used but only when faber absolutely cannot.

In the US, Verizon recently ordered over 50m feet of hardened specialty fiber from ADC. This is designed for use in MDU deployments where it is nailed to the outside of apartment buildings. Verizon uses a secondary downstream wavelength to send TV, a technique that makes VDSL conversion. IPTV is used for on-demand only. So, Verizon is pushing for fiber all the way too.

Europe and Asia are best suited for VDSL because of the short loop lengths. EUrope also has Marxist regulations that prevent capitalists from building phone infrastructure without it being re-appropriated. VDSL also has inherent cost advantages that make it suitable for retrofits and capital sensitive installations, like urban china and india.

Regarding VDSL Vs. pure fiber, there is an issue that I have been trying to understand for a while but couldn’t get a straight answer. How strong is the case for VDSL in the coming years and in the more distant future?

It is obvious that (ignoring costs) pure FTTH is the ideal means of delivering bandwidth but in light of different levels of fiber penetration and loop length I always assumed that in brownfield deployments it is always better to use VDSL.

In MDUs in Japan, for example, I assumed it is always more cost-effective to deploy the fiber to the basement and use VDSL than to wire each and every apartment with an optic cable. That way, the service provider can deliver symmetric 100Mbs ( or close) with minimal costs. Still, there are a lot of pure FTTH subs there. Another source of confusion is the fact they use the term FTTH for describing the service and not necessarily the infrastructure. In other words, it is possible that a substantial amount of what they call FTTH deployments is actually FTTB/VDSL?

Moving to more complex scenarios, like the European market where they don’t have such a widespread optic network. If fiber reaches to somewhere upto 1000 feet from the customer premises, it also sounds reasonable to first deploy VDSL to get 25-50 Mbs and gradually migrate it to FTTH/FTTB along the years. VDSL looks like the only near term solution in order to offer IPTV including Hi-def, doesn’t it?

Thanks in advance