Could Drones Replace Tower Climbers?

Could drones replace tower climbers? Could one of the most dangerous and highest paying blue collar jobs in the cell and utility industries be going the way of typewriter repairmen? Drones and robots seem to be the future.

“We will take tower climbers off the towers. That’s our goal and we expect it to fully occur within five years,” said [Lee] Priest [CEO of ETAK]. He said some of ETAK’s drones already have robotic arms that can touch the towers. “We are also looking at remote robots that can climb towers,” he said. “They can use the safety climb as well as the pegs to get up towers.”

DOCSIS 3.1 vs. FTTH

Interesting look at the differences between DOCSIS 3.1 and FTTH.

To me this was the key take-away:

There is no debate that an entire network built with fiber-optic cable is the way to go if you are building a network from scratch or replacing a legacy copper wire network. 

Seems common sense to most but needs to be said for others.

FTTH Take-Rates

Fiber Maven (via Telecompetitor) reports approximately 28 million homes passed with FTTH with an average 50% penetration.

One must assume that "penetration" means the same as "take-rate". The unanswered question is how many of those 28 million homes passed were FiOS, U-Verse or cable overbuilds?

Verizon FiOS Strategy Going Forward

Verizon will look to other cities to replicate the "FiOS build-out" model the communications giant is implementing in Boston.

Make no mistake - this strategy is primarily based on Verizon increasing their 5G footprint and secondarily on increasing their broadband penetration. Verizon is just using the video services FiOS offers as the "shiny thing" to get public officials attention. And to get favorable pole attachment concessions.

TWC Misleading Customers on Internet Speeds

The NY State Attorney General is troubled by the way Time Warner Cable handles customer service and how their advertised Internet speed don't match up with reality.

Misleading Internet speeds are pretty common and you would almost expect that sort of flim-flam marketing from companies like TWC or Comcast. What concerns me is the almost willful suspension of reality when it comes to so-called Gigabit Cities.

I get about 16-18 Gbps from my Charter connection but my bill says I'm supposed to get 30 Mbps. I'm not too upset about that because I understand contention and my speeds are at least better than 50% of what I'm supposed to be getting. But what about subscribers in FTTH builds who are supposed to be getting "up to 1 Gbps" on their new fiber connection only to top out at 100 Mbps when doing a speed test in the middle of the night and much less when doing a speed test during normal hours?

What's worse and what's more misleading - Charter giving me 18 Mbps from my 30 Mbps connection or getting 100 Mbps or less on a supposed Gigabit connection? There's a pressure on many of these fiber builds to attach the name Gigabit to their build and at the same time set customer expectations that the engineers know are not realistic. I don't agree with the practice and it is becoming way too common.

Data Caps vs Speed Limits

"Should broadband data hogs pay more? ISP economics say 'no"."

I'm of the opinion that a broadband provider should either limit a subscriber by a data cap or a bandwidth speed but not both. If you are utilizing a service based upon time usage such as a cell or satellite based network then data caps can make sense. If you are using a wired network then fixed "up to" speeds make sense.

Most wired ISP costs are fixed. The ISP has to pay for those costs whether the network is being used or not. The price the subscriber pays for trying to use the network at busy times of the day is congestion. If your supposed 50 Mbps Internet only gets 10 Mbps when the kids get out of school or at night when everyone is downloading their Netflix choices for the evening - you don't expect a rebate from your provider do you? Likewise it would be equally unfair for providers to charge subscribers for exceeding "data caps" when no "data cap" actually exists.

The wired ISP speed is limited by their backhaul Internet connection. If that connection is say 10 Gbps then that's the theoretical  "data cap" for the ISP. If I'm paying for an "up to" 50 Mbps connection then the ISP is imposing a "speed limit" on my connection. If I want a higher speed - then I can pay a higher cost to get a faster tiered service. For the service provider to try and charge additional for exceeding randomly selected "data caps" is just plain gouging.

The problem is for many subscribers there is no choice. The first one with a wire to your house (fiber or coaxial) will probably be the only one with a wire to your house.

Stat of the Day

According to Cisco, by 2017 video will account for 69% of all consumer Internet traffic.