市場調査レポート

FiOS vs. U-verse:構造、マーケティングおよび技術考察

FiOS vs. U-verse: Architectural, Marketing and Technical Considerations

発行 Information Gatekeepers Inc. 商品コード 123298
出版日 ページ情報 英文
納期: 即日から翌営業日
価格
こちらの商品の販売は終了いたしました。
Back to Top
FiOS vs. U-verse:構造、マーケティングおよび技術考察 FiOS vs. U-verse: Architectural, Marketing and Technical Considerations
出版日: 2010年08月27日 ページ情報: 英文

当商品の販売は、2016年07月01日を持ちまして終了しました。

概要

米国におけるVerizonおよびAT&Tのビデオ配信サービスであるFiOSおよびU-verseは、2010年末までにそれぞれ350万人、300万人のビデオ顧客を獲得する予測です。

当レポートでは、米国におけるビデオ配信サービスのFiOSとU-verseについて調査し、構造、マーケティングおよび技術の比較、マーケティングアプローチの違い、顧客による先進アクセスアーキテクチャー(AAA)受容の予測、帯域幅の要件とその帯域幅獲得のためのオプション、AAAにおける代替コスト、AAAに影響する現在の規制問題(特にネット中立性)、レガシー高速アクセスシステム(e.g. xDSL)へAAAが及ぼす影響などについて分析しており、概略下記の内容でお届いたします。

イントロダクション

背景

今日のFiOSとU-verse:主要ビデオプロバイダー

重要性

当サブジェクトに関する過去のIGIレポート

当レポートについて

FiOSとU-verseのマーケティングアプローチ

RBOCの多面的な競合の奮闘

RBOCはワイヤレスアクセス会社へ

ワイヤレスアクセス情勢

有線からワイヤレスへの予測

巨大な競合企業

Googleの攻撃:Google Voice

FiOSとU-verseのマーケティング

主な市場課題

FiOSのマーケティングアプローチ

U-verseのマーケティングアプローチ

発注経験の比較:FiOS vs. U-verse

利用見通しに関する一般的なコメント:FiOS vs. U-verse

FiOSとU-verseのアーキテクチャー

AAAへの構造的アプローチ

FiOSとU-verseの資本コスト

多様な先進アクセスアーキテクチャー(AAA)へのファイバー要件

ファイバー要件のサマリー

FiOSとU-verse:構造的違いのモデリング

AT&TのBell South向け新プラン:ハイブリッドFTTC/FTTN

公式声明によるAAAコスト

AT&T - U-verse

Verizon - FiOS

コストのサマリー

FiOSとU-verseの技術

Verizon FiOSの技術

AT&T U-verseの技術

帯域幅の要件と能力

帯域幅の要件とは?

帯域幅要件の計算

帯域幅要件の促進因子

帯域幅要件:2013年の見通し

帯域幅能力とオプション

FiOSとU-verseの予測:2010年

導入予測

FiOS vs. U-verse:導入予測のサマリー

FiOS vs. U-verse:導入規模予測のサマリー

FiOS vs. U-verse:技術予測

FiOSとU-verseのベンダー

主要ベンダー

GPONのベンダー

ベンダーリスト

詳細なベンダーリスト

付録?:IPTVおよびビデオ配信のアプローチ

放送

IPTV

図表

目次

Abstract

Overview

FiOS and U-verse - It was about engineering. Now it' s about marketing.

The Verizon FiOS/AT&T U-verse story has been an engineering and capital expenditure story for several years; now it is a marketing story. Verizon has what is arguably a superior product, at least in terms of bandwidth delivery, and Verizon has achieved a 3:2 dominance in the market over AT&T. However, in the last three quarters, AT&T has been outselling FiOS by substantial (35%-40%) margins. Why is this happening? This report will look in to some of the marketing differences to seek the answers. It will also explore the many other differences between theses two services.

On May 29, 2003, the then three largest RBOCs (BellSouth, AT&T, and Verizon) announced that they had adopted a common set of technical specifications for the delivery of fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP). In other times, the announcement of the FTTP RFP (and the subsequent RFP for GPONs) would likely have been viewed by most with a big yawn - just another technical standardization. However, in those times, (this was in 2003-05,) this was - and it continues to be today - the biggest news in the telecommunications world, perhaps the biggest in years.

In 2010, this story continues to be the biggest thing in telecommunications. Verizon and AT&T have become, in five short years, major video providers via FiOS and U-verse. They are now both ranked in the top 10 for U.S. video providers. Most of the other companies on that list have been in the video business for decades. We expect that by the end of 2010, Verizon and AT&T will respectively serve 3.5 million and 3.0 million video customers. Also, they both rank consistently at the top of customer satisfaction polls covering video customers.

These two RBOCs serve approximately 80 million of the approximately 150 million access lines (53%) in the U.S., which is the main reason for the excitement. They also control the largest interexchange carriers and the largest cellular phone companies. In short, these two companies are the powerhouses of the telecom world. In a recent year, their capital expenditures were 76% of the total by major telephone companies, and constituted over 46% of all capital spent that year by all telecommunications carriers! Clearly, these companies have the financial power to rule the equipment markets. In addition to providing a head-to-head comparison between FiOS and U-verse, this report will focus on providing a complete background on Advanced Access Architectures (AAAs). It will also consider the progress to date of AAAs (or in some cases the lack thereof), and possible changes in architecture. For the first time, we are going to be considering differences in marketing approaches for the two services, including actual experience in ordering the services.

This report, more than any of our past six reports on the subject, will focus on the following:

  • Direct comparisons (architecture, technology, marketing) between U-verse and FiOS;
  • Differences in marketing approaches;
  • Forecasts for the acceptance of AAAs by customers;
  • Bandwidth requirements and options for obtaining that bandwidth;
  • Costs of alternatives in AAAs;
  • Current regulatory issues impacting AAAs, particularly Net Neutrality;
  • Impact of AAAs on legacy high-speed access systems (e.g., xDSL.)

Table of Contents

Table of Figures

The Lightwave Network Series of Reports

The Lightwave Network

The Lightwave Series of Reports

  • General Reports on the Network
  • General Market Reports
  • Specific Systems Reports

Introduction

Background

FiOS and U-verse Today - Major Video Providers

Importance

Past IGI Reports on the Subject

This Report

Marketing Approaches of FiOS and U-verse

The Evolution of the Market Structure Today

RBOCs' Multidimensional Competitive Struggle

  • Post-merger Competition
  • RBOC Purchase of IXCs
  • RBOCs vs. Cable Companies

RBOCs Are Becoming Wireless Access Companies

  • RBOC Loss of Main Lines
  • It' s a Wireless Access Industry!

The Wireless Access Landscape

Forecast for Wireline to Wireless

The Super Competitors

Google Attacks - Google Voice

Marketing FiOS and U-verse

Major Market Issues

  • The 2008-2009 Recession Slowed down Capital Spending
  • Both FiOS and U-verse have Shown Signs of Slowing Deployment
  • Overbuild
    • Other Possibilities for Verizon Overbuild

Marketing Approach of FiOS

Marketing Approach of U-verse

Comparison of Ordering Experiences FiOS vs. U-verse

  • A Bad FiOS First Experience
  • U-verse Order

General Comments on FiOS vs. U-verse from a Utilization Perspective

  • FiOS
  • U-verse
  • Summary

FiOS and U-verse - Architectures

Architectural Approaches to AAAs

Capital Costs of FiOS and U-verse

Fiber Requirements for Various Advanced Access Architectures

  • BellSouth' s Fiber to the Curb (FTTC)
  • U-verse - AT&T' s Fiber to the node (FTTN)
  • FiOS - Verizon' s FTTP (Fiber to the Premise)

Summary of Fiber Requirements

FiOS and U-verse - Modeling Architectural Differences

  • Fiber Required for Each Architecture
  • Cost of Fiber Needed for Each Architecture

AT&T' s New Plans for BellSouth - a Hybrid FTTC/FTTN

AAA Costs from Public Statements

AT&T - U-verse

Verizon - FiOS

Summary of Costs

Technologies of FiOS and U-verse

Verizon FiOS Technology

  • Delivery Technology
  • Video Technology

AT&T U-verse Technology

  • Delivery Technology
  • Video Technology

Bandwidth Requirements and Capabilities

What are the Bandwidth Requirements?

Calculating Bandwidth Requirements

Drivers of Bandwidth Requirements

Bandwidth Requirement 2013 Scenario

Bandwidth Capabilities and Options

  • The Current Options
    • FIOS - FTTP Bandwidth Capacity
    • U-verse
  • Options for the Needed Capabilities
    • Pair Bonding
    • Reduce the Distance
    • Hybrid FTTN - FTTC
      • AT&T' s New Plans for BellSouth - a Hybrid FTTC/FTTN
    • Compression
  • NGPONs - Advanced Options - 10-GPON and WDM-PON
    • 10-GPON
    • WDM-PONs

FiOS and U-verse Forecasts - 2010

FiOS and U-verse Forecasts - 2010

Forecasts for Deployment

  • AT&T
    • BellSouth
  • Verizon

FiOS vs. U-verse - Deployment Forecast Summary

  • AT&T - U-verse
    • BellSouth
  • Verizon - FiOS

FiOS vs. U-verse -Forecast Size of Deployments

  • Forecast of Homes Passed
  • FiOS vs. U-verse - Penetration Rates
  • Growth of FiOS vs. U-verse and Reduction in xDSL

FiOS vs. U-verse - Technology Forecast

  • Forecast Technologies by Type

FiOS and U-verse Vendors

Selected Vendors

Vendors of GPONS

Vendors Listing

  • Summary of Vendors

Detailed Listing of Vendors

  • Acterna (acquired by JDSU)
  • ADC
  • Adtran
  • Advanced Fibre Communications Inc. (AFCI) (Now Tellabs)
  • Alcatel-Lucent
  • Alloptic Inc
  • Amino Technologies plc
  • AOC Technologies
  • Avanex Corporation
  • Broadlight
  • Calix
  • Cisco
  • Conexant
  • Corrigent
  • Entrisphere Inc. (Acquired by Ericsson)
  • Ericsson
  • Fiberxon (Now Source Photonics combined with Luminent)
  • Finisar Corporation
  • FlexLight Networks (Defunct)
  • Fujitsu
  • Genone3 Technologies Inc.
  • Hitachi Communication Technologies Ltd.
  • Humax USA Inc.
  • Iamba Networks
  • JDS Uniphase
  • Kreatel Communications AB (Acquired by Motorola)
  • LG Electronics
  • LightComm Technology
  • Marconi
  • Microsoft
  • Motorola
  • NeoPhotonics
  • Nortel
  • Novera Optics (owned by Nortel / LG JV)
  • OFS
  • O-Net Communications Ltd
  • Oplink Communications, Inc.
  • Optiviva Inc.
  • Optical Solutions (Acquired by Calix)
  • Osaki Electric Co. Ltd.
  • Paceon (Mitsubishi)
  • Passave (Acquired by PMC-Sierra)
  • PMC-Sierra
  • Quantum Bridge Communications (Acquired by Motorola)
  • Salira Optical Network Systems
  • Scientific-Atlanta (Cisco)
  • Siemens
  • Source Photonics (Combined with Fiberxon and Luminent)
  • Tandberg Ltd. (Ericsson)
  • Tellabs
  • Terawave (Acquired by Occam Networks)
  • Tut Systems (Acquired by Motorola)
  • Vinci Systems, Inc. (Acquired by Tellabs)

Appendix I - IPTV and Approaches to Video Delivery

Broadcast

IPTV

  • IPTV Architecture
    • IPTV Global Architecture
      • Super Hub Office
      • Video Hub Office
      • Serving Offices
  • IPTV Distribution and Access Architecture
  • IPTV Channel Selection

Table of Figures

  • Figure 1, Lightwave Network
  • Figure 2: Summary of Competitive Position
  • Figure 3: Revised Competitive Structure Due to IXC Purchases
  • Figure 4: RBOCs Subsume IXCs and CLECs
  • Figure 5: RBOCs vs. Cable Companies
  • Figure 6, Telcos vs. Cable Companies - 2010
  • Figure 7, Verizon Wireline vs. Data Revenues
  • Figure 8, Verizon Loss of Main Lines vs. Data Revenue
  • Figure 9, Wireless Competition
  • Figure 10, Forecast for Wireline to Wireless Migration
  • Figure 11, The Super Competitors
  • Figure 12, Google as a Serious Threat
  • Figure 13, Predominant Advanced Access Architectures
  • Figure 14, BellSouth FTTC
  • Figure 15, AT&T U-verse (FTTN)
  • Figure 16, Verizon FiOS (FTTP)
  • Figure 17, Fibers Required per Year for Each Architecture
  • Figure 18, Amount of Fibers for the Architectures
  • Figure 19, Length of Fiber for the Architectures
  • Figure 20, Fiber Costs of the Three Architectures
  • Figure 21, Fiber Cost per customer - Each Architecture
  • Figure 22, AT&T - BellSouth Hybrid FTTC
  • Figure 23, Fiber Required Upgrading to Hybrid FTTC
  • Figure 24, Annual Costs of AAA
  • Figure 25, PON - Central Office Portion
  • Figure 26, PON - Outside Plant Portion
  • Figure 27, Wavelength Assignments - FiOS
  • Figure 28: Bandwidth Needs - Forecast Through 2013
  • Figure 29, Drivers of Access Bandwidth Requirements
  • Figure 30, Usage Scenario - 2013
  • Figure 31, 2013 Bandwidth Requirements
  • Figure 32, Forecast Access Bandwidth Requirements 2013
  • Figure 33, Comparison of Internet Access Speed Offered
  • Figure 34, PONs' Bandwidth Capacity
  • Figure 35, VDSL2 Bandwidth vs. Distance
  • Figure 36, AT&T - BellSouth Hybrid FTTC
  • Figure 37, Fiber Required Upgrading to Hybrid FTTC
  • Figure 38: Forecast Homes Passed Cumulative - All Technologies
  • Figure 39: Forecast Homes Passed Annually - By Company - All Technologies
  • Figure 40: FTTX vs. High-speed Accesses vs. US Households
  • Figure 41, AAA Growth vs. Legacy XDSL
  • Figure 42: Technology Type Cumulative - Forecast
  • Figure 43: Forecast Technologies - Homes Passed - Annual
  • Figure 44: Forecast Homes Passed - PONs vs. Other Technologies
  • Figure 45: Verizon PON Forecast
  • Figure 46: AT&T PON Forecast
  • Figure 47, Originally Selected Vendors
  • Figure 48, Newly Selected Vendors
  • Figure 49: GPON Selected Vendors
  • Figure 50, Summary of Vendors
  • Figure 51: Broadcast TV on BPONs
  • Figure 52: Broadcast TV
  • Figure 53: IPTV General Architecture
  • Figure 54: IPTV Global Architecture
  • Figure 55: IPTV Access Architecture
  • Figure 56: FTTP Architecture for IPTV
  • Figure 57: IPTV Hub Office Architecture
  • Figure 58: IPTV Channel Selection
Back to Top