by Duncan » Sat Apr 04, 2015 9:11 am
dane wrote:I'd guess it's a cost optimization choice. For one site you might deploy a single line ADSL2+, for another a bonding VDSL2, and for yet another with PON, a device with an Ethernet WAN. Putting all of that in one box means buying the most expensive modem (hundreds of dollars) for even the most basic type of connection.
I'm sure that's part of it, but that approach could be just as much a compromise as spending a little more for an all-in-one modem. Given that the cost is recouped through the modem rental policy (and let's not get side-tracked on that topic here) the tradeoff of hardware cost savings vs. support/inventory/customer-confusion/non-economy of scale might be negligible. Or what about the same basic box but with, say, a changeable WAN interface module?
When you think about earlier 'super modems' such as the USR Currier or Zyxel or today's highly-adaptable WiFi hardware that supports all sorts of protocols and radio combinations, it shouldn't be that much of an economic stretch to support all the DSL technologies in one box. And to my knowledge, DSL technology is less volatile than what's happening in WiFi, for instance. (I might be wrong about that, though, in which case obsolescence is a greater risk.) Nonetheless, I see DSL at the same stage as when analog modems were at the end of their reign, namely at a point of diminishing returns when fiber is poised to eclipse it. That would suggest a consolidation of SKUs.
Sorry for the off-topic rant, but I've gotten to the stage where I resent companies who practice lazy design and engineering through a 'slap it together and ship it' strategy that simply clutters up catalogs, inventory, and support obligations because they didn't have the skill or fortitude to save the
customer hassles instead of their own engineers and marketing departments. <looks at enormous collection of similar-but-different USB cables and power adapters and cries>