Yes, while some of the shortcomings cited in the article are true, the author is pandering to the G.Lite crowd, and has taken extended license mildly denigrating cable systems (at least in the paragraph you posted). The shortcomings in cable could be reduced with corrective measures, and at the same time some of the DSLs now being used (particularly those by ISPs which use Ethernet forms of concentration, as opposed to ATM switching) also suffer from congestion at the CO concentration unit (not DSLAMs), and at the edge of the SP's networks, as well.
All in all, I'd say that the journo earned his pay, but didn't make any attempt to balance his act. I happen to think that his characterizations will hold true for cable, however, unless the MSOs take the measures that we've spoken about here on many occasions, and that means resegmenting their neighborhoods to lower concentrations of users per loop, and do something about the upstream and downstream spectrum allocation plans.
Yes, the MSOs are now saying that more fiber is going to be pulled at some point, and it will go deeper into the neighborhoods. But, will this be done soon enough to make a difference? is the question. |
