Please, take my comments for what they are: Merely an attempt to provide you with something to think about as you make your judgements in this industry. I try not to take the side of CAP or DMT, merely raise issues. Down that line, I believe you are too far ahead of the curve right now. Let's assume that DMT is the best technology out there. Let's now look at how a telco might make a decision. Do you think it will merely pick the best technology? Depends what you want to do with it. That was the point of my Ferrari v. Explorer example. Also, let's stick to the U.S. for now, for simplicity. Let's say you intend to launch Internet access. You have people who want to do Internet telephony, video like CU-SeeMe, etc. The key for these applications is not only bandwidth, but full time connections. With a fulltime connection, your computer can become your telephone -- it can ring all the time. If you have to dial in, then your IP address changes constantly, you have to agree to meet at specific times, etc. Full-time is the way to go. OK, now how much bandwidth do we need. Well, how much does it cost? When will it be available? Is it interconnected with my NMS and back office support systems?
There is more to the sale than the simple technology of the modem. For instance, let me give you some competitive aspects to think about. In a few weeks, a vendor will release a chip set that will allow a manufacturer to sell a 384Kbps bidirectional HDSL-based Internet access PC card, for, get this, $70. That's the retail price. There are already Asian manufacturers lined up to make this supposedly, and they'll probably be out by EOY. Now, the other ADSL solutions are costing orders of magnitude above this. Now, granted, you don't get a lot of things with this solution. But you know what? You can address most of the Internet access requirements and achieve deep penetration with such a low price point. Now, there is a lot of fluff between a chip set launch and a $70 PC Card availability, and like a lot of things, I'll believe it when I see it. But the point is you can have the best technology but another implementation may make more sense for a lot of other more market-facing reasons. The challenge for the DMTers is to not let CAP get so established -- even in the lower inferior areas -- such that it has the base to grow on. CAP will meet many of DMT's advantages by the end of the year, probably, and have some advantages of its own. DMT cannot let it get established more than it already is.
I keep thinking of SNMP and OSI. OSI was what everyone wanted; SNMP is what got installed. Yes, the standard was issued to avoid this, but it has not. Note that there are precedents for dual standards as well: look at B8ZS and 2BTSI. Anyhow, BA and the CAPers are making this move because they can. It raises doubts about the DMT standard, and that plays right into their hands. Whether the doubts are legitimate is not a concern.-db |
