|
Don't confuse my neutrality with pushing for things one way or another. The fact is that CAP has a phenomenal lead in the market -- not the labs -- right now, and I give that credence. I could argue that the standard does not mean much in this industry at all. I don't believe that CAP needs to have the standard at all; in fact, it can just go to Bellcore and get a GR released for its interoperability and it is just as strong as a standard in many ways. Again, people here continually miss my point -- the benefits of DMT are ONLY GOOD if they can be used by the telcos in some way. The mention is made here about distance. OK, how many lines in the average telco's territory are covered by this distance advantage. I'll tell you: YOU DON'T KNOW. You don't know because the telcos themselves don't know how many long loops, noisy loops, etc. that it has. They have a hard time quantifying this advantage because they cannot apply it to some worksheet that has all the numbers in it for their loops. I am confused about the 20% advantage noted above -- what is this for, distance? noise? And to finish your thought, if DMT is 20% better, but, say, 80% more in cost, is it worth it? How about 50%. 25% What is the right combination? Put yourself in a telco's shoes -- they ultimately have to make money off of this. They have to match the technology to what customers want, and their predisposition is usually to start cheap and grow, rather than buy a Cadillac and grow. That's my concern for DMT -- it needs to have a better message for the low-end speeds, not the home runs.-db |
