*Is this correct? If so, then would this not be inconsistent with the goals of DOCSIS?*
Actually, TERN contributed IPR (with no $$$ strings attached) to the new DOCSIS standard. Folks are free to utilize it . . . however there are always those pesky manufacturing & implementation questions that need to be addressed. Recreating the wheel is not as easy as it sounds. Part of the agreement by TERN to contribute IPR to the DOCSIS 1.2 standard is that TERN is allowed to retain trade secrets in actual implementation.
*Secondly, notwithstanding the up-front cost savings of cable providers opting for TERN system, at some point these reluctant cable providers are going to have to upgrade their systems to accommodate increasing demands of users, & that the benefits of the TERN modem today may be short-lived a few years down the fiber road.*
Not exactly.
CMTO and TERN are both subject to changes "down the fiber road". At this point CMTO stuff is in use for all but one system at HSAC. But TERN is in the only true two-way cable system. It appears that CMTO has an advantage in systems that are one-way cable (downstream) with a wireline follow on connection (upstream) and then can be upgraded to two way. With TERN, I am speaking of systems that are already two-way compliant but of poor cable quality. It is the poor cable quality, which arise for numerous reasons, which TERN appears ready to capitalize on.
TERN's system will work on older, noisy, all coax systems without the expense of fiber upgrades and node splits. In addition, the spread spectrum system exploits all the bandwidth all the time, using the codes to differentiate the signals sharing the conduit (thanks George). In short TERN's system allows for a faster and more reliable way to download and upload data. It is obvious that ATHM sees this due to TERN's inclusion as an approved equipment provider for its affiliates – this before TERN becomes part of the DOCSIS 1.2 standard. Too boot Shaw Communications, home of North Americas most successful penetration rate, cited TERN's equipment as the reason for their prowess.
Speaking with the HSAC CFO, he stated that they are not tied to anyone's hip (CMTO or TERN) and that they are looking forward to seeing CSCO's headend entrant. He stated that they will be reviewing all three providers and will rate them according to performance first and cost second. He firmly stated that the capital investments by CMTO and CSCO had no bearing on the selection process. If I am right about S-CDMA, CSCO and CMTO could be in big trouble. We are already seeing cracks in the glass for CSCO and CMTO in that the folks at ATHM and HSAC already see TERN as the preferred provider for two-way qualified cable.
*However, I suspect that the initial service delivered to these "remote" customers 1 to 2 years out will soon become less than satisfactory should their demands & expectations increase & the cable plant is incapable of delivering a higher level of service.*
1) The remote folks you speak of actually have a better demographic profile and higher demands than the average "urban" user - another reason to like HSAC.
2) Again TERN's equipment allows a way around your “demands & expectations increase & the cable plant is incapable of delivering a higher level of service” concern. |
