Hi Stephen, assuming that the basic HFC model doesn't change any time soon, its efficacy varies indirectly with the number of homes passed and directly with the number of 6 MHz channels assigned for 'net access.
The more homes there are per segment, and the fewer the number of 6MHz channels allocated, the worse things get. Conversely, the fewer the number of homes per segment, and the more channels there are for data, the better.
What's stopping an all optical deployment? Inertia, mind-sets and economics. A great deal of this is cultural, aided by economic arguments - in the wake of already-depreciating and very young hybrid fiber/coaxial plant. An architectural shift to all optical for many of the MSOs would be a trauma that would take a long time to come out of, if they could afford to change midstream, in the first place. They're still only partially (barely, in some cases) complete in deploying their HFCs.
There is also a perceived need to maintain consistency across the board for the present time without incurring additional, unplanned costs, until the proverbial (but more often than not in these situations, elusive) grander plan can be invoked some time in the future.
I don't have any thoughts at present concerning TERN and the others you mentioned forming a unit, but I do see a great potential for pulling away from the DOCSIS model by independents and greenfield operators going forward. Whether or not TERN makes certification will play into your musings, and whether 1.2 is ever ratified, or if they go onto some other version. This entire standards-related area is murky to me, and not because I am either disinterested or haven't looked at it closely. It's murky for some other reason, but I simply can't put my finger on it. But I feel that beneath it all there must be some level of angst residing somewhere.
Regards, Frank Coluccio |
