Bob,
I agree that Amati has said that the VDSL market is potentially larger than the ADSL market, but it isn't necessarily clear that they have ignored ADSL to pursue VDSL. I think that the reference you make to the MCI video trials were with Amati ADSL not VDSL. Having said that,, one could ask whether the Asian market, particularly Japan or Hong Kong, might move more quickly, on a large scale deployment of VDSL than the US will move on a large scale deployment of ADSL.
Back to ADSL. While the debate continues on the performance of CAP and DMT continues...and it will continue until there are real, ie., tested, performance comparisons between DMT and CAP (Rate Adaptive). It seems to me that at this moment in time, that DMT has an advantage over CAP(insert polite screaming from CAP supporters). I make that claim based on some intuitive and indirect indicator. First, since DMT is rate adaptive with smaller hits on performance based on noise in a particular frequency than is Rate Adaptive CAP, it seems intuitive that on a given line, with noise, that DMT will achieve a better performance curve than will CAP or the Bells may be able to avoid the cost of line conditioning with DMT over CAP. Second, in all of the recent trials, worldwide, of higher bandwidth applications, i.e., video trials, to the best of my knowledge, DMT has been selected exclusively as the protocol of choice. Or to say it differently, CAP has never been selected for recent high bandwidth applications, reference the MCI and Telstra trials, et al.
One might put forward a reasonable argument that the increased performance doesn't matter. The Bells will likely deploy ADSL for internet access at 1.5M not the higher bandwidths. I would agree with the projection that ADSL internet access will be at 1.5M. Where performance may come an issue, is will the RBOCS be able to have a larger market at 1.5M with DMT or CAP? Can the RBOCS reach, say, 60% of the subscriber base with CAP and 65% of the subscriber base with DMT? And do the RBOCs care? I do not claim to be able to answer these questions at this moment, which is why I am anxious for trials/testing comparing both DMT and Rate Adaptive CAP. What I do know is that GTE is pushing DMT and that the single largest contract, JPC and Alcatel, have selected DMT. (Note the contradiction that CAP supporters say that CAP is cheaper than DMT and that it seems to be generally accepted that the JPC selected Alcatel based on cost, not line code.) Though I would say that I think that the DMT camp, was sanguine in their knowledge that they had the standard, did not agressively devolop products (more importantly chip sets), and combined with the agressive push by Globespan, gave CAP an opportunity to get back in as a major challenge. This may likely be one of the biggest mistakes that the DMT camp made.
On Amati competitiveness. I don't think that there is sufficient information to indicate, one way or another, whether Amati can be cost competitive. Trials test a product and probably exresses an opinion by the trialer, that their product could be cost competitive. They have a nice position on VDSL, since they are one of the few that even offer VDSL and the Asian market seems more ready to deploy..you can feel free to note that I have a bias towards the Asian market moving forward over the RBOCs that brought us ISDN...
An error that Amati has made, IMO, is that they seemed to have underestimated the importance of power consumption; their current offering, simply consumes to much power. Power consumption is going to improve with the introduction of CopperGold and the TI DSP but what is the threshold of power pain for the Bells? What they ask for and what the threshold is may be different. I wonder what Alcatel promised the JPC....
Best Regards,
Jim
P.S. Your making sense, keep drinking the coffee.... |
