KWW,
Obviously, this is a means by which you receive a great deal of amusement. Ordinarily, I would resent your innuendos and veiled suggestions of a conspiracy. But I've been to this Texas hoe down with you before. In a somewhat perverse, if not poetically justifying way, each time you go through this exercise you engender an opportunity for me to vindicate and purge some of your confused notions --assuming, of course, that they are genuine ones-- and for this I am grateful. Let me clarify a few things for you, again.
I "know" Doctor AHhaha for about as long as you do. Perhaps several weeks prior, going back to the origins of the Silk Road thread, when we both encountered your first challenges together. It was, perhaps, this need to bond against such actions by you that was actually responsible for promoting an association between AHhaha and myself. Thanks.
We reach impasses in public and in private sometimes due to the conundrums which often occur between the domains of "what makes sense" from a technical feasibility standpoint, and "what is possible" from a purely practical perspective. And sometimes we, along with others here, have each been responsible for being entirely off base when we've delved into domains outside our own areas of expertise. But in each case, we've learned from the experience, which isn't all bad.
Other times, I've advised him (?) when I thought he was mistaken in what he calls my unimaginative, down and dirty sphere of "engineering", and other times he's provided me with what I call "egghead" references on matters that have to do with quantum theory which are clearly beyond my normal scope, and I've found these to be extremely helpful, in private. There you have it, the extent of "the relationship."
------
I think that you confuse group dynamics on the web with something only you perceive as being wholesome and truthful, instead. It doesn't work that way, or to any one individual's preferred way of thinking. When you go into a public forum on the Internet --especially when you go public using your real name-- you take your chances, and you regard the dialog which takes place for what it's worth within a range of contexts. If you don't like what has been stated, you can ignore it, or move on to somewhere else, or you can provide an argument which addresses the specific points in which you find an issue of contention, or where you see misrepresentations taking place.
But, here's what you don't do: You don't line up folks with opposing views against the wall with a tommy gun in your hands, even if it is just above their heads where you intend to aim. This is simply being uncouth, plain and simple.
Pray tell, what should the mission of this thread be? At one time it was, as I myself accused it of being, an "I'm okay, you're okay" kind of place, which I am happy to say it is no longer. Would you prefer that the board return there?
-----
Concerning At Home:
I've not only given kudos to the engineering folks at Home (@Home's in-house "own" capabilities and their handling of architectural matters in the past), but I've also cited many ways in which they should, imo, improve their delivery on top of their existing constructs ---while selectively replacing some of those--- which have already been implemented.
Some of those architectural constructs are, in fact, anachronisms at this time, or soon will be, which were conceived in principle some six to ten years ago when earlier assumptions prevailed, as typified by Cable Labs' take on the National Infrastructure Initiative (NII) during Gore Lore years. See:
nap.edu
I don't want to go on record as never appreciating the precepts found in this document. They were bold, and in many ways well thought out. But those precepts are not immune from the fate of Moores Law, nor are they exempt from the penalties of cannibalization which has come to mark all early nineties initiatives, it seems.
But none of the foregoing should stop the MSOs (note the distinction here, once again, MSOs') from upgrading in order to take advantage of emerging technologies. And to some extent, the Home partners are looking to upgrade in the distant future (which, IMO, will be far too late), but from where I sit these stated directions are only token gestures, thus far, by T specifically through their Lightwire architecture[s]. LW, LW2 and LW3 will not impact a significant number of homes passed for at least another 3 to 5 years, during which time other aspirants' technologies and subscriber roles will have already had time to mature.
BTW, some of those other architectures will actually use a variant of HFC, which I call hybrid fiber/wireless. Here fiber is brought to the curb, or to a cluster of homes, and sent to the residence over wireless instead of coax. Not as good as pure, but in the early stages no one will know the difference. Congestion is like getting old. It takes time before you notice it. Only here, we're talking Internet time, not human chronological time.
During the interim period of the next several to five years, other forms of virgin platforms (read: still uncongested early-stage deployments) will be poised to take away share, because they, too, will allow momentary robustness of speeds until they gain in popularity and collide with the same "trajedy of the commons" fate that awaits the MSOs's HFCs, unless the MSOs (and ILECs, while I'm at it) go much deeper with fiber. Much deeper. I'm not alone in this thinking. See:
zdnet.com
-------
When it comes to certain things, you just don't get it, I'm afraid. Here's what your postings suggest to me that you don' get, after all of your reading of my posts:
The object of my criticisms has *not* been @Home proper, per se. Rather, most of my pontification and "jabber" has been directed at the architectures which are the domains of @Home's partners, the MSOs themselves, and the Cable Labs monolith which appears to be all-omnipotent issuing the final word in how Residential America is poised to receive and transmit their information over the next decade.
The existing power structure will do so over an architecture based on radio frequency signals which was devised fifty years ago, and over bandwidth-restricting black coax which should, as in every other sector today, give way to a purer form of optical delivery.
Yes there are reasons for such confusion with regards to just who is to blame for this, and unlike your directing jabs in my/our direction, I'm not singling you out:
A definitive distinction is still a very nebulous one when trying to decipher just who @Home is and what their mission is, and who their "partners" are and what their motives are.
I prefer to think of @Home as an entity that is in many ways just biding its time right now, and who will possess full sovereignty at some point in the future. When that some point occurs, they will need to be prepared to function on their own in an optimal way. I don't see that coming about under the current circumstances unless they move in certain ways which I will not elaborate on here again, at least not in this post.
I always welcome constructive observations and criticisms. But I think that you and others here would be better served if you stopped looking for scapegoats among those of us who have opinions, and stopped casting aspersions on interested parties who would enjoy the opportunity to indulge in discourse focusing on a common area of interest. For this board to be viable, it absolutely demands that differing opinions be aired. Comments and corrections welcome.
Regards, Frank Coluccio |
