DanB: IMO, the notion that S-CDMA is not any better on
upgraded plant seems to me to be based purely on speculations
which the speculators admittedly don't fully understand.
Hassell: This has been my problem with Pat's conclusions all along.
She's really offered nothing but speculation and spin that is
comforting to investors who missed out on TERN. I believe her
smearing of TERN as a perpetrator of fraud is a disservice to
CMTO investors.
I'd recommend doing technical diligence before labeling
someone as a "perpetrator of fraud". If you go back and check
my postings here and Dave Horne's posting elsewhere (I don't
have the message number reference) you can get the non-speculative
skinny on TERN's proprietary cable modem's capabilities.
Let me summarize the key points:
1) S-CDMA doesn't provide any real advantages on clean plant over
the upstream PHY's used in DOCSIS and CMTO. As more and more
high speed data services get deployed, everything will get
converted to HFC, more nodes will be deployed, therefore node
sizes will shrink dramatically with the revenue stream in place.
This will have the effect of moving more bandwidth towards the
home and cleaner bandwidth with each node split.
2) TERN doesn't use full capacity in the downstream, less than 1/2
possible, and therefore wastes bandwidth that could be used for
revenue bearing high speed data services. This is compared to
64 QAM modulation at 30 Mbps used by DOCSIS, DAVIC/DVB, CMTO,
and Motorola. Capital $'s per MHz allocated and homes passed
is a key in the cable operator's business models.
3) The nature of symmetric systems and the nature of asymmetric
TCP/IP flows means that the symmetric cable modem system runs out
of downstream bandwidth before running out of upstream. This means
that about 1/2 the allocated upstream bandwidth is also wasted.
Therefore, on upgraded plants, the TERN S-CDMA based symmetric
system is actually much less effective than DOCSIS, DAVIC/DVB,
CMTO or Motorola.
Mark |
