Re: ""but Terayon acquired an Israeli cable telephony firm called Telegate that was already using Shlomo's S-CDMA." This implies Telegate product(s) will fill in where Terayon's have failed"
Notice, Telegat's product, using Shlomo's S-CDMA, is in fact the CDMA of a Terayon founder- Shlomo. Hence, your point seems illogical.
"Thrown out of 1.2 and Adv PHY at CableLabs isn't exactly "poised for success.""
Again, this "thrown out" reference is apparently just false, as Cablelabs clearly has extended an invitation in.
"And what story is Gilder pitching? If CDMA, then how do you explain success in the face of being thrown out of Rogers?"
Thrown out of Rodgers? Care to reference that notion? I believe that is false too.
"And if not CDMA, then what? If their access products, then what distinguishes them from other companies who've been developing their technologies far longer? What's Terayon's edge? Without CDMA, what story do you spin?"
They have CDMA, you spin CDMA, no problem.
"Gilder continues:
Terayon was formed in 1993 in Silicon Valley to pursue the vision of broadband over cable developed by Zaki and Shlomo Rakib in Israel. Analogous to Qualcomm's wireless CDMA, S-CDMA uses spread spectrum techniques to modulate signals across a swath of available spectrum rather than chopping them up into time slots in a narrow band as in Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA). Just as in wireless, S-CDMA over cable offers a shared medium system with more flexible handling of bursty data, greater capacity, and far superior immunity to noise. Like urban cellular environments, cable coax spectrum is fraught with interference and noise...
Is this a string of non-sequitors? For the above paragraph to make any sense, we need clarity on how wireless CDMA and cable-based S-CDMA differ. And when using "more" and "greater" and "far superior," we need to know what's being compared."
Non-sequitors? No. If I read it correctly and I think I do, MORE is compared to flexibility in TDMA. GREATER is compared to capacity in TDMA. FAR SUPERIOR is compared to noise immunity in TDMA. I thought these comparisons were pretty clear and don't understand why you don't. What's more, this all appears to be correct, from what I've seen.
" I know Shaw uses Terayon, but they also use a long list of other manufacturers, including Motorola. Isn't it misleading to say "With Terayon's technology Shaw leads all @Home partners in subscribers and cable modem penetration rates?"
No, it isn't. While I see you are right that some could draw the wrong conclusion, the fact is that without deploying Terayon's technology, Shaw would very likely NOT lead "all @Home partners in subscribers and cable modem penetration rates"
His statement is accurate. Any misconception based in the notion that Shaws whole system is S-CDMA based, would be dashed with minimal DD.
To sum it up, I find writings on this thread to be far more irresponsible than anything Mr. Gilder is likely to ever write.
Dan B |
