Frank,
Pardon the delay in responding, I returned from my week long trip and have been otherwise busy since.
Re: "No, no one except for Jim Kayne replied to the ascendant question. I
guess everyone is too consumed over in the Gilder thread. Some fairly technical
stuff going on over there, I noticed."
Well, that's a hoot, technical stuff indeed, LOL! To answer your question from a prior post, which was also a hoot just for the asking, NO, I'm not associated with the Gilder Tech. Report- and if its editorial staff had to deal with my writing, I suspect their workload would double. Summing up my reply to your Ascendancy question though, I think Gilder makes it clear he is picking stocks from many players in a given space. Therefore, the idea that the word as used by the GTR should imply something more "robust"(is this word becomming REALLY popular all over the place all of a sudden? Or is it just me?)than one educated opinion, is too lofty. And yes, I'd agree with Jim by saying that as GTR applies the word, it should result in subscribers making money.
Re: " BTW, a favor. Let's not further complicate this discussion by the use of the
P- word. Thanks."
Rest assured, I don't see that "P" prompts this discussion in any substantive way, so I repeat my only reference to "p" on this thread to date- "p" drew my attention to your post.
Going off topic for a moment longer, albeit while you've unintentionally turned my attention to this(what can I say?), I'd like to respond briefly to a prior post from Dave Horne(as I recall), concerning independent lawsuits as follows: Notions held by class action lawyers regarding TERN may have originated from a single source here on SI(i.e. not independently) through an unfortunate(IMO) connection with "P," the indicative evidence for which exists on the CMTO thread from some significant length of time ago. All pardons Frank, my only excuse for this "P" comment is that I, like you, find the noting of interesting dynamics worthy. No further discussion needed.
Onward.
RE: "I could have phrased my words better wrt: "getting back at.." Did I actually say that?
In any event, there was no condescension or snippiness intended, rather simply
pointing out that there were some very interesting dynamics going on. ."
Of course, you did use those words- twice- in reference to several people including yourself. I feel you only sought to turn all cards face up, and I think that is fair intent. However, not only do I respect you, Dave Horne, Mark Laubach, Bernard Levy, and others greatly, I emphatically say again I hold no desire to "get back at" anyone. I would note too that I have never owned TERN, and in fact have owned only three GTR(Gilder Tech. Report) picks ever(being a "charter" subscriber, this is unfortunate). I've been a bit of a TERN advocate of sorts, in an effort(if meager) to gain understanding.
Re: "The most recent additions to TERN's line card of products was expressly "not" my
focus in the post you originally responded to, and I stated such. Instead, the major
point behind my diatribe was to contest the labeling of s-cdma as an ascendant
technology."
Yes, and in that regard, I hope I focused my reply on the potentials of S-CDMA, by and large.
Re: " ...the S-CDMA attribute is a lot of smoke when it's used "as a singular
justification" for such a lofty standing."
Terayons S-CDMA based product offerings would, if found to offer unique substantial benefits when compared to the competition, likely cause deeper market penetration for Terayon and ultimately justify Terayons "ascendant" label. I posed a number of questions concerning the positive values of S-CDMA. Granted, it's not necessarily your job to address them, but until it is done, it would be difficult for me to accept confidently that S-CDMA is naught but "smoke." Conversely, hey, George says those knocking S-CDMA just don't understand it- I'm not knocking it, obviously, but count me among those who don't fully understand it. I'm not sure of it.
Re: "I did allow that TERN's most recent acquisitions, which
you've alluded to, might be responsible for improving their outlook and
strategic direction, but that those issues were not on my hit list in my original message."
Agreed, and so any Terayon products that don't run under S-CDMA are off the table. So I alluded to S-CDMA based product offerings in the main if not solely, in my post. Terayon's "Multigate" products all run over S-CDMA, I do believe. If tech. from recent Terayon acquisitions has been incorporated into S-CDMA based products that's ok, but my main question still concerns the value of S-CDMA in enabling such services over coax and/or HFC.
Re: "The single most objectionable issue to me remains the notion that the company
should be regarded as especially superior, or ascendant, on the merits of that one
protocol."
I offered certain technical points that seem to mitigate notions that S-CDMA doesn't add value compared to the competition, and I hope for anyone to address those points, if not other points I haven't touched on. If S-CDMA is compelling and George is confident of its success, then yes, ascendancy- however short lived(short- for reasons applying to all cable solutions just as you've discussed)- might be an appropriate tag for S-CDMA.
Re: "...but
look at the implications of the moniker, and what lies in the balance because of its
application. If fewer cable plants get upgraded because of its heightened popularity
due to the label, then it effectively retards optical progress in the networks in which it
is employed."
This is precisely the S-CDMA specific conclusion I intended to question. First, I'd like to correct a mistake I made. At the time I wrote, I thought HFC was required for TERN's advanced service offerings. Now, I gather this is at least not wholly so(I read recent news concerning Multigate deployments over all coax systems). So the obvious rebuttal isn't so clear. However, even where an operator absolutely doesn't wish to make an expensive upgrade to HFC, TDMA itself offers all coax solutions(as Mark Laubach has made clear in the case of CMTO). Though an operator may or may not choose S-CDMA for its cost benefits and/or overall reliability, such an operator by definition isn't willing to spend for HFC anyway, would likely go with a CMTO-like non-fiber solution if S-CDMA didn't exist, and so I see no negative effect here of S-CDMA on the future of fiber deployment. There could also be the case where the lower costs of S-CDMA deployment VS TDMA is the ONLY argument that might convince an otherwise un-ambitious operator to offer basic internet access at all. Here again, since fiber is not in the cards anyway, there remains only the benefit of broadband Internet service offered where there would otherwise be none- and so no bad effect on the future of fiber deployment. In fact, I think the above defines what many believe is the minimal market for S-CDMA- one in which it clearly brings positive benefits, if not fiber.
But if S-CDMA can effectively compete in the emerging advanced services arenas without a need for HFC(and who's sure it can? I'm not either- and if it can't- no bad fiber effect, again), then there sure could be a tremendous lessening of near-term fiber deployment. Yet if your overall estimation of the entire Cable broadband future is correct, i.e. nothing currently planned for Cable infrastructure(save the fiber) will suffice, nor is it compatible with the ultimate future, then perhaps it's good if S-CDMA minimizes the somewhat futile cost outlays in the meantime(yes, even fiber costs- more later). In any event, any S-CDMA based delay in fiber deployments may be minimal, and/or oddly enough, for reasons I'll touch on in a minute, wind up having a positive effect on the speed of fiber deployment at some critical future point in time.
Re: "I've read in many places that the s-cdma modem could be used in HFC too. I'd have
to ask "why"? If they use the s-cdma variant for coaxial systems in order to beat the
noise problems in the upstream, and if they also have DOCSIS compliant modems
for HFC, then why would they want to use the s-cdma variant for HFC? Here, I
admit ignorance, if there is a rational explanation for this. If so, please tell me what it
is."
The only answers I can think of now would be that S-CDMA might be cheaper to deploy and operate even over HFC, more reliable, and offer the ability to guarantee bandwidth at pre-arranged levels. The noise handling abilities may sum it up- If S-CDMA use translates into an ability to pass many multiples more homes than TDMA can without noise becomming a problem, could deployment and operating costs be lowered even over HFC? Mr. Gilder speaks of this "homes passed" issue as an S-CDMA reality approaching an order of magnitude improvement over TDMA(is he full of it? If so, Why?). So, can S-CDMA be a lower cost and more reliable HFC solution just as it seems to be in all coax plant? I think not only is HFC a benefit or requirement for TDMA advanced services due to the lessing of noise, but noise remains a common HFC problem for TDMA to attend to- is this not correct?
If you are correct(and I think you are) that all the current cable solutions will ultimately max out down as low as 256k service- even on HFC, then perhaps S-CDMA IS the low cost way to bridge the gap to the future. Obviously, Fiber To The Home isn't economically feasible just yet- and hence we can't expect to have it or the solutions to run it soon(my phoneline provides me with a max 26.4k- I guess DSL won't help me- gimme cable! or SATservice, or perhaps cheapest of all, S-CDMA's 112k min. to 280k max, at 24.95 per month!- a USA reality today). Get profits into operators hands now, and they may be more likely to afford fiber later. S-CDMA certainly may be compatible with a quick ramp to revenue generation and fiber deployments as deemed appropriate so far as I know. I do know that ZAKI of TERN long ago stated he expected operators to want to go with fiber later, for advanced services- so is his head on straight given that he knows this? Perhaps yes.
You see, I still expect that TERN will offer S-CDMA equipment that will require HFC to work well enough to compete, if they don't already. I know its been said that HFC offers no advantages to S-CDMA, but in this regard, what I think I comprehend is that where the coax ends, the coax bandwidth bottleneck and the noise ends- and you wind up with fewer homes and less noise prior to the fiber. Instead of jumping to say "so we don't NEED S-CDMA to beat the noise in HFC," would'nt this instead imply reliability and cost benefits to the services S-CDMA offers homes? Am I not making sense here? I think for starters, talk of S-CDMA slowing down or dropping subscribers when S/N falls below 13 db might hold little meaning with HFC, even running advanced services like videoconferencing- which by the by, should benefit from the advantage of S-CDMA's greater upstream. So S-CDMA may bring revenues at lower build-out and operating costs- which may be of positive significance in the end.
Re: "I promised myself that I would not go line for line on this, and at this point I really
don't think that it is necessary to do so. I recognize the value and the origins of your
beliefs, based on your trust of what Gilder has written and I not only understand your
position, I respect it as well. I hope that you take the time to understand that my
perspective is one of architecture. I see a whole bunch of money being spent on what
I consdider to be the wrong things, often. Intermediate band aid fixes at a time when
the operators don't see the tsunami coming towards then because they are looking
straight up into blue skies"
So, I think I understand you well and find the above makes sense. I'll say that I do feel Mr. Gilder is a trustworthy guy, but if I trusted his analysis as much as you may suspect, I would have bought TERN at about 29 or even less, and I wouldn't bother trying to figure it out.
Perhaps TERN, like the others, does represent a bandaid fix, for a time when the tsunami is coming but isn't seen, and we just ain't gonna be gettin' where we're headed(not with cable and copper) as soon as we'd like- but a little taste of better bandwidth now may drive demand a long way when the right time comes. In this sense, a taste of S-CDMA bandwidth from an all coax system that would never otherwise offer a taste at all, could help future demand for something better when it's feasible. And on HFC, if S-CDMA can offer advanced services like videoconferencing more cheaply, at a time when we suspect the enabling equipment will need be discarded in the end, perhaps that's good too. Oddly enough then, Cableco's with their coax and PhoneCo's with dsl, by providing a taste now, may be providing the taste that drives the demand that helps bring on the main show quicker(all in a rush, at a point in time?) in the end. So I say, bring it on now at lower costs, and if that means S-CDMA, so be it. Haven't you commented on fiber becomming cheaper to buy and connect/splice over time?
These interim solutions may allow what I can get from the net to evolve. Hence I ask, without them, would a clear perception of strong demand exist(thus motivating fiber deployment) when the time comes?
Thanks for indulging me,
Freedom Works,
Dan B |
