Eric, All,
Clearly I stand fully corrected, and I thank you and those who have helped me to see the new order of things re: the future multi-functionality of the STB.
My last statement in my post 7887 recalled from an earlier (perhaps even a current?) DOCSIS standard which showed the modem communications features of the STB that were solely concerned with decoding digital video and audio, and not for the purposes of supporting your typical cable modem purposes (which were implied <at least I thought was implied> to be separate in scope, i.e., handled by another unit, the CM).
I was advised by ftth (the person) earlier today that among the emerging standards which are in the process of being finalized, both for video entertainment and voice as well as standard data, these integrated features will indeed be sanctioned by Cable Labs DOCSIS standards, if in fact they are not, already.
Having said all of that, one cannot help reflect for a moment on just how much is being crammed into the HFC at this time -- as both the ramp up of new subscribers continues, and new system features are being added -- and where it can eventually go, given the limitations imposed by the inherent design of the spectrum split on HFC, with particular focus on the upstream channel(s).
Yes, I know that this is a separate discussion, but it should be kept in mind when assessing the overall picture when the same pipe is constantly being called upon to do more things. IMO, its clear that more needs to be done to both [ i ] open up the upstream, somehow (not a trivial matter, since the cable spectrum split is quite unforgiving in this regard), and [ ii ] to ensure a greater degree of dedicatedness of spectrum {channel use) for each end user, without beating them up topside the head by imposing a price-tiered QoS model. The most obvious technique to achieve this, again, is one that mimics T's smaller clusters that they were piloting (anyone have an update on Lightwire?) through the extension of fiber closer to end users a la Fiber to the Neighborhood/Curb, or FTTN/C.
Lately, I've been softening somewhat from a full FTTH (the platform) stance, because I've seen some nifty improvements over HFC that hold promise, both in the drop cable and in the trunk back to the head end(s). Back on point, however, does anyone see an issue with stuffing too much integration into the STB? Does every user get a fully-loaded complete-feature integrated device? Or, does the operator tend to this matter piecemeal, and decides who gets which "modular capabilities" based on the offerings that individual subscribers elect?
ftth, earlier you rattled off the two standards that speak to the issues at the top of this post, but I didn't catch what they were. Would you expand?
FAC |
