I get a distinct impression when viewing these stats against the backdrop of the architecture that prevails today there will be a struggle between factions within the MSOs at some point. It's an intuitive feel that I get from witnessing the coveting of thy neighbors' bandwidth for quite some time, and I know how these things usually turn out when there is a finite amount of bandwidth available for all. Sooner or later, if it's not happening already, the MSOs will experience an increase in internal tensions between video programming and Internet services groups. . . . The tension will become openly manifest in the reservation and ultimate use of increased levels of bandwidth for revenue-producing program- and interactive- services, as opposed to (and because of the liabilities that are associated with) placing too much investment and good intentions into an "open-access compliant" set of Internet-centric provisions. I think that the liabilities associated with open access, from an HFC-provisioned MSO's perspective, speak for themselves.
I agree, Frank. Its going to be interesting. We see a lot of discussion here how the cable platform is going to be the panacea for every consumers wish for content and inter-connectivity. And the first thing that come to my mind are the significant constraints placed upon the shared cable platform when that demand becomes individualized.
I don't know how other MSO's cable modem architecture is developing or has been developed. But what I read about, & what I see in my own backyard, is an architecture that appears minimal to address increasing demands for bandwidth by subs who share a single pipe to the nearest node. IMHO, the MSOs that have made the investment did so in quick fashion in order to reach that subscriber and fill a need that was not being met by the local telco.
Deployment of nodes on the fiber loop have been minimal. The rationale has been that penetration of cable modem subcribers was speculative. Today, I hear about traffic congestion, tremendous slowdowns in download speeds along cable modem systems that were deployed less than two years ago.
How much money are the MSOs going to willingly invest to upgrade their plant in order to keep customer satisfaction at a premium? History tells us not much more. Their goal was to get "there" first, but soon that goal should now change to delivering a minimal QoS. I have labeled this 2nd phase more than a year ago here as the "you get what you pay for" stage. Will the MSOs invest further to offer a higher QoS to those subs who are willing to pay for it? Or will it offer a minimal based upon the lowest common denominator? IMHO, these issues become critical to address when the platform is shared v. dedicated since the investment is the same regardless of the number of subs who demand an improved LoS. IOW, if 10% of the cable modem subscribers to a cluster of franchises are clamoring for improved bandwidth, is the MSO going to make the investment, or is going to permit attrition of these more demanding subscribers to the telco or other platform? |
