>>Or approx. 115,000 homes per month. At a normal density for urban construction of 120 homes per mile, this tells us they think they can upgrade and activate almost 960 miles per month, with Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays thrown in the schedule. Well guys, I hate to be the skeptic, but I really doubt it. The only way they could get that kind of production is if the network is ALREADY UPGRADED to HFC and all they are doing is activating the return path, which can be done relatively fast if the basic infrastructure is in place waiting.... I just love press releases like this where they throw around lots of big numbers to impress us, don't you? <<
Well said, Denver.
All,
I think we ought to start another thread devoted to:
- PR Fluff;
- network hydraulics of the third magnitude;
- manipulated statistics;
- improvisational forecasting; and
-the ease with which impressive names within hyper-growth companies can impress the masses and those in charge of governing the masses.
We'll call the thread:
"The Network Architect's Cook Book: One Hundred Days to Doubling Your Throughput, time, after time, after time"
Take it easy guys, it's all in good fun, and not just a little informative.
RocketMan, excellent find. But that White Paper was argumentative, on the side of promoting the concept of caching. It behooved them err on the side of higher numbers.
But to continue, the prefatory message of the thread will suggest to its readers that if any statement found therein giveth any cause for concern or doubt, then that reader need not bother asking for clarifications, or sending the authors any emails to the contrary, because
(1) the statements were all generated by gurus of the the highest ranking, who are the biggest and the best at what they do, therefore there is no plausible reason for ever doubting them;
(2) the federal government has documents somewhere within their archives stating that what the large conglomerates are saying is so, therefore it must be so; and,
(3) the only response to any challenge will be a reply stating the very same information again, during the next hundred-day cycle, as the sole necessary substantiation for why the contested piece of information was correct in the first place.
How many ways do PRs fib? Let me count the ways.
This is starting to become an avocation of great enjoyment to me, but one which I can ill afford to sustain. Gotta back out for a couple of days and earn my macaroni money... but this subject will be on my mind, and I'll probably have more to "ask" later on, as I have in the past.
To review: I was asking how these 100-day numbers could be substantiated. I was not asking who made the original "claims," rather, how those claims were arrived at.
Thanks again all, and Regards, Frank Coluccio |
