Blue, it's nice to be missed, but I can assure you that I was not partying.
Recently there has been some rumble here concerning voice over cable (cable-iphony, or ca-caphony, take your pick), and the other day I was asked to provide my take on the relevance of voice services in the ATHM repertoire. I gave it, but heard no replies.
I can only imagine that ahhaha is honing his quill for a killer response. Either that, or he's seen the merit behind the argument, and being the pragmatic chap [I assume] that he is, he has gone on to more fruitful endeavors.
---
Today, courtesy of Pat Mudge on the Com21 (CMTO) thread, I picked up this little vignette which should put a little more heat under those who would find reasons to oppose voice over cable modem, and the adoption of VoIP as a staple in any up-and-coming ISP's menu, including that of ATHM.
Note the names of the parties involved in this two-parted article (click to continue at the bottom of the first page for part 2).
latimes.com
---------
Late Edit:
Upon further contemplation of this and other DOCSIS-enabled features, I've just begun to see the conflicts here:
T wouldn't want ATHM to compete with it in voice, and
The MSOs don't want ATHM to compete with them in the delivery of program content. Hmm... Comments?
Regards, Frank Coluccio |
