Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : AUTOHOME, Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (18030)	12/18/1999 1:07:00 AM
From: E. Davies	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

In order to open up the pipes fully to allow for "internet" like openness, DOCSIS and the coaxial segments will need to be either radically changed, or supplanted by fiber and an open IP scheme. Lightwire is a step in this direction, as is the contemplation of removing the DOCSIS devices and replacing them with Fast Ethernet network interface cards, or NICs I'd like to hear more about why you feel this. Is it simply because of the lack of enough capacity or is there something about DOCSIS that inherently causes problems? In that vein I don't see why replacing DOCSIS with standard networking cards would change any of the issues. With my limited networking knowledge it seems to me that once you make the assumption that the ISP's will access the "wire" at the IP level the physical nature of the wire itself is irrelevant and the only new concern is that of providing enough capacity to handle all the customers. It seems to me that the current plan is for all users from multiple ISP's to share the same capacity. In other words an AOL customer will be able to slow down an ATHM customer. I don't consider that a proper solution but it could be justified by the point of view that the customer is buying transport from the cable company, not from the ISP. I'm don't know if the ATHM thread is the right place to delve into details so you can move the reply to your thread or the "last mile" if you choose. Eric

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (18030)	12/18/1999 2:16:00 AM
From: GraceZ	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29970

No one has come up with a widely accepted interface (which was referred to as the point of interconnection, or POI, in the Canadian paper I posted two days ago) approach thus far that will satisfy all of the players and all of the regulators It struck me tonight that it seems that in the next two years @Home and the cable partners are going to have to jump through a lot of technological hoops to make OA work. Making it work may in fact reduce the quality of the connection and provide needless complexity to something that is already complex enough already. All this rigging would be understandable if it improved the experience for the final customer or user. In fact it seems these hoops seem to have more to do with preserving what might very well be an (dare I say) obsolete business plan, what we refer to as an ISP. Having run a small business for twenty years, I've both implemented changes in my own business plan and had to deal with these changes from my customers and vendors. It is natural to have to evolve the plan because technological change makes it necessary. Lines of work appear and disappear, services appear and disappear. All of this has a discontinuous effect on the final customer and frequently causes great discomfort while they adapt to the changes even when they have been clamoring for a new or additional service. The problems that SI has had in implementing the "New" SI interface is a perfect example of this. Most customers will put up with this kind of disruption if they ultimately feel as though the changes are to their benefit. The changes that they have the most difficult time accepting are those that you try to force on them that stem from your needs. Your need to make the business more profitable or satisfy a personal or employee related concern. Customers see the difference between these two kinds of changes right away and rail against the ones that aren't imposed for their benefit. OA tries to present itself as largely about giving the customer a better experience by giving them a choice in ISPs on the cable internet. What becomes apparent on closer examination is that it is largely about preserving the existing business model of the ISP. I have to ask myself with all that is going to have to be worked on and tested in the next few years along with the additional cost of implementation (which is already higher than we imagined for the first phase rollout) worth it for me as a customer or is it something we are going to have to bear to keep a bunch of businesses in business that would be better off quietly following an extinction or evolutionary path. I know, easy for me to say because I don't run an ISP business, but my own business faces this level of extinction/evolution as well because of the advent of digital asserting itself into traditional photographic processes. I've had to evolve my own business to accommodate this change and I have to tell you it has been painful....but I can't legislate in my own field of work to keep these changes from happening, nor would I want to if I could. Regulation is attempting to take the place of the more natural selection process here. I have to say it serves no particular benefit to the end customer and imposes a great deal of pain on the original providers of the service, this pain will of course be passed down to the customer in higher costs. I know you tend to be agnostic when it comes to political issues surrounding the technology you follow. Can you give me one really good reason why these changes needed to implement OA are going to make my experience as an end user better or more efficient?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (18030)	12/18/1999 3:26:00 AM
From: JayPC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

Hi Frank, I appreciate your knowledge and the time you take to share it. Funny that I hadn't even really thought about HFC/DOCSIS model being only intended for one facilities based operator and their chosen single platform when it's a question I should of asked a long time ago. I would love to see a transcript of an FCC hearing, Court proceeding, or Council meeting to see how T or the Cable partners explained these issues to the decision makers, and to see how the ISP's responded. From what I've read in the CRTC decision, the commission agreed that it was not currently technically feasible and that "open access" whilst being mandated in theory, could not yet be applied in practice. The article you posted a few days ago took the tone that the CRTC would start getting impatient with the cable co's. So far, I've seen no mention of a CRTC/Cable showdown (though i'm not done my search yet). I find the drama of this story somewhat fascinating. Regards Jay