SI
SI
discoversearch

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: E. Davies who wrote (19443)2/6/2000 7:06:00 PM
From: GraceZ  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 29970
 
Here's one that was pointed out to me:

uniontrib.com

Local cable customers could soon
have choice

Company aims to offer TV, Net, phone service


By Kathryn Balint
STAFF WRITER

February 3, 2000

San Diegans may finally get a choice of cable TV providers after more than
two decades of no choice and no competition.

A new company is proposing to offer cable television, cable high-speed
Internet access and local telephone service in the city of San Diego, and
ultimately the rest of the county.

For some parts of the county, including the city of San Diego, it would be the
first time consumers had a choice of cable TV companies.

Western Integrated Networks of Denver said it plans to build a $600 million
network throughout the county that will compete head-on with telephone,
cable and Internet companies.

The little-known start-up company unveiled its ambitious proposal yesterday
and said its goal was to wire the entire county within the next five years.

New competition could translate into fewer rate hikes, if not lower rates.

Cable TV rates nationally have risen about 24 percent since 1996, according
to a report last year by Consumers Union.

"When you look at cities where there is competition, you'll find the rates are
not going up; they're staying where they are," said Marc Jaffe, the city of San
Diego's cable TV program manager.

Representatives of Pacific Bell, Cox Communications and Time Warner
Cable said yesterday that they welcomed the competition.

Western submitted its application for a cable TV franchise to the city this
week and plans to submit a similar application to county government by the
end of this week for the unincorporated areas, said William Mahon,
Western's vice president.

And, depending on the outcome of those applications, he said, Western
would then apply to the county's 17 smaller cities.

If the applications were approved, Western could begin signing up customers
in about a year, Mahon said. About 300 jobs would be created locally.

Installing a competely new network of fiber-optic cables throughout the
county would require streets to be dug up to lay the new lines.

As the lines were laid, Mahon said, Western's service would be phased in
neighborhood by neighborhood.

He said San Diego County was chosen largely because of its economic
growth and its high-tech industrial base.

"We just think the demographics are right," he added.

San Diego is the fourth city in the last two weeks for which Western has
announced plans to build a broadband network. The others are Sacramento,
Dallas and Austin, Texas, and Mahon said the company is talking to officials
in other cities as well.

But who, exactly, is this new kid on the block who is willing to take on the big
guys?

Western was quietly launched a few months ago. Its chairman is James
Vaughn, a veteran of the cable TV industry who sold his Denver cable
company, FrontierVision Holdings, for $2.1 billion last year.

Besides investments from Vaughn, the privately held Western Integrated
Networks said it also has received financial backing from J.P. Morgan & Co.,
First Union Capital, Madison Dearborn Partners, Columbia Capital,
Providence Equity and the Blackstone Group. So far, Western said, it has
raised $478 million.

Still, the company is virtually unknown in the field.

"Never heard of them," said Dan Ballister, spokesman for Time Warner
Cable in San Diego, which has about 195,000 cable television subscribers in
the county.

But Ballister said Time Warner is "ready to compete."

For decades, there has been little competition among cable TV companies in
San Diego County.

In the city of San Diego, Time Warner provides cable television in the area
generally north of Interstate 8, and Cox covers the area to the south, as well
as most areas in East and North County.

In the city of San Diego, the north-south split leads some people to conclude
-- wrongly -- that the city condones cable TV monopolies in its
neighborhoods, Jaffe said.

But the franchise agreements made with Cox and Time Warner in 1979 and
1980 specifically allow competitors to move into the market. For the last nine
years, the city has actively solicited new cable TV providers.

Until now, no one applied.

Richard E. Wilken, the city of San Diego's director of information technology
and communication, said companies had been reluctant to spend hundreds of
millions of dollars to install new cable lines when the only service they could
compete for was cable TV.

Now, he said, the opportunity to offer high-speed Internet access as well as
phone service makes such a large capital investment more likely to pay off.

"The economies are starting to change," Wilken said. "I hope it will spur
competition."


Competition already is starting to heat up among telephone, Internet and cable
TV providers as they begin to expand their offerings.

For instance, Cox Communications, the largest cable TV company in the
county, with more than 500,000 customers locally, began offering residential
telephone service about a year ago.

Cox, Time Warner and Daniels Cablevision added high-speed Internet access
to their offerings in the last few years.

Pacific Bell, the local telephone company, also has branched out by offering
Internet access. And it hopes to be given permission by the state to offer
long-distance telephone service as well.

"We've worked very hard to create a competitive marketplace in San Diego,"
said Pacific Bell spokesman Brian Brokowski.

Western's plans to enter the field, he said, "show that customers are
increasingly gaining more choices."



To: E. Davies who wrote (19443)2/7/2000 1:06:00 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 29970
 
Eric, I don't think that you are uniformed, nor do you miss much, and I don't think that you give yourself as much credit as you deserve. If you are "missing" anything at all, then it's the heuristics that one obtains after getting one's butt kicked for thirty plus years when you run out of bandwidth every time you go to install the stuff, before it even gets fully provisioned. The rest of this post approaches technical subject matter in a reader-friendly way. Anyone not inclined to read critical assessments and such, please press next.

---------

Within your post you provide the answers to your own questions. By citing that the DSLs and Cable Modems have taken such a long time, how many years? to get rolling? is ample reason why the fttc/ftth initiatives need to be commenced now, and not in five years from now.

Yes, it will take a long time --especially if left to be completed by the existing powers that be-- but if the DSLs, CM providers and the industry in general waits until they are all tapped out, then there will be an even greater penalty to bear by all users at that time, for obvious reasons. By that time, they will have become accustomed to a period of high speed access, and will be left with no recourse when the wall is hit. Providers need to begin installing deeper fiber, now.

Another set of items which you may be missing are the subtle forms which "utilization creep" take, until a number of performance dynamics are aligned, and then WHAMO! It's avalanche time.

As penetration rates increase to 20% to 25%, and utilization on the system approaches, say, between 30% and 40% during peak periods, things will continue to appear just fine, and in fact they will be.

Let's suppose that further penetration subsides, and for the purposes of this discussion we stay with 25% for a time.

Gradually, those limited number of users begin to use more demanding forms of applications both in the downstream (such as Solid's post demonstrated this evening) and in the upstream (where they are not restricted by the provider due to the paltry state of affairs in the upstream direction in HFCs).

Before you know it, due to the higher demands placed on the system by these new applications, the same number of users who were stressing the system at only 40% utilization are now stressing it to 80% or 90%. sometimes topping out at 100%. Still no major problems yet, but some signs of stress are beginning to appear, even if only sporadically.

But of course, the penetration rates don't subside when user activity increases. Just the opposite occurs. With increased utilization and added functionality afforded by the more demanding and feature rich applications, Metcalfe's Law begins to kick in, which means simply that usership always tends to increase in these situations, not decrease.

This always has a tendency to spawn a vicious upward utilization effect when enough "head room" is not built into the design, but things are still viable here, for most of the time, but now there are brownout periods that begin to last for a half hour or more, and sometimes prime time is unbearable altogether.

These new applications nonetheless gain in popularity, and before you know it you are simultaneously doubling your number of end users on the system, driving utilization now to 120% to 150%. Since 120% to 150& is an impossibility, of course, you begin to back down on individual user speeds in order to compensate, or new curfew rules and additional restrictive policies are put into effect in order to further stem the tide of traffic.

All this time, other applications that were in development in order to 'finally' exploit the promise of broadband are suddenly brought to market, and their uptake begins to add to the burdens, further. This will raise utilization demands up to the 200% to 250% mark, and above, which means that "actual" speeds per user must throttle down to one-fifth to one-tenth of the system's rated speeds, if the system doesn't melt down, entirely. Note: these are not linear relationships; once you go over a prescribed bogie on a contention based, or quasi Ethernet based system, shutdowns come into effect to the detriment of all.

Add home movies being sent over the 'net to the two-way mix during holiday periods, and you've all but brought the system down to its knees.

Okay, so I'm talking two to three years out, optimistically, for the most part here. But remember, if you wait until that time to put in the deeper fiber alternatives, then you will be at that future point in time right back to where you were two to five years ago, futzing around with V.34 and then V.90 modems, while aspiring to be one of the first on the block to be a part of the new optical platform when it comes out... three years hence from that time.

A big mistake that many folks make is assigning a linear relationship to the number of users --as they increase-- to the amount of additional bandwidth demand that will result. From the CED article that Solid posted tonight it should be clear that new users who come onto the system in six months from now will immediately, at that time, be using at least five-hundred to a thousand times more bandwidth than users who were on the system only six months ago looking up definitions on the meriam-webster dictionary site. Multimedia will do that to you, in a wink.

Regards, Frank