Fraud
Hassel, are here just to stir arguments, or do you really have something substantive to add? While Pat did question whether TERN's continued silence on the inconsistency between comments made on the conference call & language in a subsequent SEC filing was fraud, such comment is not an open allegation of fraud. It is merely raising the issue. You appear intelligent enough to distinguish the difference between what Pat's intent was on this issue and an outright allegation of fraud.
If you read her post closely, which IMHO you did not, you would note that she did not consult an attorney with the prospect of commencing legal action against the company, but rather seek counsel to help her understand the possible implications of the company's inconsistent statements. If I had the time & inclination, I would have done the same.
The facts speak for themselves. Whether the elements of fraud are present is a matter of law, which I am sure Pat will be the first to admit, she alone is not qualified to answer . . . and it appear neither are you; & based upon the facts presented here to date, neither am I. So please put the issue to rest until more information comes to light.
If, OTOH, you merely wish to conclude that she no longer has credibility in your mind, that is a completely different matter, & solely yours to decide. But you need not share with us your rationalization, which are anything but, IMHO, & a best, a bit misinformed.
Cost Effectiveness of Deployment of S-CDMA Over Coax
Hassell, you raise, IMHO, the multi-billion dollar question that I have wrestled with since I begun to follow the cable modem market. Some MSOs value the first-to-market approach; others seemed to take the longer term view. The latter taken with the thought that if they are gonna deliver broadband to their customers, they're gonna do so in a manner consistent with a long term strategy, that will position them to continually improve upon their plant & build upon their initial investment as the demand for inter-connectivity over cable increases.
I think the answer to your question -- the economics of the decision to go with a quick rollout vs. a slower, longer view approach -- is one that every MSO exec has wrestled with, & has arrived at his/her decision based upon particular corporate goals & objectives, and assessment of the threat of DSL competition. IMHO, these "economics" vary from MSO to MSO, from franchise to franchise, given (1) the physical state of the local infrastructure, (2) the demographics of the local market, & (3) the strides being made or planned by competing telecos, be they ILECs or CLECs, or perhaps a competing MSO willing to install its own state-of-the art plant.
I am particularly sensitive to this issue as my MSO, ADLAC, formerly CTYA, has taken what appears to be the longer term approach, perhaps to its own detriment. The plant on the Westside of Los Angeles is for the most part old & in need of substantial upgrade. The only fiber existing a year ago was a fiber loop installed in the City of Santa Monica during the early 90s at the insistence of city management. Franchises within the City of LA were & are today completely coaxial; no cable modem access is available, & won't be for at least another year. IMHO, it will likely be longer, & in my assessment the fiber upgrade will be minimal at best. In contrast other areas of the City served by MediaOne have had cable-modem access for over two years now. I paint what I think is a fairly good picture of what Westsiders think of their local MSO.
In contrast SBC/PacBell via its Project Pronto is laying fiber throughout all its service areas. The fiber feeds remote terminals that will shorten the copper running to subscriber premises to no more than 12K ft. This will guarantee the DSL subscriber a guaranteed dedicated downstream bandwith of 1.5M bps. Practically all customers will realize the opportunity to receive this service by year end. And what I describe is just the first phase of a multi-phase strategy to deliver a full portfolio of broadband content over copper. A subsequent phase of the project will bring the fiber even closer to the subscriber.
IMHO, as you might assert, it might have been prudent for ADLAC to take advantage of deploying S-CDMA technology over its coaxial plant throughout the City of LA in an effort to capture this lucrative market. It hasn't, & as a result, it will lose penetration when cable-modem access it is eventually offered to LA residents.
More recently, it appears that additional competition may soon arrive in the LA area. See
biz.yahoo.com
The foregoing, IMHO, implies, that where economies of scale exist due to relative density of population, larger investments in plant will be made to "snuff-out" the competition that is unwilling to make the necessary investment. In reference to the RCN piece, an unconfirmed comment by an LA-base cable exec indicated that RCN, as well as another MSO, are considering, or planning to lay fiber to the curb in certain areas of Los Angeles to compete with incumbent MSOs as well as telecos. I can only guess where these areas might be.
Hopefully, I've shed some light on the decision to go with a quick S-CDMA deployment, vs. a slower, longer-viewed HFC architecture in light of competition not only from the telecos but also from another MSO competitor that is willing to make the investment in fiber. Bottom line, IMHO, is that the decision will vary from franchise to franchise based upon local factors. Whether S-CDMA or HFC is the right way to go will only be answered over time. JMO. |
