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 : LAST MILE TECHNOLOGIES - Let's Discuss Them Here -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (6952)	5/16/2000 3:50:00 PM
From: lml	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Hi Mike & Denver Tech: If I may interject (once again) with apologies, my own take on your question, Mike, is that the MSOs efforts are geared to the following priorities: (1) provide cable modem access & upgrade cable plant to deliver DVB, both which receive such importance in face of existing competition from DSL & DBS providers, respectively; (2) provision cable telephony, in an effort to converge digital services, and usurp, if possible that cherished relationship long maintained by ILEC and its customer; and last (3) address the HDTV issue which, IMHO, the MSOs are not looking forward to with "great vigor." I leave it to the impressive # of techies here on this board to expand upon the difficulties and plausibility of delivering HD over digital cable systems. Notwithstanding the technical issue to be overcome, my opinion is focused on the bandwidth sucking attributes of a HD signal, and how it will impede upon the ability of full-broadcast capacity system to deliver SD signals and enjoy a similar level advertising (& e-commerce) revenue therefrom. My understanding (& please correct me if I am wrong, or if my assessment can in any way be expanded upon)is that a HD signal takes up the equivalent of approximately 4 SD channels on a digital broadcast system. If HD is to be delivered over HFC cable, it is likely to carry signals broadcasted by the 3 major networks, plus Fox, and also include the HBO and pay-per-view HD channels now broadcasted by DirecTV. Let's not forget PBS, as well as a couple others local broadcast stations that today, and on a more extensive level in the future will, broadcast in HD. I cite KTLA in Los Angeles as an example. If we count'em up, we're looking at about 9-10 independent HD signals, which represent the equivalent of about 40 SD channels. As I see it, that's a lot of lost advertising, & going forward, perhaps a pinch on other interactive services, particularly e-commerce, where IMHO, carrier revenues will come from with increasing magnitude as our digital economy takes hold in the homes of consumers. In sum, IMHO, it is clear that HDTV is last on the MSO list, and is a source of great concern, particularly for those who are undertaking what I perceive to be minimal upgrades in their plant today, just to deliver cable modem access, or install a minimum of fiber. I just gotta think that HD gotta put a crimp on coaxial plant that is going to be carried 200+ SD channels, audio channels, iteractive services (e-commerce, gaming, broadband Internet access), and the MSOs are loath to address this problem going forward, but will inevitably have do. I guess we're looking a deep fiber (FTTC, FTTN, FTTH, etc.) n'est pas? Comments welcome.

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (6952)	5/17/2000 12:54:00 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Respond to of 12823

RHK TELEwatch-Europe Unbundles, Maybe...DSL, ya sure, ya betcha, some day... rhk.com General update on things in LEC land. Some worthwhile charts. GBLX to sell colors. Deutsheland UMTS auction.

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (6952)	5/23/2000 4:39:00 PM
From: DenverTechie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Mike, the role of HDTV in cable land is a hotly debated topic at every major MSO today. In lml's response to your question of service priorities, I think they've got this pretty much pegged. As an addendum to that post, I'd like to add some additional perspective to the mix, although some of this might seem pretty obvious to the casual observer. That is, that the MSO GM is still totally business case oriented, and yes, biased to that which uses the least bandwidth to provide service and provides the greatest potential revenue. Too simple? You could say that, but it takes many forms, especially when dealing with HDTV. Because this issue gets wrapped up with the whole "must-carry" and "retransmission consent" rulings of the Cable Act of 1992. When broadcasters add HDTV (or even normal DTV for that matter) signals to their broadcast networks, will cable be forced to carry the signals in the 2 formats like they are required to carry the standard format today? Will DBS have to do the same thing? It all comes down to financial incentive. As an example, HBO has announced they will begin transmitting certain programs in HDTV in the near future. Every major MSO has in turn announced they will make these programs available in HDTV format, and you can watch it on your cable system if you are one of the lucky few with an HDTV set and decoder in your home. This is possible because HBO will compensate the cable operator for providing this format of signal on its system. But this economic model breaks down for broadcast networks who just say "you must carry me on your cable network in HDTV format because the government says so" will be forced to eat up valuable spectrum to provide the service, as lml so properly points out already. Now would you as a cable subscriber be willing to pay a premium to watch HDTV at your house? Or would you take the more common opinion that it should just be included in the current bill because it is the same channel in a different format? So, the short answer to your question is that cable telephony is definitely on the front burner at MSOs because the business model works and is well known by now. And HDTV is on the back burner because the business model is still unknown and definitely iffy as to who pays for what, not to mention eating up bandwidth that could be used for paying services. And in the end, this is what the debate comes down to. Cost and revenue, and the very real understanding that HDTV is still just another form of video distribution, unlike telephony and HSD which provide revenue streams in the convergent telecommunications structure of the vaunted "triple play" - the ability to provide voice, video, and data on a single platform and bundle the services to the end user.