To: ftth who wrote (504 ) 7/24/2000 9:20:29 AM From: MikeM54321 Respond to of 46821 "A 6MHz channel is assigned for downstream data, and provides roughly 30Mbps to however many customers the CMTS (really, the MSO, since the CMTS is configured by them) wants on the channel." ftth- Thanks. I'm beginning to understand now. Now quite there yet, but close. If I may, I'm trying to get a fix on the technical aspect of doing one of those disruptive things to the current NTSC broadcast model. I'm trying to understand if it's a technology issue, or an entrenched interest issue. Conincidently, Frank recently sent me a PM of which I'll post a part of it directly related to my current line of questioning about the cable plant. Frank writes:"What might be equally if not more interesting is the sector which might displace the a-to-d conversion space, that being the IP platform TV group which bypasses the traditional head end environment and the STB utilities, entirely. Granted, this is a more distant (or is it?) opportunity, which will depend on high speed access (at a minimum VDSL, and unobstructed cable modems on lightwire-like drop lines from the node). And since what I'm suggesting rubs just about everyone in the established power structures in both ILEC and MSO circles, we'll need to see something on the order of an religious apparition taking place in the market to help galvanize the approach, but I do believe that this is where things are going." Isn't it simple-- Build out the ATT Lightwire architecture to 70 million cable homes, and then turn it on.<vbg!> So my question is, "There really is nothing stopping the 500 million channel network, except entrenched interests are afraid of how it would disrupt their economic models. Right?" BTW, if I'm correct, I can't blame those entrenched interests. I understand their viewpoint. There has to be a balance between technology and economics. Thanks. -MikeM(From Florida)