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: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (7902)	8/6/2000 8:30:34 AM
From: MikeM54321	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

"The interactive content will not, by design (at this time, in any event), be mounted on the 'net, rather it will reside within the content libraries and caches assoicated with the hierarchical servers of the MSO (or some third party _g_)." Frank- IMO, I think what you wrote above is accurate. And below is what ATT wrote(edited down). "The DCT 5000 possesses processing power closer to a PC...it handles analog and digital TV signals, plus high-speed data via cable....we have a recipe for some pretty exciting things over the next five years," Fickle says." And I think ATT may be implying they will allow full blown broadband access to the WWW, but IMO that would be the biggest pandora's box to hit TV Land. I don't quite understand why they seem to imply it. Maybe it's just me. Seeing DOCSIS cable modem built into the STB makes me think they are implying a WWW connection to the STB. But if I read the PRs very carefully, I suppose they don't ever say this. Reporters, may, but ATT (or any MSO) does not. So I believe all the PR about ITV is just a limited bandwidth interactivity with the headend servers to make it easier for subs to buy stuff. This is the only idea that makes sense because both MSO and advertisers win. Giving the STB full access to the WWW, brings in the profitless dot.com world to TV so I can't see that happening. My feeling is the MSO may not even let you out of their TV pipes to retrieve E-mail from other ISPs you may already have an account with. Although AOL/TWX may connect their ITV subs to AOL's servers. Hmmm...a marketing plus for those AOL users who also happen to be a TWX sub. -MikeM(From Florida)

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (7902)	8/6/2000 8:03:34 PM
From: lml	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

I get a distinct impression when viewing these stats against the backdrop of the architecture that prevails today there will be a struggle between factions within the MSOs at some point. It's an intuitive feel that I get from witnessing the coveting of thy neighbors' bandwidth for quite some time, and I know how these things usually turn out when there is a finite amount of bandwidth available for all. Sooner or later, if it's not happening already, the MSOs will experience an increase in internal tensions between video programming and Internet services groups. . . . The tension will become openly manifest in the reservation and ultimate use of increased levels of bandwidth for revenue-producing program- and interactive- services, as opposed to (and because of the liabilities that are associated with) placing too much investment and good intentions into an "open-access compliant" set of Internet-centric provisions. I think that the liabilities associated with open access, from an HFC-provisioned MSO's perspective, speak for themselves. I agree, Frank. Its going to be interesting. We see a lot of discussion here how the cable platform is going to be the panacea for every consumers wish for content and inter-connectivity. And the first thing that come to my mind are the significant constraints placed upon the shared cable platform when that demand becomes individualized. I don't know how other MSO's cable modem architecture is developing or has been developed. But what I read about, & what I see in my own backyard, is an architecture that appears minimal to address increasing demands for bandwidth by subs who share a single pipe to the nearest node. IMHO, the MSOs that have made the investment did so in quick fashion in order to reach that subscriber and fill a need that was not being met by the local telco. Deployment of nodes on the fiber loop have been minimal. The rationale has been that penetration of cable modem subcribers was speculative. Today, I hear about traffic congestion, tremendous slowdowns in download speeds along cable modem systems that were deployed less than two years ago. How much money are the MSOs going to willingly invest to upgrade their plant in order to keep customer satisfaction at a premium? History tells us not much more. Their goal was to get "there" first, but soon that goal should now change to delivering a minimal QoS. I have labeled this 2nd phase more than a year ago here as the "you get what you pay for" stage. Will the MSOs invest further to offer a higher QoS to those subs who are willing to pay for it? Or will it offer a minimal based upon the lowest common denominator? IMHO, these issues become critical to address when the platform is shared v. dedicated since the investment is the same regardless of the number of subs who demand an improved LoS. IOW, if 10% of the cable modem subscribers to a cluster of franchises are clamoring for improved bandwidth, is the MSO going to make the investment, or is going to permit attrition of these more demanding subscribers to the telco or other platform?