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.

Strategies & Market Trends : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KailuaBoy who wrote (481)	11/29/2000 8:01:55 PM
From: M. Frank Greiffenstein	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24758

Its just a stylistic expression, KB. "Being put on the network" was not meant to be taken literally. Is "getting access" better? I disagree that this is old news. Comcast had the choice of remaining exclusive or not. What is not old news is how quickly Comcast jumped ship. Doc Stone

To: KailuaBoy who wrote (481)	11/29/2000 8:32:05 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24758

KB, "Picture duplicate infrastructures for each ISP all jammed in MSO headends all over the place. Ever been in a headend? I have. It won't work. ATHM is there. ATHM is working. The solution is in place. No ISP will duplicate what is already there. They will plug into it." The MSOs and Cable Labs have now had more than a year and a half to devise a solution to multiple access. Back then, when the OA coalition was first formed, I, too, stated that there weren't any known design templates that would do the trick on the cable modem platform. And I, too, made the argument at that time that duplicate platforms crammed into a head end would be calamitous. I wont even get into the DOCSIS security and QoS issues and constraints. Just think of it as a single channel that must be shared by hundreds of providers, each (attempting to)present their own flavors of services and service levels. By now, if the powers that be [CableLabs and the affiliate MSOs] were really interested in coming to terms with this matter, there would at least be a proposed solution. I don't know that there is or is not, but I haven't seen one, except for some recommendations coming from Canada, but that's another story. Your statement above, by the way, is, in my opinion, flawed in one important way. And that is, it assumes that the MSOs, when given the option of who they would prefer to carry, and vice versa, will always elect to have @Home as a tenant. And therein lies a precept that cannot, should not, be the basis for architectural design. No service provider wants to lock themselves into a no-option situation, much less through an architectural mandate, when, in fact, other content providers and ISP tenants present themselves as options. In other words, your solution would inextricably tie the MSOs on a continuing basis to the patronage (or partnership, call it what may) of a dominant content provider/ISP. In this case, @Home. Conversely, it assumes that Home will always desire to be a part of the MSO regime. And I don't know that to be true down the road, either. I think that we're already seeing signs that such a model may not prevail once placed under the test of time. I'd venture to state that just the opposite will take place in due time: we'll see open access (despite the calamity it will cause on the MSOs' "superhighways"), and the freedom of @Home to choose other platforms, some of whom may actually be competitors of the MSOs, for the delivery of their services. Home has the internal makings of a broadband information powerhouse. They may come to realize this some day, and not restrict themselves to a single, generic outlet. JMO. FAC