ED, thanks for putting in the time to come up with that reply. I would agree with several of the points you've made. I'd also like to provide my own slant on others.
MSOs, Carriers, and now ISPs and Specials, tend to make some curious business decisions. I attribute some of this to the quarterly reporting metrics by which we punish and reward them, so in some measure, we have ourselves to look at in the mirror, in certain respects.
These companies have historically taken baby steps for the sake of caution and investment preservation, and they will spend hundreds of billions, eventually trillions of dollars in multiple evolutionary steps over ten years, to preserve the obsolescence of the original model. This, instead of spending a few hundred billion to re-make the landscape into something that would yield several orders of magnitude in usefulness.
This actually sounds a lot simpler than it would be. Of course, there is no single entity to hold to the fire for this, since there are literally thousands of players involved at this point. One of the victims of the successes of competition. Some new entrants have been force-fitted into this landscape through regulatory incentives and discounts (witness the waffling and deference on such matters as the Universal Service Fund and other dues-related issues, on the parts of regulators and legislators).
Getting back to the carte blanche new optical network (or, scorched earth?) approach, I would not have made this statement in 1994, and I'm still largely uncomfortable making it today, although the techs are now nearing the point, IMO, aided by the realities of "the new economics," where they could now support localized flash-point change-outs with reasonable tradeoffs, for the betterment of end users and SPs alike.
Perhaps that theoretical flash-point could be in another two years, where an all-optical-network, or AON regimen could cost-effectively be supported for sizable communities, as in some form of IP-PON, or IP-based, passive optical networking scheme. I hear a lot of rhetoric about how some providers will "be there when it's time", but not much in the way of substance concerning how they plan to get there. How many providers do you see preparing for this trajectory, besides LVLT and a couple of the NGI cos, at this time?
---
What good would an all optical network for a community or ISP serving area be if the universe of "other" service providers and applications that they want to access and communicate with were written for the prevailing, or "legacy," capabilities?
Also, and perhaps more to the point, the choke points don't begin and end in the Last Mile. It's only that the LM is where they are most apparent at the present time, because of the novelty status (in relative terms) of the 'net, and the inertia and unpreparedness of last mile providers to meet the new onslaught of user demands. But choke points (bottlenecks) shift, alternately, with each correction made to offset the previous one.
But Last Mile SPs have to look both ways: Towards the customer (in the last mile towards the residence or business), and towards the core (upstream, deeper into the cloud). Preparing a magnificent last mile HFC, or VDSL, or ultimately the all optical solution, does nothing if they don't bolster comparable, or calculated, quantities of bandwidth and other net resources routers, servers, etc. that they are going to need going the other way: from and to the cloud.
At first the lack of preparedness manifests in the local loop, and then the cable alternative has the effect of making everything seem all better. But the unpreparedness of the SPs is starting to manifest elsewhere as well, namely in the network's edge, that secondary stage of egress where ISPs transfer traffic to the core [the "other" way referenced above]. And the web host sites... the servers we attach to... they too need comparable increases in capacity to stay abreast of the HFCs and the DSLs. Don't know how they're going to keep pace with all optical. In short, we have the weakest link syndrome at play here.
What you've cited brings to mind another conflict, and that is:
Given the limitations imposed by current TV delivery systems (HFC, COAX, etc.), what does the new intelligence available in these systems focus on improving? Has the emphasis shifted dramatically in just a few years? You betcha.
It wasn't long ago that the majors were forecasting super duper TV-centric capabilites. You've already seen the shopping list of "features," in addition to the now famous Mallone 500 that were all the rave, going as far back as the late Eighties.
Today, the Internet is poised to not only displace most of that wiz bang commercial TV Program jazz, but it is in competition for the same bandwidth and the same eyeballs. The 'net is also positioned to be able to, at some point, subsume TV in the very IP Model itself. The children will wind up eating their parents, in this case.
And this prospect cannot be far from the thinking of the owners of ATHM (am I giving these folks too much credit here?), the prospect of creating a Frankenstein-like Monster that will turn on its creator... a long time ago? Isn't ATHM precluded from delivering commercial program TV material in its charter? If I'm wrong about this, please clarify. But if I'm correct about this, how long will it be viable to maintain such a position in light of the possibilities that technology will foster very soon?
---
To get an appreciation of the frailties that exist, still, in the Cable TV delivery systems (even those which have boasted Multi-$MM outlays to develop HFC convergence platforms), see the trailing part of this post. I've attached another mini-thread which was started by a frustrated poster on another forum. He's talking about an MSO who for the purposes of this thread, I've euphemized as "Speedier One."
Frank C.
[btw, the SR thread isn't dying, it's fermenting.]
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =Begin Speedier One
From the thread titled: "Will CATV ever understand the Internet?":
[All,]
I'm a bit upset right now. I thought you guys in the CATV engineering biz would be interested in my plight. My SpeedierOne website has been shut down for being slightly too successful. I've been getting email asking what is going on and I'm copying them this message (below) I received this AM. It's obvious that SpeedierOne doesn't understand the meaning of "Internet SERVICE Provider" ! Actions like this mean you cannot currently depend on them as web hosts.
And they're calling me to get me to switch my phone service over to them! Will they cut my phone service off if I talk too much?
[Poster] - P.O.'ed in the extreme!
Letter from SpeedierOne follows:
Dear SpeedierOne Customer:
Your Personal Pages account at [delete] has used 272772831 bytes of throughput this month, over the limit of 262144000 bytes of bandwidth allotted per month. As stated in our Personal Pages Terms and Service policy, your web site has been suspended for the remainder of the month, and will automatically be re-activated on the first day of next month. While suspended, your site will be inaccessible for viewing and for file transfer.
We do not offer the option to purchase more transfer capacity at this
time (although we may offer this option in the future), nor can your site be reactivated prior to the first day of the following month. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.
If you have any questions regarding your Personal Pages account, please contact us by email at [delete] or visit our [brand name personal page site] newsgroup at [again, delete].
Sincerely,
SpeedierOne Customer Care
===
[From the next poster:]
(All,)
It's an amazing letter on so many levels. My favorite
aspect is how they would rather piss off a customer who
is an active user of the system and is obviously part of
what is making the Internet valuable (hosting content
others will pay their ISP to see) rather than change
their provisioning and billing systems to generate
new revenue.
It would be perfectly reasonable for them to charge for
bandwidth but they don't want more of your money, they
want you to understand that you are the type of customer
they do not intend to service (except maybe in the future).
Considering you are only about 4% over your "limit"
four days from the end of the month the letter is
particularly stupid. Like a dunning letter for a good
customer that owes $0.05.
I think you should follow the spirit of their advice
and find another ISP; they don't want your business
anyway -- they said so.
===
[FromPoster Number 3:]
Geez, and I thought my little operation was being stingy by 'only'
allocating 3GB/mo.! Our policy in this case would be to politely
inform you of exceeding your bandwidth allocation. Your options would be to scale back the complexity of the site content to conserve your allocation, pay a premium on 'over the top' bandwidth ($.03 per MB), or subscribe to a more accommodating service level. Only in cases of flagrant bandwidth abuse would we pull the plug on a subscriber.
I agree with [number 2] that your 'host' evidently doesn't really want
your business - or they just haven't figured out how to manage it yet.
Let's not forget this is the same mentality that has shoved rate
increases down everyone's throats for years.
This "Take it, or leave it" attitude is what has given the skeptics
plenty of ammo to dispute the credibility of our industry to make a
significant impact on the future of broadband telecommunications
services. A recent article in Data Communications magazine really gave us the business on this issue - with good reason. A recent article in CT by Terry Wright also addressed the 'Cart Before the Horse' mine
field of marketing before adequate network management/operations were properly deployed to handle the various scenarios associated with cable operators providing data services.
Three items come to mind, here:
Read the fine print of your end user agreements before expecting the
world from your provider.
Never trust the fine print unless your lawyer does.
It's great to be a small system poised to put the shortsightedness of
this MSO wank to shame!
(OK. Four items): The customer is our greatest asset - not an
inconvenient liability to be treated like a rented mule.
I will concede that there are two sides to every story, and we haven't
heard from SpeedierOne yet, but I'll take a swag that it'd be the same
old MSO song and dance unless there is an established pattern of user bandwidth abuse.
After all - it is a shared network. Proper management is the key to
ensuring that it works for everyone.
Take it, or leave it.
Out.
===
[Next:]
The letter rings like a "Bell" and sounds more like [an RBOC] than any of the SpeedierOne (mostly ex inter-continental) operations I'm familiar with.
Perhaps some of the ex Telco' marketing people recently transferred to the cable side of life and haven't gotten the "omnipotent" out of their systems yet.
Since they seem to be familiar with letters of censure, perhaps they
could be of service to the Senate in January?
Happy New Year to all my friends among the lurkers and workers on the list, including those I haven't met yet!
==
[And Lastly:]
Ladies and Gentlemen, The Glass is Half Full!
I read your feedback and seemed compelled to respond (early on with low down view of this eye opening caper...)
Take the positive side here and escalate a call to the upper levels of
marketing. A probability esists that this "cutoff" just might be a pre set
default in the software. In any event make the call a win-win for you.
Inform these folks of your situation. If this "was" their first heads up you just saved them from a potential anurism.
If this is their "Proverbial Bar" negotiate for the augmentation of your existing account to reflect bandwidth, usage and its relative costs. If they stay the line with your current level of service and you are satisfied that you have depleted your resources then sure, inform them that you are going to toss your business to their local competition. I trust that someone would at the very least research the situation and get back to you in a timely and competant matter.
On final note, who knows.....I'd be real curious as to the outcome. As an industry - trend follower these experiences surely contribute to our round table discussions when we forge out our plans. Especially, the data side. A few things for certain: Death, Taxes and Changing Dynamics.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = end speedier one |
