| Official CISPA Filing with CPUC If anyone would like to review the actual text of the filing with the CPUC, you're more than welcome to from the CISPA website:
The actual document:
»www.cispa.org/244549.DOC
News as it happens:
»www.cispa.org/news.html
-David Diskin
|
|
jdir
join:2001-05-04
Santa Clara, CA | I read some of those documents, and wondering if DSL price is so high, performance is anywhere from 300K up, what sort of chance that SBC will offer video over DSL? Should I start laughing at those folks at SBC?
To display high quality MPEG-2 video over broadband, I need more than 1500 kbps to stream video effectively. |
|
 Bobo$Silvio DanteMod 2001-02
join:2000-08-30
Holland, MI | said by jdir:
To display high quality MPEG-2 video over broadband, I need more than 1500 kbps to stream video effectively.
Not true. You might need more than 1500 to stream over the public IP/Internet from a remote server. But you would not need more than 1500 to stream local content...the Akamai model...which is what I believe SBC means by offering bundled services. It's an ambitious move, but one that they have apparently deemed necessary in order to make the serious cash.
Think of it this way: why don't the ILEC's seem to care about the speed of DSL deployment? Why in many cases have they even been caught stonewalling/dragging their feet? ...they're waiting for something...
To be more precise, the answer is that "internet access" is not really the product that SBC wants to sell when they sell DSL. They want to sell "gatekeeper content over DSL" -- that, I believe is the product line SBC is waiting to deliver.
Now, I don't know if they're right (that the content model will make way more money than the access model), but it would appear from their releases and recent activities that this is the prevailing philosophy in the board and conference rooms over there at SBC. Perhaps they are overly concerned with Time Warner/AOL not because they are a cable modem company, but because they are a potentially deadly competitor when it comes time to offer content delivery via broadband subscriptions.
And, btw, don't be confused by their extensive rhetoric against cable modems: SBC doesn't give a crap whether cable modem subscriptions (for internet access) outstrip ILEC DSL subscriptions (for internet access). What they're really worried about is that once they begin to roll out their high content services (Akamai style), cable will have rolled out their own content delivery (broadcast, video on demand, voice/video conference) service system.
What's killing them is that they know how people's minds work (in general): if millions of people already have cable modems, then those people are a million times more likely to buy subscription gatekeeper content services from their cable provider, rather than go through a horror story switching to DSL and THEN subscribing to SBC's broadband content services.
So SBC truly cares about losing market share to cable modems now, but only because of potential lost revenue and customers for the services they're planning to offer down the road.
--
First rule of fiber optics: you do not talk about fiber optics |
|
|
|
| reply to DavidD6
David:
Thanks for the information.
Can I also mention that individuals contacting the California PUC is not a bad idea either. Hal Plotkin at the SF Chronicle wrote an article about this topic. For more background and what to put in a note go to....
»www.sfgate.com/technology/beat/
To contact the CPUC email them at
consumer-affairs@cpuc.ca.gov
If we don't take a stand the SBC/PacBell behemoth will just run right over us.
"Evil thrives when good men stand by and do nothing." |
|
