acadiel
Keep trying - don't give up
Premium
join:2002-06-22
Bloomington, IL
 ·Comcast
 ·DSL EXTREME
|  Yeah, if you want to rewire....
I'm sort of curious as to *if* Cable Companies had to share how they would go about it.
DSL is easy - you have one pair of wires that belong to your line from you all the way to the central office. It can be split and the data portion go to a CLEC's DSL service while the voice goes to the ILEC's switch.
Cable - you're on a shared network. You don't have a single cable that goes from you to the head end. You have "nodes".
I suppose they theoretically *could* have a competitor's ISP, but they would have to rewire the whole headend and re-do the nodes. Man, that would probably be a mess.
Of course, Earthlink might just be wanting Cable Companies to resell their service to them at wholesale (and avoid this whole infrastructure mess) and sell it for a profit. Does this sound familiar? Yep... all the Baby bells have been complaining about CLECs buying wholesale UNEs for a long time. The competition and all the rulings recently on line-sharing have seemed to be impending doom for the CLECs. So why would the FCC force cable to share when there has been a tendancy for the FCC to move towards non-line sharing on regular phone networks? |
|
mdurkin
join:1999-08-11
San Bruno, CA
| This isn't about CLEC sharing, it's about ISPs accessing the existing cable modem transport. There is no rewiring involved, it's a logical connection much like an ATM PVC is used to choose which ISP your DSL line is connected to over say Covad's or SBC/ASI's last-mile DSL service. Technically it's not a problem to implement ISP choice. |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
·AT&T Southwest
1 edit | ...And we expect Cable companies to invest in DOCSIS 2.0 ??? Only to have to share it at wholesale rates??? There is a basic flaw in imposed line-sharing. Our form of government lacks the final Fascist or Communist force needed to make it work. Assuming we prefer Free Market Capitalism and the innovations thereof -- then line sharing is simply out-of-touch with market realities (witness UNE changes and Verizon's FTTP deployment).
Now, if the taxpayers are serious -- we should be providing infrastructure -- which to share among competitors. Taxpayer's seldom choose to "put their money where their mouth is" though. |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
| said by ronpin  :
Taxpayer's seldom choose to "put their money where their mouth is" though.
Oh so true. Such as folks don't want their tech support shipped overseas but don't complain when their prices get cut and half at the same time.
--
"Affluence separates people. Poverty knits 'em together. You got some sugar and I don't; I borrow some of yours. Next month you might not have any flour; well, I'll give you some of mine." - Ray Charleshttp://www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad |
|
Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
1 edit | reply to acadiel
said by acadiel :
I'm sort of curious as to *if* Cable Companies had to share how they would go about it.
DSL is easy - you have one pair of wires that belong to your line from you all the way to the central office. It can be split and the data portion go to a CLEC's DSL service while the voice goes to the ILEC's switch.
Cable - you're on a shared network. You don't have a single cable that goes from you to the head end. You have "nodes".
I suppose they theoretically *could* have a competitor's ISP, but they would have to rewire the whole headend and re-do the nodes. Man, that would probably be a mess.
Of course, Earthlink might just be wanting Cable Companies to resell their service to them at wholesale (and avoid this whole infrastructure mess) and sell it for a profit. Does this sound familiar? Yep... all the Baby bells have been complaining about CLECs buying wholesale UNEs for a long time. The competition and all the rulings recently on line-sharing have seemed to be impending doom for the CLECs. So why would the FCC force cable to share when there has been a tendancy for the FCC to move towards non-line sharing on regular phone networks?
I wrote a patent application for one of the major players in this area several years ago where they taught one way of doing this. I don't know if it issued or whether they even pursued it after the initial filing. But, be assured that companies are working on this solution.
You could probably do a search at the PTO website on issued patents and applications to see what's out there. I'd be willing to bet there's at least a few different ways of doing it, particularly given digital cable and digital cable boxes. |
|
acadiel
Keep trying - don't give up
Premium
join:2002-06-22
Bloomington, IL | reply to mdurkin
I know it isn't about CLEC sharing - it was only a parallel that I was trying to bring up.  |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
 ·LINGO
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·surpasshosting
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to acadiel
said by acadiel :
I suppose they theoretically *could* have a competitor's ISP, but they would have to rewire the whole headend and re-do the nodes. Man, that would probably be a mess.
There's nothing theoretical about it.
Earthlink Cable Internet powered by Comcast has been around for a long time, albeit in limited areas. |
|
Count Hogula3
John Forged Kerry
Premium
join:2004-07-10
Corona, CA
| Good thing I read the entire thread 'cause I was going to say the same thing. A lot of markets have this already. Time Warner gives you the choice of I think RCI, Roadrunner, and ELN. ATTBi had ELN in some markets like I think Seattle which Comcast honored when ATTBi was bought out.
They obviously can do it. They just obviously don't wanna do it.
--
»www.scaryjohnkerry.com | »media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/080304v1.wmv | Don't have it, demand it!»www.theanimenetwork.com |
|
BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada
| reply to Maxo
well jobs are being cut as the jobs are moved, so in the end you need to pay more taxes to help fund the people that lost their jobs due to outsourcing through the unemployment system, in the end you loose.
stop reading the "outsourcing is good" bs that whoever is feeding you, outsourcing is a short term solution next your going to be complaining that your job was outsourced to india because they will work more hours for less money then you. |
|
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
·PenTeleData
·Future Nine Corpor..
·VOIPo
·Vonage
| reply to Count Hogula3
In this case though, the appeal isn't really from having a different pipe to the internet. It's offering the same service with extras (like dialup access, AOL, allowing servers or better tech support) and probably a better price.
I'm with New York Connect here in NYC. They piggyback on the Time Warner network, and offer the same pipe to the net that Time Warner does, but you get unlimited free dialup, which time warner doesn't offer. Additionally, they don't force you to take cable TV, which is an important consideration since I have Satellite TV. |
|
hedyd4u
Premium
join:2003-12-16
Schenectady, NY | reply to Maxo
Who out-sources then lowers their price? Outsourcing is done to increase profits. |
|
rec9140
Provoice just DO it
join:2003-07-29
Mulberry, FL
| reply to acadiel
said by acadiel :
I suppose they theoretically *could* have a competitor's ISP, but they would have to rewire the whole headend and re-do the nodes. Man, that would probably be a mess.
Nothing theoretical about it, I use IJ.NET via the local conble company. Thats all I take from conble. I use DBS for my video needs.
I chose IJ.net SPECIFICALLY because they are not the conble co.. They offer a better price for the same speed, and I get UNLIMITED ISDN backup in the event of failure of conble.
I would like to see MORE done to make cable modem service more CONSUMER & ISP netural.
CM service should be as simple as plugging in router/modem or modem & router and doing some simple config to signup/setup service or change out a modem. Users should be responsible for purchasing a DOCSIS CERTIFIED V1.0-2.0 CM from the source of their choice. Theres some other changes I would make too, but not relevant to this discussion. |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX | Not only is this not theoretical but it's part of the agreement. When Time Warner and AOL wanted to merge one of the agreements they had to make was to allow competitors into their network. Just like how the Bells agreed on TA1996. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | reply to Count Hogula3
TWC in WOH gives: RR, ELN, WCoil, and BigNet. Also Maxx Internet(i think thats the name) but its not marketed Here. Just on their website if you can find it. |
|
