[70904] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cable networks RE: best effort has economic problems, maybe OT
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (frank@dticonsulting.com)
Mon May 31 12:31:46 2004
Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 11:30:59 -0500
From: <frank@dticonsulting.com>
To: <nanog@merit.edu>, "'Christopher J. Wolff'" <chris@bblabs.com>
Reply-To: frank@dticonsulting.com
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Agree, this is a great discussion, akin to a recent Cook Report accounting of best
effort considerations. Several startups (now going into year two) have addressed
the cable-HF/C constraints you've mentioned. You may be interested in perusing
these two:
http://www.narad.com
Another, Rainmaker Technologies...
http://www.rainmakertechnologies.com
.... appears to have fallen on hard times while seeking later round funding. Not
sure of their disposition at this time, but doing googles on their name reveal
some good articles on their approach to using wavelets to improve bit gain over
black coax/fiber systems to homes and businesses.
Metcalfe has financial backing hooks and input into Narad, and Mark E. Laubach of
COM21 fame (ATM over HF/C) heads up (headed up?) Rainmaker's technical pursuits.
[[As an aside, I'm finding increased interest in corporate parks (especially those
that are boondocks-bound) where MSO fiber-based offerings are being seriously
considered for WAN access, both of the type discussed above and enterprise-
tailored rings coming off local head-ends.]]
Frank
On Sun, 30 May 2004 08:47 , 'Christopher J. Wolff' <chris@bblabs.com> sent:
>
>Folks,
>
>This is a great discussion. I'm interested in understanding these types of
>limitations in the context of HFC cable networks. In my opinion, HDTV
>channel bandwidth (30mhz?) , increased demand for voip, and growing demand
>for IP connectivity is going to stress the cable network model as well,
>forcing cable operators to convert everything to IP before going out across
>the wire. Any input is appreciated.
>
>Regards,
>Christopher
>
