IP: Internet Connections over Cable

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> From: "Bob Frankston" <BobRMFxix () Bobf Frankston com>
> To: "David Farber" <dave () FARBER NET>
> Cc: "Mark Laubach" <mark () rainmakertechnologies com>
>
> I bought the book Delivering Internet Connections over Cable at Mark s 
> suggestion. I was surprised to found that our moderator is a coauthor. And 
> other familiar names on the editorial board. One more reminder that when I 
> say they , I also mean us .

[Breaking the Access Barrier: Delivering Internet Connections over Cable by 
Mark Laubach, Stephen Dukes, David Farber
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0471389501/qid=1013255543/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/002-2872643-0929643 
djf]


> I only had a chance to skim through it but it is at the right level for me 
> i.e. the technical overview without being condescending or unnecessarily 
> dense. It s also a useful starting point for talking about how to move 
> forward and create real opportunities for new products and services.
>
>
>
> I want to preface my comments by a general observation about how easy it 
> is to get caught up in the details of a particular marketplace. I was 
> lucky enough to commute to Microsoft (albeit from the Boston area) but 
> even then stepping back from arguing with the networking group over 
> details let me think much more broadly. If one is selling to the existing 
> cable industry it is easy to see it as the marketplace rather than a 
> temporary work-around. I want to make an attempt to explain my perspective 
> namely why I have been taking such stance on creating a marketplace. It s 
> not because I see the providers as evil, just that the incentives are 
> misaligned. We see a similar dynamic in the continued efforts to use power 
> lines (both within a home and to the home which are very different 
> concepts). It used to seem compelling with X-10 supporting the notion. But 
> now it seems hardly worth the effort vs 802.11 in the house and other 
> pipes or wireless outside.
>
>
>
> Despite my strong comments, I am still very much an advocate of cable 
> modems as something one must have now and am not gentle with those who see 
> the Internet only through a whistle (traditional modem) at the end of a 
> phone line. I m also biased in favor of cable vs DSL because I ve long 
> felt CableCos were less competent at impeding deployment and because of 
> PPOE (an example of what clever people can do).
>
>
>
> The point is that the process is stalled and we can do far better. I used 
> to be more accepting and was willing to go along with a simple definition 
> of open access that would allow me to buy a branded version of my cable 
> modem service such as calling AOL for support of my MediaOne though that 
> was before AOL became a CableCo. As I ve followed the progress (more of a 
> retreat) over time I ve come to see that nothing short of a real 
> separation will work.
>
>
>
> I won t belabor the issues in the Leading-Edge Topics except to note that 
> I take credit for killing the residential gateway fantasy with home 
> networking (including HomePNA). I was also the home control point person 
> at Microsoft (purely by default before the eHome stuff went off in its own 
> direction) and observed the interaction between the PC world, the carrier 
> world and the consumer electronics/building worlds. I will state strongly 
> that the residential gateway will not be part of the evolutionary process. 
> There may be systems in the home acting to provide third party services 
> but the residential gateway as the brilliant network in the home is 
> fatally flawed. Well, I guess I am belaboring it since I think the issue 
> is at the heart of our disagreement. As long as the carriers have any 
> notion of meddling here, the process will stay stalled and, worse, they 
> will act as trapped animals whose very existence is threatened. They 
> wouldn t be wrong in that regard as long as they insist on being in total 
> and utter control.
>
>
>
> I ve also watched how the caching fantasy came undone as people went to 
> the entire net rather than just watching movies. Very early I shut off my 
> proxy (yeah, I know, they are reading all my packets and second-guessing 
> them because they still try to cache stuff one reason why IPV6 must also 
> be encrypted end to end)
>
>
>
> I do believe in using clever technology to repurpose existing 
> infrastructure (as I did with HomePNA) but this will be even more 
> important if we get operators with a real stake in connectivity rather 
> than in television. Then we could have the second edition of Delivering 
> Internet Connectivity Despite Cable . It could balance this repurposing 
> with just laying new fiber much more suitable for supporting IP. For those 
> selling equipment, that could be a much larger market in just keeping up 
> with demand especially if communities can role their own.
>
>
>
> Bob Frankston
> <http://www.frankston.com>http://www.Frankston.com

For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/