Archives

May 2003 Issue

Optimize

Mobile Workforce Technology: What's in it for you?

If there ever were a silver bullet for improving the efficiency of field operations, it's technology that connects mobile employees and eliminates paper work-orders.

Some operators have already taken this plunge. Insight Communications, for example, has been rolling out C-COR.net's mobile workforce manager in its Lexington and Louisville systems over the past two years. (For more on this deployment, see our Operator of the Year story, pg. 28). An earlier adopter, Cox Communications first inked a deal with MDSI five years ago.

Efficient work-order routing

The benefits of these technologies are both self-evident and demonstrable: quicker routing of orders, increased accuracy in data entry, greater adaptability to changing circumstances, reduced unproductive phone calls, improved customer interaction, accelerated provisioning, etc.

Realizing those benefits, however, entails certain costs. First, whether the provider is C-COR.net or MDSI or PointServe or Smith Advanced Technology, those software developers need to be paid.

Then there are issues related to deployment. Inadequate connectivity, for example, forced Cox to build its own RF wireless network and Insight to lease a high-speed wireless service. And both operators opted for separate display devices: Pentium PCs for Cox and PDAs for Insight.

Adding to the choices, Acterna has launched a collaborative solution that hits two of today's hottest buttons: leveraged assets and multifunctionality. What's leveraged is the Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS) network. What gets multitasked is the type of digital meter, in this case Acterna's digital service activation meter (DSAM), that already hangs from a tech's belt.

At Broadband Plus in December, Acterna simultaneously loaded up this meter with its own TechSync workforce automation tools and MSDI's Advantex mobile workforce management product. In February, Acterna announced a second integration with the C-COR.net solution.

Acterna's advantages

For those attached to the call-from-anywhere, cell-phone paradigm, Acterna's solution may come up short. But that's not the only--or even most appropriate--perspective. Especially if the meter in the field essentially carries an integrated cable modem, as does the DSAM.

"When they plug in to verify and test the cable plant, which they would do normally to service it, they also then have access back via the DOCSIS channel," Bill Robertson, Acterna vice president of marketing for cable networks, says. In other words, this relatively familiar test tool gives techs cable modem access from customers' homes or taps or other parts of the cable plant that they typically serve throughout the day.

"What's compelling about our implementation is not having to have these ancillary items--the PCs, the PDAs, the wireless, the whatever--and to use your own network to do your work," Robertson continues.

A DOCSIS-enabled meter eliminates not only wireless costs, but also those associated with dedicated IT help-desk personnel. This gear is also less likely to be lost or diverted into nonproductive uses, Robertson adds.

At the same time, Acterna contends that this approach will yield a powerful secondary effect. Because the meter contains work-orders and other necessary information, a technician is obliged to use it on every call, and as a result, is more likely to perform test procedures that often go neglected.

It's a combo that could gently prod techs raised on paper and analog, and excite those more at home in the digital age.

-- Jonathan Tombes

DOCSIS to Steam Ahead with Status Monitoring?

The idea of leveraging the Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS) platform to monitor the status of field equipment is picking up steam.

The latest momentum comes from the SCTE's hybrid management sublayer (HMS) subcommittee's plans to consider this topic. "First, we'll investigate. Then define, and then make it work," Hung Nguyen, HMS chair and senior staff engineer at Time Warner Cable, says.

Making the approach work would entail figuring out how to get the DOCSIS platform certified and providing a framework for interoperability tests, Nguyen says.

At last year's CableTec Expo, Electroline announced its plan to launch a status monitoring device combining the physical (PHY) and media access control (MAC) protocols of DOCSIS with the management information bases (MIBS) of the HMS standard. AM Communications followed suit at December's Broadband Plus show.

One operator is testing Electroline's technology, with other trials on the way, Jay Staiger, Electroline director of marketing, says.

Why DOCSIS?

Why are operators interested? "One reason is that they have this wonderful DOCSIS platform, and it can be applied to many things," Staiger says.

Increased reliability is another claimed benefit. HMS transponder frequencies run below DOCSIS, in the relatively noisy 5 to 21 MHz channels. "DOCSIS is designed to be a very robust communications channel," Staiger says. "We're operating in that same environment."

The DOCSIS/HMS approach also sidesteps headend gear used in either HMS or proprietary implementations and obviates the need for proprietary management software by employing simple network management protocol (SNMP), which can be plugged into existing management solutions, Staiger adds.

"Cox uses Micromuse; Comcast uses Spectrum. They've already invested in SNMP management platforms," Staiger says.

By leveraging the existing software and hardware, Electroline says overall implementation and ongoing maintenance costs are significantly lower. The price of the device itself, however, is comparable with the alternatives. "It's cheaper than legacy, but about the same price as the HMS transponder," Staiger says.

Counterpoint

But can these platforms be leveraged? Hamid Qayyum, director of marketing at Tollgrade (and previously with the Cheetah brand at Acterna) is interested in this approach, but notes complications.

One factor is the difference between managing cable modems and outside plant equipment. "It is likely that both consumer cable modems and transponders would show up on the same screen on the OSS (operations support system)."

Such problems can be overcome, he admits, but only with complex setups, such as transponder traps sent to local management areas, which would then distinguish the transponder from consumer modem traffic.

Another hidden cost is customization that would be required of the standard OSS software. Generic products can collect alarms, but managing and operating outside plant equipment requires other capabilities, Qayyum contends.

Other potential costs include manufacturing environmentally toughened components, managing fixed IP addresses for these modems and ensuring their DOCSIS certification, which would incidentally restrict the market to North America.

Nguyen and Qayyum both note that the DOCSIS transponder's form factor and power consumption make it unfriendly for optical node monitoring, a de facto requirement in Europe. Power supplies are the prevalent application in North America, where the power grid differs from that typically found in Europe.

HMS update

Meanwhile, the HMS subcommittee has plowed ahead with its existing agenda.

Nguyen says a "very successful" second optical node interop was held in March in Time Warner's San Diego system and included participants from AM Communications, C-Cor.net, Harmonic, Motorola, Scientific-Atlanta, Tollgrade and WISI.

The subcommittee's next priority is finishing the indoor/headend MIBS on optical equipment and defining SNMP specs for the hybrid management termination system (HMTS).

As for the DOCSIS/HMS project, time will tell. "I believe this is in the very early stages of examination," Wayne Hall, Comcast vice president of engineering, says.

Hall agrees that there are pros and cons to this approach and that significant work on the HMS standards could be required, but adds that Comcast continues to support the subcommittee and looks forward to the outcome.

Wherever DOCSIS/HMS is headed, it has an interesting past. Lee Dusbabek of Cableware Electronics has hosted live demos of similar technology on his Web site for over a year. Nguyen says the idea of using the Internet to monitor power supplies actually originated several years earlier with Alpha Technologies.

-- Jonathan Tombes

How to Keep Your Poles in Compliance

Pole attachments, one of the cable industry's oldest sore spots, is again becoming an issue that could interfere with operations--and cost money.

Insiders say that compliance with pole attachment rules, which are part of the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC), generally is good. There are signs that some operators aren't paying as close attention as they should, however. Systems in Texas and Arkansas are said to be facing multimillion-dollar fines for noncompliance to these rules.

It's not a good place to be. "[The operators face] lawsuits and ugliness and a moratorium on extension of their plants that will cause challenges in acquiring new customers," says Keith Hayes, the chief operating officer of Gibson Technical Services and SCTE's chairman and Region 9 director.

Get cozy with pole owners

Cable operators traditionally have had tense relationships with pole owners, which generally are electrical utilities. Despite the tension, Hayes says that minor violations of the NESC usually don't result in too much trouble.

However, chronic noncompliance--such as allowing cables to sag too close to telephone or electric cables in multiple locations or not responding in a timely fashion to a dangerous condition--creates safety problems and can spell trouble for operators.

In extreme cases, he says, systems haven't delivered on promises to fix problems. In these situations, the operator can be held liable for more than just fixing the problem and paying resulting fines. "If the violation is not cleared up, not only is the operator liable for fixing it, but also for paying for the second inspection," Gibson says.

Compliance has gradually been slipping for the last 10 years or so, says Tony Wagoner, director of operations for Utility Support Systems, a company that does pole audits.

The two most common mistakes are operating too close to power lines when installing cables and when taking drops off the lines to customers. These problems arise when installation contractors are given poor instructions and operators don't adequately follow up on their work.

"Cable operators are their own worst enemies and are creating most of the NESC problems," Wagoner says. Specifically, there are problems in the Little Rock and Dallas/Fort Worth areas, with the Texas situation being more serious, he says.

Like many other things in the cable industry, paying attention over the long haul is a better approach than letting things spiral out of control. It is a good idea to try to create better relationships with the pole owners, which could keep them from jumping at the first minor infraction. "A good working relationship with the power company is probably the answer to most all of the issues," says Doug Adams, the CTO of Paramount Designs in Denver.

-- Carl Weinschenk

Back to May 2003 Issue

Access Intelligence's CABLE GROUP
Communications Technology | CableFAX Daily | CableFAX's CableWORLD | CT's Pipeline
CableFAX Magazine | CableFAX databriefs | Broadband Leaders Retreat | CableFAX Leaders Retreat