SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Westell WSTL
WSTL 5.480-2.0%Nov 11 2:52 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: bill c. who wrote (8931)1/14/1998 6:06:00 PM
From: Pigboy  Read Replies (1) of 21342
 
<< As you know the TI/AMTM solution is software based. If an RBOC wants to
support G.Lite they download one algorithm that supports 64 tones. If the customer
wants higher bandwidths the RBOC installs a POTS-splitter and downloads an
algorithm that supports 256 tones. I remember AMTX was working on reduced
power implementations in their DSLAM device which supported 1.5Mbps with
extended ranges. >>

It seems entirely possible that a WSTL DSLAM could be at a CO somewhere and half the modems are *64 and the other half are set to *256, with most residential fellas using a Lite solution bc of its ease of use, and because its cheaper and perhaps most businesses going for the heavy stuff with the splitter bc business's can afford the better solution even at a little higher costs (still sure as heck beats a T1). Does a scenario like this sound likely? Would it be really easy to do, switching different individual modems on the same DSLAM to different 'weights'?

This is a tough biz to predict, certainly. I keep worrying a little about how ASND and COMS/USRX currently DOMINATE modem racks now. They have got to be a little worried about the next few years, thus they are probably hedging behind the walls as i type.

all imho
pigboy,
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext