George Gilder - Forbes ASAP Message Board

STOCKTALK

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 : George Gilder - Forbes ASAP

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Dan B. who wrote (500)	4/25/1998 12:02:00 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) of 5853

Yes, Dan... that was quite commonplace, especially in the Late Eighties. Back in '87 Corning came out with a device that they marketed to some of the BOCs to limit bit rates on fiber through a passive optical device called a bit rate limiter. This device was actually an in-line attenuator that was designed to introduce minimal loss at low speeds (below 200 Mbps). But it introduced dispersion to light pulses above this speed sufficiently severe to obscure those pulses, so that they could not be discriminated at the receiving terminal. Imagine that? They called it a bit rate limiter. Just the opposite effect of a WDM. I think I still have the literature on it somewhere. At the time, 200 Mbps FDDI II was still being talked about as a successor to the 100 Mbps variant, and the feeling was that this was about as far as the carriers would agree to let "proprietary" protocols traverse their strands. I questioned this, because FDDI II would have equated to about 300 Mbps of permissiveness, due to signalling overhead and other bandwidth dictates. Oh well, that's all history now. Frank

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next