Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : LAST MILE TECHNOLOGIES - Let's Discuss Them Here -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: riposte who wrote (4345)	6/26/1999 11:58:00 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Good find, Steve. I have to marvel for a moment on how the FSAN model appeared to be one of those white elephants for a long period of time, or at best one of those concoctions simmering on the back burner, and suddenly becomes reborn several months after T acquires and begins to bring up to speed the cable modem model. Coincidence? If the independent cable cos and the larger MSOs have sent out a challenge to the incumbent LECs, then they have certainly found at least a match in FSAN, which has the potential to perform far beyond the delivery capabilities of current HFCs. HFCs, on the other hand could leapfrog FSANs, albeit at great secondary/tertiary financial and intellectual expense, and a great amount of pain in the standards areas. Alternately, HFC might integrate some of FSANs' principles of deeper fiber and ONU utilization (maybe even independent of the original coax structures), or mutate to some other form which is equally suitable or better than FSANs with the inclusion of ancillary wireless hooks and applications. [Late edit: Conincidentally, I just came across the following link while perusing the ATHM thread, courtesy of Grace Zacardi, concerning a cable modem with wireless hooks... zoomtel.com ] That's what progress is all about. But are we truly observing the work of innovators here? Or are we merely witnessing the ploys and shenanigans of survivalists who see this as a do or die? Steve, Thread, Was FSAN, and all of the passive optical network (PON) and ATM delivery schemes which are endemic in its framework, actually the ultimate secret weapon lurking in the shadows in preparation for just such a contingency? Or can we simply attribute its timing too the time it has spent on the back burner while awaiting signatures in the procurement cycle? Vacations, sabbaticals and jury duty leaves, let alone little things like $60 Billion M&As, can really wreak havoc on project cycles while stifling an agenda of this type. The fact that four telcos are banding together to agree to a common standard is good and bad. If they are agreeing to a set or basic building blocks, then it's ok. But if they are simply agreeing to a set of limitations and will be content on resting on some future laurels that become obsolete by the time the implementations are complete, then I have to wonder about it some more. ---- ATM is still in many ways the ecclesiastical enemy of IP, despite the interworking groups who have commenced reconciliations, while continuing to agree to disagree on most fundamental issues. While QoS and prioritization issues are now being more fully identified and sorted out by the netheads (and wow, they sure have their work cut out for them at this time), ATM is becoming entrenched in its original, native form by the bellheads in more and more implementations of DSL, voice and edge services. That's what I'm referring to here. They are implementing current versions of code which will probably never change at some root levels of operation, which will cause future application code to be collared in many ways. Of course, ATM and IP can both survive and play hot potato with one another ad infinitum, handing off and translating to each other's traffic signs and road statutes. But we'll have to live with the greater consequences which will inherently manifest at the macro level. Transparently, this will be a unique kind of price the user community has to pay, like a crime tax, which is exacted whenever complexity multiplies and escalates to non-intuitive dimensions of code, not simply for the sake of interoperability, but to give the illusion that only one fabric exists. And in the end, perhaps it will be one. But somehow I just don't see it as being as harmonious as the larger players and their new breed of still- (however tacitly-) condescending theologians, would have us believe. But, for better or worse, we're getting there... wherever there may be. Comments welcome. Regards, Frank Coluccio