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: MikeM54321 who wrote (4369)	6/29/1999 12:02:00 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Mike, Denver, et al, I think that the numbers (whether it's 60% or whatever) being used for DSL rating purposes will at some point be relegated to anachronisms. They will become moot issues, when deep fiber based Passive Optical Networks and VDSL-dependent Full Service Area Networks (PONs/FSANs) come into play. The reasons for many of the ineligible lines today stem from problems having to do with distances, primarily, one way or another. Either the distance is too high, necessitating load coils, or the extended distances are the cause for greater levels of accumulated impairments manifesting longitudinally, or due to the longer distances even marginal balances in lines could become fatal issues, etc. And bridged taps play into this logic, as well. When fiber is brought deep into the hood, however, and copper from the local cross boxes in the pedestals and poles are cross-connected to the optical network unit (ONU) interfaces, all of these nasty distance related things go away. And so do the percentages. The recent Atlanta FTTC implementation should prove this correct, IMO. BTW, I am not holding my breath while waiting to be proved right on this one. -g- Regards, Frank Coluccio