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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Rande Is . . . HOME -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Silver_Bullet who wrote (8891)	6/30/1999 11:49:00 PM
From: Rande Is	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 57584

Friendly. . .the cable companies are still spending big bucks stringing digital cable throughout neighborhoods around America. . . just went by here 6 months ago. Then beginning this summer, cable companies will be hooking up set-top boxes wherever they can. As for xDSL, that is not something that will be so widely distributed. The nodes or switching networks in each and every little town across the country are only rated to about 33k. Even 56k is pushing them to the max. And the local phone companies are not about to spend the big bucks needed to upgrade them. xDSL is expected to be offered to limited areas. . . and can run on regular POTS phone lines. . . but only those where the local phone company already has high-bandwidth switching networks. Likewise, microwave [wireless] is aimed at concentrated areas, like apartment complexes. There is no single broadband method that is well suited to all people in all areas of the country. And that is helping holding things up. So don't be looking for DSL to be offered in mass any time in the near future. . . .frankly, I don't think it will get used nearly as much as some believe. . . . I have said many times. . .that I believe that digital fibre cable will be the leader by a long shot, then microwave oriented broadband wireless will take up the slack. Rande Is

To: Silver_Bullet who wrote (8891)	7/2/1999 12:03:00 AM
From: StockHawk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57584

DSL - some notes on availability vs. cable modems: It would appear that the deployment of DSL would be easier than the deployment of cable modem service. After all, DSL works over copper wire, which is ubiquitous, while cable modem service requires bidirectional cable. Many cable systems were installed using unidirectional cable since the signal only had to travel one way - from the cable co to the consumer's TV sets. So in many cases cable firms have to go through the very expensive process of upgrading the lines. And they are doing it. At the end of 1998 there were approximately 700,000 cable modem users. In contrast there were about 39,000 DSL subscribers. As stated by the 1999 MultiMedia Telecommunications Market Review and Forecast: "This is despite the fact that for every one line configured for cable modem service, there are 20 telephone lines installed that can support asymmetric DSL (ADSL)." So the question is: What's holding up DSL? The answer seems to be the RBOCs (regional Bell operating co's). Some critics say that the RBOCs are smothering DSL the same way they avoided ISDN service. ISDN, which seems slow today, is much faster than regular 28k modems and has been available for some time but was priced too high for general consumer use. Many believe that ISDN was not pushed by the RBOCs because they were afraid of losing their lucrative T1 market. T1 lines are used by businesses that pay big fees. The fear is the same with DSL. Why should the RBOCs offer a similar service at a much lower price. In steps the CLECs: CLECs (competitive local exchange carriers) are allowed to offer DSL service and they do not have to worry about cannibalizing T1 revenues. Some prominent CLECs that serve the business market are COVD, RTHM and NPNT. Now, if an RBOC has to switch a customer from T1 service to DSL (or ISDN) they are going to see reduced profits, but if an RBOC loses a T1 customer because that customer switched to a DSL service offered by a CLEC, then the RBOC loses ALL its profits. So the RBOCs have two choices - they can hinder the CLECs (this they do) or they can roll out DSL themselves (which they are doing slooooowly). Of the 39,000 DSL subscriber mentioned above, perhaps 30,000 are customers of US West. Others like Bell Atlantic and BellSouth have done very little. Of course, besides worrying about the CLECs the RBOCs also have to worry about the cable guys. The question is: will they be motivated enough. If they are, DSL companies will profit and consumers will benefit. If not cable, and even satellite will likely take over. What we need to do is monitor deployment efforts. We need to find out if the RBOCs are just issuing press releases about intended DSL efforts or if they are aggressively signing up customers. One more twist: For the most part the purpose of DSL is to move data, and just about all the CLECs using DSL technology are providing data-only service. However, the latest innovation is to deliver voice over DSL (that's being called VoDSL). An article in the May 10 issue of Interactive Week began thus: "A Las Vegas-based competitive carrier last week became the first company to use Digital Subscriber Line technology to offer voice and data service to its customers." The company is MGCX, and they are currently targeting 5 markets. The June issue of Telecommunications calls voice traffic "DSL's New Killer App" and states that soon data voice and video will travel over a single copper pair. More to come. StockHawk