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: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (4439)	7/4/1999 11:27:00 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 12823

Okay, let's answer this AOL question in true Last Mile style, once and for all: Is AOL an ISP or is it not? If not, then what is it? This question has been buzzing around unresolved for some time now. What's your opinion? Regards, Frank Coluccio

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (4439)	7/5/1999 3:21:00 PM
From: Daniel G. DeBusschere	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

<<Consider, users are currently up tight about "only" being allowed 128k in the upstream direction, the direction that merely warrants a few k under normal surfing conditions. Yet, 128 was deemed an out-of-reach goal for the "downstream," never mind the upstream, just a few months before.>> Frank-I am uptight about it. I have TCI@home and I want it for bursty access both ways to the network. I do not have a problem with the stated fair use policy and I do not run a server. I probably use the service on the average once or twice a day. So my average bandwidth use is very low. If an active control is needed to limit use of a shared bandwidth facility, then some measure of total data transferred over a specific time frame (say a month) can be used to shut down abusers. Also, the fact that TCI was really not upfront about what it is reported to be doing and what it is apparently doing is not consistent with their stated public position. It's a great service, I am sure they will do their best to destroy it.

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (4439)	7/5/1999 8:27:00 PM
From: gpowell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

If you want more bandwidth, you can always get it. But it ain't free and it's going to have to be properly administered. In the case of HFC, well, I think we've been over this before, but it's my view that the MSOs continued building out a model that was fashioned after some vague 1994 perceptions which are now rapidly becoming anachronisms. In a perverse kind of way, it's the shortsightedness of the early designs which justifies ATHM's behavior in this situation, not their vision. Comments welcome. Frank, Could you elaborate on this paragraph. Specifically on the limitations of the "vague 1994 model". Are you referring to ATHM's concept of "bringing the data closer to the user" or the last mile configuration? If you have covered this topic here in the past let me know and I'll look for it. Thanks

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (4439)	7/5/1999 9:03:00 PM
From: gpowell	Respond to of 12823

Frank, I've been under the assumption that ATHM's network architecture is a valuable asset and gives ATHM a competitive advantage over other service providers. Your posts are challenging those assumptions. I thought a nice exit (from ISP) strategy for ATHM when cable access is open to all comers would be to fall back on: the network architecture, AT&T's backbone, @Work, and @Media and transition into a content and business services provider. I would like your comments to the following scenario: Cable achieves common carrier status. Telephone infrastructure required for life line services are then maintained by municipalities. RBOC's, T, and MSO's combine to maintain the cable infrastructure and start laying pure fiber. Current ISPs compete to become content and value added service providers.