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 : Gorilla Game Investing in the eWorld -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Seeker of Truth who wrote (77)	9/4/1999 12:11:00 PM
From: Brian K Crawford	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1817

...isn't there a problem that cable is several times faster than DSL? If you are downloading a movie, that should be decisive against AOL... Hi Malcolm, Cable is faster than xDSL at its top rated speed. I have Time Warner's Road Runner cable service. It is a shared system, and I can tell you that it is definitely slower in the peak evening usage hours when all of us thread surfers sign on. xDSL is a dedicated line between your connection device(s) and the phone company central office. Past the C.O. we all compete for bandwidth, but from your house to the C.O., the DSL line is all yours. So, I would characterize our options as: 1. somewhat more dependable but slower at peak throughput on DSL, versus, 2. somewhat more "spiky" throughput but higher potential top speeds from shared cable access. In the future, your local cable provider will be battling the competitive pressure and temptation to oversell their system capacity. Think airline overbooking and cell system overloads for the analogy. In fact, AT&T has already fallen into this quandary with their TDMA cell network, with the most notable oversold market being New York City. Anyway, as a consumer, I am delighted to have a choice in high bandwidth. It will keep both sides honest. Brian Brian

To: Seeker of Truth who wrote (77)	9/4/1999 1:13:00 PM
From: StockHawk	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1817

>isn't there a problem that cable is several times faster than DSL?< Malcolm, the quick answer to that is "no", but the better answer is "it depends". It depends on two factors: 1. the actual - not theoretical cable modem speed. 2. the variation of DSL. With regards to #1 the advertised speeds we read about are not at all realistic. "100 times faster than 56k" Ha! First they are boasting speeds under perfect conditions and second, cable is a shared medium. I you are the only one one the line it is fastest. If 50 of your neighbors are plugging away it will be much slower. As for #2 there are a number of variations of DSL. The slowest is ADSL. ADSL, which stands for asymmetric digital subscriber line (also known as G.lite), was developed to avoid interference with voice traffic in bundled copper wires. It was supposed to do this by using slower upload speeds - as opposed to "full rate" SDSL (symmetric digital subscriber line). SDSL provides high bandwidth in both directions. However, ADSL has not lived up to expectations - it does cause some interference and necessitated the use of microfilters. Some DSL players, such as Alcatel, realized that if microfilters were going to be used anyway, they might as well be used with SDSL to take advantage of higher speeds. (Note: since higher upload speeds are more critical for business users, SDSL has so far mostly been marketed to businesses while ADSL has had a consumer orientation.) The problem here is that microfilters cost money to buy and install and the RBOCs (regional Bell operating co's) persist in saying that SDSL causes interference with voice traffic at speeds in excess of 768 kilobites per second, even with the filters. A new, even faster solution, is on the horizon in the form of HDSL-2. (High speed digital subscriber line, version 2). The high speed is 1.5 megabits per second. Its major advantage is that it was designed not to interfere with other services. An effort is now being made to develop HDSL-2 into a standard. Companies involved with HDSL-2 include PAIR, Alcatel and ADCT. 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. Cable firms are upgrading while RBOCs (regional Bell operating co's) are dragging their feet and that is why cable modems are ahead of DSL in terms of deployment: At the end of 1998 cable modems were being used by approximately 700,000 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)." 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. 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" enabeling data, voice and video to travel over a single copper pair. Sorry for such a long answer. StockHawk