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 : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John F. Dowd who wrote (29252)	9/7/1999 9:19:00 PM
From: RTev	Respond to of 74651

The first article you cite makes my point. The RBOC's are the real impediment as this excerpt indicates. Your original point in #reply-11167062 to which I responded was this: "Their big problem is getting the Regional Bells to get off their collective butts and crank up the ADSL. When this happens watch AOL roll." My point was and is that the problem in this one instance lies mostly AOL. As I said, the RBOCs deserve to be criticized for many things, but it's not their fault that AOL announced something that they haven't delivered. The technology itself is the impediment for AOL. That's the point of the article I cited and which you (as often happens) fail to completely grasp. AOL made a deal to offer service using a technology that they apparently did not understand and were not ready to support. (This, by the way, lies in stark contrast to Microsoft's way of handling the issue of high-speed access.) Note that the data CLECs like Covad haven't come closer to making installation a simple process. It is, in fact, two of the RBOCs that offer the simplest installation process, with a third one quickly catching up. It's interesting that AOL is now saying they have to wait to offer the service until g.lite service (or something similar) is available. Yeah. But notice that AOL signed agreements only with the telephone companies that had installed pre-g.lite central office equipment. They haven't signed agreements with either of the two companies that use Cisco equipment which does not require a truck roll. (US West and Cincinnatti Bell both allow user installation of DSL equipment and have for a year and a half (two in Pheonix), but AOL hasn't been talking to them.) Among the various companies, BEL seems to only moderate problems with the DSL service itself. They've even introduced a customer-installation option. Most complaints from their DSL customers on comp.dcom.dsl focus on problems with their ba.net ISP service. AOL won't be using that. Have they put impediments in the way of CLECs? Yes. That seems clear. But it doesn't affect the AOL deals. AOL made its deals not with competitive carriers, but with the incumbents. Are the incumbents being pushed by the data CLECs? Sure they are. So far, they've stayed far ahead of them Wrong again! Ours is newly wired and has all fibreoptic interface. John. John. <sigh> Read the link. The fiberoptic interface is the problem. Here, for your convenience is the link again: webproforum.com and an excerpt: Unfortunately, traditional DLC systems do not support ADSL solutions. Legacy DLC systems, designed primarily to provide high-quality voice services, have significant constraints that prohibit their ability to support the amount of bandwidth demanded by ADSL. And although newer generation DLCs typically offer greater access to bandwidth at the line-card level, they are not ideally engineered for data services either. For instance, loading these systems up for ADSL can seriously constrain the DLC's capacity for POTS. (The DLC, in most cases, is what comes between the copper to the house and the "fiberoptic interface".)