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: elmatador who wrote (5269)	9/17/1999 11:23:00 AM
From: ftth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

It seems the 'always on' issue is a matter of interpretation. If a modem is called "always on" even when the end device, the computer, is shut off, then you could just as easily claim that TV sets are "always on" because of the small current draw to run the IR receiver all the time. It takes longer to boot Windows than to init a modem, so it seems to be sort of a silly point--the modem init is lost in the system startup fog if you don't give the user an audible cue that it's going on. In a couple years, when quick-start systems are deployed in number, then it may become a consideration. As for bogging down the network, the amount of data load presented to the network due to modem management tasks that go on even if the computer is shut down is pretty low in a relative sense. For a point-to-point connection, it seems unimportant. If there's no user requesting or sending DATA packets, there are no packets to multiplex/demultiplex to/from a larger transport, and minimal to no bandwidth freed up due to an official log off from a local modem management system. It could be argued, although I'm not sure how effectively, that the burst of initialization transactions happening at a random time (i.e. whenever the user fires up their computer) is less desireable from a bandwidth management standpoint than a connection that always maintains shorter, 'manageable from the head-end' (i.e more predictable) maintenance tasks. Even tho there are different considerations for cable, I just can't seem to find any angle on this which would make it an important issue in the grand scheme of things at the moment. dh

To: elmatador who wrote (5269)	9/17/1999 11:27:00 AM
From: MikeM54321	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12823

Thread, Well isn't this an interesting twist. I never realized you could, "turn off," DSL. For some reason I thought it was like a cable modem network, but now that I think about it, I'm probably wrong. There is no advantage to disconnecting a user off a coaxial based HFC network because it's shared anyway. So if all 500 HFC users on a node were connected, it makes no difference as long as they all aren't downloading or uploading at the same time. That's what counts. Now in a DSL system, that twisted copper pair is a dedicated run to the CO. So for each DSL user, it takes a lot of equipment to hook that particular customer up. So if that customer can be disconnected, does that mean it frees up a DSLAM line card for someone else to tap into? Does it also allow the Access Concentrator to provision more customers? But what about the DSL user trying to make a voice call? You don't want a busy signal to occur because his neighbor his surfing the web and is tying up the DSLAM. Is this why most DSL services are dedicated as, "always on?" Because that voice line also hits the DSLAM too and it needs to be dedicated for voice services to that user. All of the above is PURE guessing on my part. Can someone who is more technically knowledgeable verify if my statements are accurate or set me straight. Thanks, MikeM(From Florida)