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.

Non-Tech : Amati investors -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scrapps who wrote (31212)	11/15/1999 7:17:00 PM
From: Michael F. Donadio	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 31386

Scrapps, you are absolutely right insofar as G.lite would be a tremendous improvement for me too. I'll take it and say "Thank you". I was very glad when I got my new pentium processor too, even happier when I got my G3, but clearly the world does not stop spinning. ADSL/DMT was capable of 8 Mbits downstream. It has been degraded by G.lite in the name of RBOCs not having to send out trucks and to allow for rapid deployment. Well rapid deployment is finally happening by not because of G.lite, and full rate DSL can be done without truck rollouts. I want my 8 Mbits. Video on demand clearly makes use of the bandwidth, and SUNW's SunRay wants 100 Mbits for optimization so I can already see limitations. As for cost, from the same article: Todd Andreni, ADSL marketing manager for Texas Instruments, nonetheless said he sees evidence that full-rate ADSL, not G.Lite, will be the winner for consumer access. TI is supplying DSL silicon for both the central office and the consumer connection. It is focusing on client-side silicon that offers full-rate capabilities, while allowing service providers to retain the ability to scale back the data rate to 1.5 Mbits/s. "All of the service providers we have talked to are moving toward splitterless full-rate and not G.Lite," Andreni said, adding that Texas Instruments itself "is agnostic on the issue." There is little cost difference between G.Lite and full-rate silicon, Andreni noted, and for service providers, a single standard may be preferable; it's "much easier to monitor, because they can serve every market" with the same infrastructure. ...>> So why should I be glad that G.lite leads and an inferior technology becomes dominate? If the answer is so that those who have invested in G.lite can make money while a superior and equally deployable technology is suppressed, that's not my perspective. I've already made good money with AWRE and perhaps they need a new business model. I want AMATI, Michael

To: Scrapps who wrote (31212)	11/16/1999 7:00:00 AM
From: Eric Goethals	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 31386

No Scrapps... I think you have lost sight of the goals here. The main goal of all TelCos is to compete with the Cable companies for services. Period. The best way do this is to make sure the playing field is as level possible. I.E. Bandwidth on the same order of that cable can provide. Very big advantage for selecting Full Rate over Lite. This is a must for the TelCos to compete and/or dominate. If somebody knocked on my door today giving me the option of either Lite or Full Rate I think I would laugh. SBC is committed to nothing but Full. GTE and Pacific Bell at the moment are installing only Full. (Who else...?) All Lite does now is short change the customer in services which translates into lost revenue for the TelCos. I think those who announced Lite solutions did so as a hedge against Full. This is my bet. I still don't know that anybody can even sign up for Lite services yet. The only advantage Lite has now over full rate is power dissipation in the CO. Do you think the TelCos will eventually tighten down on this? -E