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 : America On-Line (AOL) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Citidude who wrote (37181)	1/11/2000 12:32:00 PM
From: JayPC	Respond to of 41369

It depends on the subscription rate per node. Cable probably has worse problems because the subscription rates are currently higher than DSL. The Cable co.s are spending billions to upgrade the plants and the nodes. I guess its all relative. If you are paying $149 a month for DSL at 700kbs and it slows to 500 kbs at peak times, i would be pretty upset. I'm used to 1.4 mbs on my cable modem, so when it slows to 900kbs i see a difference, but for 39.95 a month I'll take cable. I have heard of some places where the slowdowns on cable are much more dramatic. The problems are most likely oversubscription per node. Thats where DSL competition will force the cable co. to upgrade or install more nodes. Regards Jay

To: Citidude who wrote (37181)	1/11/2000 12:50:00 PM
From: gpowell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 41369

The bottleneck point for the ATHM cable configuration is in the last mile - the local node. I'm not sure where the bottleneck will be for DSL systems. I suspect the net (ATHM uses a proprietary parallel net, by the way) itself will be the choke point. Although, I have read stats that show some Central offices have as many as 10,000 phone lines coming in. The access multiplexors (the point at which DSL lines are shared) required for that would fill a large building. Just think of the heat generated by all those DSLAMS!