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: MikeM54321 who wrote (6761)	3/31/2000 2:53:00 PM
From: DenverTechie	Respond to of 12823

The short answer to this is that the MSOs seem to be leaning towards the IP side of things. But here's an intriguing possibility that I 've seen in more than one design. And that is IP over ATM. For those operators that have already put in their ATM backbone it makes a lot of sense. It also helps solve some of the nagging QoS (Quality of Service) problems with doing IP Telephony. QoS is related to packet loss, throughput, end-to-end packet delay, and jitter. ATM traffic/service classes and management functions can help mitigate the first three problems. Since ATM is a connection-oriented service, jitter is less of a problem (but can get out of hand in a hurry in a pure IP network). However, it can only offer these advantages between the ATM switches, so they would have to be placed close to the edge of the network to do any good, along with the backbone. Since many IP Telephony problems happen in the WAN, this is a good choice. Then you transmit your VoIP packets through the HFC from the CMTS in the headend since this is the last mile short hop and the packet loss, throughput, jitter, etc. problems discussed above are better known in this environment and largely manageable using known, current methods. Hope that helps solve the riddle. But the jury is still out on this one. One of those sticky wickets, but the lean is toward the IP side presently, with a good sized nod and wink to the ATM advantages.

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (6761)	3/31/2000 5:23:00 PM
From: lml	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Hi Mike: Rough week. Still standing. Anyway, to respond to your piqued interest in this debate, consider the latest move today by T to acquire an interest in NTOP. In case you haven't seen (which I seriously doubt) see dailynews.yahoo.com The name of the game for T is gaining direct access to customers, and they will take that direct access anyway they can. I've concluded that if the MSOs can route there telephony directly over an IP network they will. Its just my conclusion. With the likes of CSCO interested in pushing pure IP networks to replace the existing teleco ATM structure, and with the interest of MSOs to develop IP telephony that will be routed via their CMTS to a subscriber's cable modem, I just see a vested interested by the MSOs to push the IP platform rather than the ATM platform. But again, the MSOs will take a direct telephony connection from the subscriber anyway they can. If at first, circuit-switch via the teleco infrastructure, so be it. If subsequently IP over ATM, better. If over a pure IP network, even better. JMO.