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 : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (39)	6/5/2000 11:33:00 AM
From: Stoctrash	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Frank...FYI stuff for all...Shared cable modem or DSL access over a LAN... I found WinProxy OK...but I like the Sybergens product BETTER cuz mail, icq, and ftp functions work seemless-ly with it...unlike with WinProxy where you have to set it all up manually...!!! Sybergen SyGate© for Home Office Overview sybergen.com ps..must thank Alan Smitheeee for the guidance!!! FYI

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (39)	6/8/2000 1:23:00 AM
From: ftth	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 46821

Some more info on Marconi's solution, from a PRNewswire release: Marconi's Deep Fiber FTH: How it Works The Deep Fiber FTH architecture is based on Marconi's proven next- generation digital loop carrier (NGDLC) technology, already widely deployed. A single fiber optic cable terminates in the home at a wall-mounted, optical electrical converter (OEC). The OEC accommodates multiple carrier- class telephone lines, a 10BaseT Ethernet connection, and multi-channel CATV (community antenna television) and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) video hookups. Unlike other systems, Deep Fiber FTH allows homeowners to utilize currently available equipment and supports multiple DBS hookups over a single cable. The OEC includes a battery backup that provides power to maintain essential services during power failures. Central office (CO) components include Marconi's DISCS(R) NGDLC, the DS1 voice feeder that provides an interface for Universal, INA, TR-08 and GR-303 modes of operation. Voice and data feeds entering the CO are combined on Marconi's DISCS MX Distribution Shelf (MDS), each of which supports a total of 672 telephone lines and 896 simultaneous internet sessions. Marconi's Quad Optical Interface Units (QOIUs) in the MDS deliver voice and data services bi-directionally. These components enable service providers to add capacity incrementally to meet future demand without infrastructure changes. Voice and data traffic from the MDS then feeds into Marconi's Splitter WDM Frame (SWFX) for distribution over the Passive Optical Network (PON) to the curbside Passive Optical Splitter (POS.) CATV and DBS video signals entering the central office are combined by Marconi's CATV/DBS Transceiver (CDX) into a single optical feed and are amplified using Marconi's field-proven Fiber-Optic Amplifier technology. The signal is split into incremental feeds, forwarded to a distribution optical amplifier for a final signal boost, and fed into the SWFX. The video signal is then distributed over the same fiber as the voice and data signals. Marconi's Deep Fiber FTH solution optimizes the passive optical network infrastructure, allowing service providers to offer homeowners communication and entertainment services today over a very high-quality, future-proof, low- maintenance and unlimited-capacity medium.

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (39)	6/8/2000 11:22:00 AM
From: ftth	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 46821

re: >> "...and they do this all on a single fiber pulled to the residence using bi-directional wdm. A single fiber approach saves on materials, labor (number of splice points is halved) and reduces the potential points of failure." I seem to remember reading a couple papers on the pros and cons of bidir-1fiber vs. unidir-2fiber approaches, and the unidirectional 2 fiber approach was the favored method in those papers. Agreed that on initial deployment 1 fiber MAY be cheaper than 2 (depending on the fiber), and initial splice count is lower. I seem to remember there were arguments (reliability, performance, long-term cost, troubleshooting capabilities) against the "monolithic" bidirectional amplifiers vs. 2 unidirectional amplifiers, but the most significant point was that the 1 fiber, bidirectional approach has less total capacity to expand into, due to the guardband between the WDD (wavelength division duplexed) up and down bands. Seems there were also issues with add/drop and cross connect flexibility/interoperability in a system of all bidir-1fiber vs. unidir-2fiber, but that may not be an issue for certain architectures. It's been a while since I read the papers mentioned, so this may not be an accurate account of the less significant reasons. Now if I could just remember where I read them<g>. Anyone that can add to this discussion please do.