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 (7388)	6/23/2000 6:02:00 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12823

Mike, re vdsl, 6 Mb pipes and headends "Just having the pipe(a 6 Megabit pipe is not easy in itself) and is just one single part of broadcast quality TV." An uncompressed HDTV signal is worth 1.5 Gb/s. Compressed? Somebody fill in the blank: _________M/bs. 170 to 270 sounds like a range that might fit in there. And lower, but the lower you go, the less "H" you have in HDTV. "What about the hundreds of millions required to duplicate the cableco's headends? I don't know if it's just me, but there happens to be a few close by. And they are HUGE. I can hardly imagine what it costs to build and equip them. I wonder if there is going to have to be a significant shift in the entire broadcast TV model in order for the telecos to be able to afford to do TV. " Those are analog entities you're referring to. Digital distribution nodes consisting of collapsed 10Gb/s switch arrays supporting central office host digital terminals will be far less expensive and require far less space and housekeeping, IMO. Of course, the delivery mechanism would be some form of FTTx. Problem is, very few are even contemplating stepping up to the plate to put in a design which is digital through and through, as far as I know. With the exception, of course, of VDSL <even at full throttle 52 Mb/s>, which doesn't quite cut the mustard for up to three-program session delivery when one of them is HDTV. FAC

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (7388)	6/24/2000 12:56:00 AM
From: lml	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Just popping in for a minute, Mike. I see Frank corrected you on the pipe size. No problem. 6M bps is doable today if you're w/i 12K ft. If you're w/i 9K ft, you can get 8M bps over DSL, still insufficient to deliver video. Frank brings up an important issue re: video, and that is HDTV. I don't think the telcos will provision VDSL or any other platform that is incapable of delivering as sufficient selection of HDTV programming. It may seem unnecessary today, but it going to be necessary by the end of the decade, and the telcos like to think out that far when they invest in new platforms. Yes, economics are clearly the issue. Well, SBC is spending $7B on Pronto that will deliver DSL and a plethora of advanced services to subscribers when completed. So how much marginal expense will SBC be required to spend to deploy VDSL? I would argue not as much since the backbone will have already been built. I think, deployment will be on a area-by-area basis as it will entail deepen the fiber closer to subscriber premises, where IMHO, most of the cost will lie. I think what is different going forward, however, is competitive economics as opposed to "regulatory" economics. Convergence, as you have stated, is the driving force underlying new investment. Convergence means competition, and competition means risk, which is something historically regulated telcos are now getting used to. Some have seen the "light;" others have yet to find it. Gotta roll. Good night.