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: Raymond Duray who wrote (370)	7/10/2000 12:02:47 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 46821

Ray, I was a bit taken back by CIMI's projections of various ILEC's and Asubs' DSL penetration scenarios, through 2010, without taking into account other outside influences between now and then, e.g. FTTH/MSO/Wireless competitors and the rising bandwidth utilization curve that sees no end in site. They don't seem to appear willing to move off of the 6Mb/s dime, between now and then, a period of ten years. They mentioned T1s and T3s over repeater'ed copper. What's that about? Who ever heard of T3s over repeater'ed copper, except in Central Offices between ADMs and DCSs over coax, or, perhaps, very early incarnations of T4s that were used to carry T3s over coaxial tubes during the Seventies, before fiber became the preferred mode of transport. The author seems to equate the capabilities of SONET T3s with those of DSLs, hence the risk of losing business to the less expensive dsl alternatives. I don't see it that way. I've been exposed to hundreds of T3 rentals over the past several years. None of them, not a one for a whole slew of reasons, would have been satisfied by asymmetrical ADSL or VDSL loops. Perhaps as throw-away backups for worst case recovery situations, but not for primary service support. I do see, however, where voice revenues would be (and are now, in fact, by so-ho's who are using integrated dsl access devices tied to their pbx's) at risk and why they'd be reluctant to provide too much symmetrical bandwidth over SDSLs to end users with good service performance guarantees who would (actually do now) convert those to voice services for resale, or use them themselves, as an alternative to more expensive POTS lines. As for Asub outcomes, haven't some of these already been altered or negated by regulatory edict in the case of SBC and "their" Asub? lml? My memory is vague on that matter. On the issue of CLEC access to fiber, I was hoping to read where they viewed DWDM as a means for CLECs to achieve fiber presence of their own, through resale, but the closest they came was: The first step the ILECs will take, likely this summer, is the announcement that all future provisioning of residential services and voice services to smaller business sites will occur only through their ATM outside plant. This eliminates the risk that a CLEC will demand fiber be provisioned under the terms the RBOCs currently provision it to TR-0008 and GR-303 remotes. In effect, it kills off “fiber on demand” for the CLECs. Does it really? By fiber on demand, I assume they mean lambdas or virtual fiber strands derived from DWDM. I thought that lambdas were now considered a part of the outside plant list of unbundled elements and fair game for CLEC/DLEC acquisition and resale. I don't see where one issue (ATM outside plant provided by the Asub) should have anything to do with the other (fiber spectrum skimming via WDM by the CLEC). Anyone have any thoughts on this? FAC