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 (7583)	7/13/2000 8:52:54 AM
From: zbyslaw owczarczyk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

MikeBut even if they did TV, it still would be tough to compete with the coaxial pipe and direct broadcast satellite(DBS) for their many hundreds of channels availability. Cable penetration is Europe is much lower then in US. With density population in Europe, and mostly brick building, fiber and copper wire already underground, Europe will lead multimedia over phone wire-VDSL. And the market in Europe is as big as US+Canada. Somthing to consider. Zbyslaw

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (7583)	7/13/2000 11:44:27 AM
From: lml	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12823

Mike: My present opinion on VDSL is that the biggest obstacle is the additional cost to bring the fiber closer to the subscriber than efforts as manifested by SBC. IMHO, 12K ft of copper aint' gonna cut it in delivering the bandwidth that (1) VDSL is capable of and (2) is necessary to deliver a truly competitive service to cable or DBS in terms of video broadcast delivery. You will recall that we discussed the latter issue a few days ago. I discussed the former a small bit with Ray, though tangentially, as he & I differ on the timing of VDSL deployment. As I see it, through the pairs of SBC/PacBell, their first effort is to get DSL and other advanced services out into the neighborhoods, reaching the lion's share of SBC customers by 2003. As the first stage of Pronto winds to a close, I am of the belief that SBC will begin to deploy VDSL in select areas, and essentially in those areas where the copper loop is less than 5,000 ft. I speculate that if these trials are successful, not only in terms of technology and the deliver of true broadcast capability, but more importantly, as you point out, market penetration, than SBC would put additional investment behind VDSL to shorten copper loops in those markets/neighborhoods that indicate successful penetration rates. In short, I think economics WILL play a larger role than ever in the deployment of VDSL than with DSL, which IMHO is the result more of competitive forces ("do or die") from alternative platforms of high-speed Internet access (ie. cable).

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (7583)	7/13/2000 4:03:43 PM
From: Bill Pearson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Mike - I thought your post was interesting enough to forward it to John Howell, VP Business Development - NVEI, for his feedback. You posted: "Message #7583 from MikeM54321 at Jul 13, 2000 12:53 PM Bill- The company referred to in your article has been brought up a couple of months ago. I even posted a question to George Gilder on his thread at that time. It just seemed like something he would be interested in reading, but I never did receive a reply. He may have answered but I don't follow his thread closely, so wouldn't know for certain. IMVHO, this technology, which apparently the magazine, "Inside Wall Street," is hyping, may be simple VDSL-souped up. That's even if it works. And from what I'm gathering, something seems to be happening with the telcos in regards to VDSL. That something being nothing. Which has been a recent topic here. Personally, I'm confused about what technology package they will deliver to compete with the MSOs. I used to think it was a slam dunk for VDSL, but now I'm not so certain. All new builds appear to favor FTTH. But that still leaves a billion copper pairs that can't do television. But even if they did TV, it still would be tough to compete with the coaxial pipe and direct broadcast satellite(DBS) for their many hundreds of channels availability. The broadcast model will have to be turned upside down before the twisted pair has value as a TV delivery pipe. By that time, it may be too late for the telcos. I really don't even have a guess right now. -MikeM(From Florida)" John replied to my message containing your post, and in turn I asked him if he had a problem with me posting his comments online. He did not, so here goes: I think it's important to always keep an open mind because you never know when an unknown entity is going to contribute a small, but important piece to the broadband puzzle. We'll see where this takes is in the coming months. Thanks for your comments - Bill Pearson PS: John Howell was formerly with www.eversys.com and www.teraglobal.com. He was VP of one and CEO of the other prior to joining NVEI. If you, or anyone else who is curious enough to call, would like to speak directly with John Howell, call NVEI in San Diego at 619-692-0333. Here is John's reply to me after sharing your post: Bill, Keep in mind the platform from which we all view the world. We make assumptions based on known information. The stated preference for new installations using FTTH or in some cases FTTN or FTTC, is based on the assumption that fiber is the best option for getting bandwidth to the home sufficient to handle the oncoming digital TV world. Based on that assumption the only conclusion you can make is that fiber is the future. Challenging that assumption in theory is inexpensive. Challenging that assumption to those who have started the expensive fiber optic installations, threatens the financial commitments they have carved in stone. In the face of looking like they have made huge expenditures unnecessarily, senior management will try to debunk a technology that makes their system obsolete. Since our technology takes the fiber optic signal that goes into the Central Office and sends it on to the end user at fiber optic data transfer rates, using existing copper, the need for all that fiber loop to the Node or Curb or Home is an unnecessary expense. Even when VDSL is considered for the last 1,000 feet on the FTTN or FTTC systems, it still requires the expensive fiber optic loops outside the CO. As a compromise, some of the FTTN systems are not even touting VDSL at 52Mbps but quoting 26Mbps at 4,000 feet instead. That is simply because they haven't figured out how to go any farther than 1,000 feet at 52Mbps. The initial perception is that what we are proving is too simple and too easy to integrate into the copper infrastructure that it must not be true. On the surface it almost looks like stepping backwards. It is a reversal of the attitude that modern computer technology has built in obsolescence. We are proving that the simple copper telephone wires are perfectly adequate to take communications and entertainment to a level never before achieved at a cost to the consumer that does not exceed the services they now use. Can we alleviate the fears of those threatened by this low cost high speed alternative? Probably not. Can we satisfy the critics that hold to the theory that if it sounds too good to be true it must be false? Yes, in time. John