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: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (7600)	7/13/2000 6:10:46 PM
From: lml	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Yes, Frank, I stand corrected. I did allude to this problem in another of my posts today. It does present an obstacle and an expense, and I am ill-equipped to evaluate it on a technical basis. Nevertheless, my premise is that VDSL is capable of delivering video broadcasting. If not, I just don't think we'd be seeing SBC investing huge amounts of capital in Pronto today. I think in the long run the fiber now being run to the RT in the neighborhoods is going to migrate to a FTTC where no subscriber is more than 1000 feet in order that the full bandwidth capabilities of VDSL be realized over the twisted pair running into the home. I also think FTTH is the optimal solution in the long run, but in established neighborhoods, which represent the lion's share of a telco's customer, it ain't gonna happen because there is a less expensive alternative that is going to available, and that alternative is VDSL.

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (7600)	7/13/2000 6:41:19 PM
From: MikeM54321	Respond to of 12823

Frank- It's that good old legacy stuff again. Considering it took the cableco's 50 years to equip and turn on the headends supplying 70 million cable homes, and the telcos are at ground zero in this respect, I would be in the wait and see mode regarding VDSL myself.<g> And if I was a cableco and had invested a trillion dollars in infrastructure, I would certainly be milking it for all it's worth no matter how irritated the FCC became. And I also want to reiterate, that I also do agree with your upstream comment regarding that the telcos can't possibly follow the same analog model the cablecos have taken 50 years to roll out. The telco's need the current broadcast model to be turned upside down first because they can't possible make the same investments the cablecos have. Somehow the Internet is going to be involved in this. I know it, but don't know exactly how. The Internet has to make it cheap for television content delivery and the telcos will need to poised to take advantage of it. This is what I believe I said in all my upstream posts to lml, but I didn't do a very good job. Sometimes to keep this new digital world in perspective, I often look at my bills from my wired telco, wireless SP, and cableco, then wonder how in the world they can even figure out how to simply bill their customers, much less how to create the trillion dollar infrastruture required to supply new services. Just doing what you may think is simple on the surface (billing), turns out to be a tens of billion dollar industry in itself! -MikeM(From Florida)