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: axial who wrote (7635)	7/15/2000 5:54:54 PM
From: axial	Respond to of 12823

Correction to my last - 'I feel we could liberalize the stance a bit, without allowing a descent into simple advocacy.' ___________________________________________________________ Should read: I feel you could liberalize the stance a bit, without allowing a descent into simple advocacy. ___________________________________________________________ I do not claim to have a vote, only an opinion. >g< Jim

To: axial who wrote (7635)	7/15/2000 8:25:05 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 12823

Hi Jim, Begin Edit: I just read your adendum, hence the inclusion of this and the next sentence. Of course you have a vote. End Edit. Your message was very well put. Agreed, fully. I didn't mean to make is sound as though I was coming from divine law, only voicing an opinion, myself, and disclosing what this board has appeared to mean to me over the last five years. And yes, very often we see that a technology is inextricably linked to a single vendor, its inventor, and in those cases we have used the name of the vendor and the technology almost interchangebly. Some other cases where we've had folks speak here in the past, in addition to the ones you mentioned, were Tom Eames, president of Next Level; George Hawley, a former Bellcore engineer who came to be known as "Dr. Loop" in the industry, who went on to spearhead Diamond Lane as its CEO (an independent DSL play before they were taken out by Nokia), and some of the carrier and service provider folks. There are others who I know of, too, who shall remain nameless out of respect for their desire for privacy. Most, if not all, of the individuals I've mentioned were able to discuss generic tradeoff issues that had to do with equipment design, transmission parameters, applications, and such things as terrain factors, weather and teledensities, without imposing their proprietary interests on the members here. And when they needed to defend a particular attribute of their products or services they did so in response to challenges or queries of same. Having said that, I think that in the case that presents itself here at this time there is are some good reasons to explore the case of NVEI further. If this company maintains that they do, in fact, possess the technology to extend VDSL-like STS1 (OC1-like Sonet) speeds of ~52 Mb/s over twisted pairs at distances of up to 15,000 feet, then IMO this warrants further discussion. To wit: Bill, Those are some very impressive claims. Have they been supported by any independent testing organizations that you are aware of? FAC