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 (7895)	8/5/2000 5:49:57 PM
From: ftth	Respond to of 12823

re: "does anyone see an issue with stuffing too much integration into the STB? " Yes, in particular the routing of cables from the STB to all these other devices with various purposes throughout the house. One might argue, for example, "what's the point of having the data modem in the STB, just to route it to the den from the family room." So there's clearly some wireless in-home possibilities, as well as pseudo-wireless (not requiring any NEW wire, i.e. using existing wires like AC or phone). Most homes don't have a phone line behind the entertainment center, where the STB sits. Maybe we all need a routing closet in our homes, as the central point. I don't think an outside mount box will fly (2 reasons: theft; and operating environment is far more harsh than consumer electronics companies want to design to). It would also be easier and less visible to hack walls open in a closet to connect this beast, but I guess it depends on the house architecture. Truck rolls just ain't going away, and I feel sorry for the poor techs that have to figure out how to route this mess, and which (if any) existing cables in a given house are OK. Yep, wireless in-home looks pretty attractive, but it has it's own set of issues to make up for all the wired problems it solves.

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (7895)	8/5/2000 6:36:55 PM
From: MikeM54321	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12823

"DOCSIS standard which showed the modem communications features of the STB that were solely concerned with decoding digital video and audio, and not for the purposes of supporting your typical cable modem purposes (which were implied <at least I thought was implied> to be separate in scope, i.e., handled by another unit, the CM)." Frank- Not withstanding Mkilloran's url message to me(thanks Mkilloran), I'm still of the impression that it's not going to roll out as one would believe. But I have to say I was surprised ATT even brought it up? I'm currently of the opinion it's one of those marketecture thingys companies put out to confuse the competition and the FCC. Why would ATT take a solid revenue generator like cable TV and risk losing millions in advertising revenues while their subs play around on the web? It makes no sense. I'm of the opinion that MSO's want interactive. Sure do. But they don't want to let their subs run loose all over the world(literally<g>) instead of the passive couch potatoes they can blast lots of advertising too. So I'm guessing....well I won't guess. I'll research it further to see what the real deal is. "Lately, I've been softening somewhat from a full FTTH (the platform) stance, because I've seen some nifty improvements over HFC that hold promise, both in the drop cable and in the trunk back to the head end(s)." Hey Frank, sounds like you are turning into a, "here and now," type investor.<vbg> Seriously though, I still think you and ftth are absolutely correct about the future, but my only difference is a matter of about 7-9 years. Thanks for your comments. -MikeM(From Florida) PS1 I know we repeat some of our messages, but I sometimes do that deliberately for new viewers to the thread. I do read most posts in as much detail as time allows. PS2 Frank you made cool post of the day in case you didn't catch it already. Pondering the future of TV Land is pretty interesting.