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 (8279)	8/30/2000 9:18:47 AM
From: elmatador	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Chambers has to keep pedaling the bicycle. They have to work out the troops who depend on the company's valuation for their stock options. Saying that kind of stuff: voice will be free, the bad guys are the telcos and such is part of the deal. CEO's are now displyed as Messianic figures _MacGiin was one fo them until LU bit the dust and as fast as he raised to Messias, people want his skin nailed to the toilet door. Just look in the LU Thread to see a proof of what I am saying. One day CSCO will hit a ramp and the pedalloing will become hard and everyone will forget Chambers as Messias and will want his head in a a plate (I am too biblical today)

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (8279)	8/30/2000 9:48:44 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 12823

"Voice will be free." Mike, re the above.. and the remainder of the message, I don't have much time right now but I'll try to do it justice. Here's a little tid bit to consider. Not only is IP voice in the enterprise not free to install at this time, but to keep the call servers and gateways et al up and running in harmony with the 802.3 switches in a LAN compliant manner, one proposed installation that I am aware of -- where desktop IP phones have been spec'ed in -- calls for hundreds of thousands of dollars in outlays for Sniffer wares distributed between several buildings to keep tabs on packet behavior. There's also the cost of the additional Ethernet ports which adds another several hundred thousand dollars over the spread of the campus, plus the cost of the IP phones. Not trivial. Leastwise, not during the initial capital outlay phase. The option that allowed the use of a single port was eschewed due to shortcomings in QoS features at this time. Down the road, when QoS issues are ironed out, perhaps both voice and data, along with m-m and desktop conferencing will share the same 10 or 100 Mb/s switched port. But today, due to a number of issues, they don't. Not if you want a fairly reliable and consistent feel when you are on a call, comparable to the old workhorse PBX of the past <?>. And if you are looking to implement fiber to the desk? Forget it for now if you want to power the IP phones from the closet. The IP Phones derive their local power over a center-tap feed on the metallic Cat5e cable pair. "Simplex powering," in teclo jargon. The provision is incorporated right in the Ethernet port in the switch. If you use fiber, you must then use additional AC-->DC adapters at the desk, requiring an additional a.c. outlet for each user. Or some means of using a master power supply and feeding individual DC feeds to each desk over yet another cable. Another non-trivial engineering consideration and expense when considering large-scale installations. Don't get me wrong, I'm high on the prospects of IP telephony in general, and in this case desktop IP Voice, specifically. And I'm watching the Cisco AVVID platform very closely for the delivery of all forms of information. But there is a ways to go yet before comparable, or improved, economies can be realized at the infrastructure level. Stay tuned. FAC