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: ftth who wrote (8881)	10/15/2000 12:11:53 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 12823

The last time I checked, the university optical system was still supporting Fast Ethernet between buildings. The 1985 units... I have a couple of those in my office now. I use them as ornaments; they make for some great war stories. When the client outlived their speeds (after installing a fiber-based MAN), they retired them and asked me if I wanted to hold on to them. As memorobilia. Packratitis Me, I gladly accepted. (Hi Graciella!) Optical standards for fiberless (free space). You mean, as in interoperability? There are already gloms of standards that they must comform to, mostly those which apply to power levels from LASERs. But from what I can tell there is no standard modulation scheme employed that would lend to interoperability at this time. I misrepresented in my previous post, in a way, when I noted that the Silcom unit was both ATM and Ethernet capable. I made it sound, in retrospect, that these units spoke the protocols. They do, but on the back end. On the air interface they are protocol agnostic. Most free-space system simply provide a carrier that is modulated in one way or another at the selected speed and protocol of choice. Actually, the university model also falls back to 10 Mb/s Ethernet. But it's protocol agnostic. It doesn't really care how you modulate it. That's a function of the interface to the LAN, on the back end of the transceiver. Other systems can be used for both digital data applications and for amplitude- or frequency- modulated analog TV systems, for surveillance, program purposes, etc. And these are put together, from a modulation standpoint, in much the same way as systems that support analog voice and video over fiber. Not PCM, but AM/FM.

To: ftth who wrote (8881)	10/15/2000 12:49:09 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 12823

I didn't see this earlier. Was this part of your edit? "Think the free-space guys will have to play by open access rules?" It probably would be a non-starter on point to points, but on point to multipoints? Why not? Of course, your question goes to whether "IR Carriers" or CLECs/DLECs will be impacted by this, not the technology, per se. The technology itself is dumb. After all, why would IR DLECs (who are providing broadband in a broadcast or quasi-broadcast mode if they are doing true multipoint) be immune from the same rules that apply to ILECs, MSOs and eventually Wireless BB Carriers? Especially if any one content provider who aligns themselves with an IR carrier becomes successful and dominant. Other content providers will be sure to petition for equal access to the same "umbrella" of IR links, too. Now, I know that we can quibble over whether p-mp using coded access schemes are equivalent to broadcast, but in principle the former could be made to effect the latter, if one has the resolve to make it so. Or, whether discreet user links could be supported by third-party providers over an IR Carrier System that is designed to support a solitary service provider, as in the way MSOs today are the overlords of DOCSIS platforms. You bring up a very interesting subject for further discussion.