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 (9313)	11/26/2000 3:10:35 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12823

"There just isn't enough available spectrum to provide the service to thousands of customers simultaneously." While you did stipulate "available bandwidth," I'd further qualify this statement by adding "under the present architecture." Using a different, or even a modified HFC architecture, a 1 GHz or 750 MHz channel into the home could actually be more than sufficient for the present time and for the foreseeable future. 1 GHz analog can yield several Gbps, conservatively. More problematical, IMO, might be with the channel and service selection processes in place as it interplays with the head end, and the fact that the preponderance of "usable" bandwidth coming into the home is hamstrung with broadcast signals. This is true, whether the user elects to view what's being carried over those channels (each devouring 6 MHz), or not. The foregoing has to do with the downstream. I wont even go into the upstream again. And this, IMO, stems from the need to continue in a model known as broadcast and select, where the actual channel selection is executed by switching between many, right at the end point (within the user's residence). If channel selection were performed in some other manner, say, at the field node such as some VDSL or some of the greenfield Ethernet plays are suggesting, or at the host digital terminal at the central office or head end, then the majority of the bandwidth coming into the home would not be tied up with broadcast signals. It would be available for other purposes. Then again, b and c could work very nicely, one would imagine, if there were several to 10 gig of usable "digital" format available for exploitation.

To: ftth who wrote (9313)	11/26/2000 3:18:35 PM
From: MikeM54321	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 12823

"If they charge an arm and a leg per VoD session..." ftth- Well speak of the devil, here is your answer. $3.95 for new releases. $1.95 for classics. And $7.95 for adult programming. You see I went to check to see the details of what TimeWarner is labeling, "Business Roadrunner," and inadvertantly found that they may be offering VOD to my area shortly: "iCONTROL, video on demand, puts you in total control of your entertainment experience!" twtampabay.com On our channel one there used to be a guide on how to use the digital video remote control and on-screen program guide. Well I just discovered minutes ago it's now replaced with an introductory screen for VOD services. I'm guessing it may mean that it will be offered to me shortly(as it says on the screen<g>). If so, I'll be the first to generate revenues for TimeWarner and report back to the thread on how it works. _______________ "....and only have a very limited number of movies, they could probably oversubscribe..." ftth- How come how many movies that are available to click on would play a factor in determining a congestion limit? Or are you simply referring to the hard disk storage space limitations that may be on the server in the headend? The number of movies available have nothing to do with network bandwidth limitations, right? Thanks. -MikeM(From Florida)