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 (9469)	12/3/2000 11:45:09 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 12823

Regarding negativism towards the telecom sector.: There is enough technology for the telecoms industry to chew over the next five years. For the VC's that backed many of the technologies the future does not look that bright. That's because, the more new technology they would bring out, the less value it has. That's because there will be a competition between many technologies with which we could build a network. Thta's is from the VC and Silicon Valley standpoint. But for the vendors building networks, the future looks positive. Now the operators have to build. Look carefull and you see the issue of vendor financing coming to the fore. A year ago it wasn't an issue. Remember as well the four years that the ILECS and their lobbysts had to "digest" the Telecoms Act of 1996. Now it is foot to the metal.

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (9469)	12/3/2000 11:55:34 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 12823

During the last four years, market safe at home, ILECS preferred to go abroad and buy licenses to build mobile networks rather than invest at home. They also went for staked in foreign companies. Note that the same Teledenmark, that bought a stake in Sunrise in Switzerland via its interests in Diax, is owned partly by Ameritech which in its turn is SBC. Now it is time to invest in the home markets. Now for Ray: Ray it works in the bankers interests to say they have too much telecom paper, they just want to pay less for the new paper.

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (9469)	12/4/2000 12:14:12 AM
From: ftth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Hi Mike, you think you're confused? I think the company (Advent) may be confused: Some places they say they're a modem, others they say they just require a standard NIC at the sub. When we talked about them a while back I felt sure they needed a modem...but there are now some conflicting references (see below): /----modem references----/ from a whitepaper on the company website: The Ultraband technology consists of an Ultraband Modem Termination System residing at the cable head-end and an Ultraband Subscriber Modem (USM) that resides at the subscriber premises. and from various articles on their website: But where telephone subscribers have a physical pair of wires dedicated solely to their connections, Advent's cable modem subscribers would have a "virtual" wire. The company is using technology that can split a single cable wire into different channels Advent's equipment "is a very dense rack of modems to do dedicated channel allocation and modulation to deliver an Ethernet signal across to each user," Fruhling said. /---NIC references---/ ...but from other articles on the company website: The technology necessary to use Advent's system, a network interface card, costs about $30 and is already installed in many computers. and UltraBand is a broadband high-speed data delivery mechanism with bandwidth to spare but does not use cable modems and "You're taking digital media to the home, converting it to analog, putting it into that cable modem and then converting it to digital to go to the computer. Why not just put a NIC card in the computer and go all the way?, Johnson said." --------------------- So which is it? They also claim their system coexists on the coax with analog and digital TV channels and DOCSIS cable modems (so it has to be modulated up, to an unused portion of the spectrum--in the upper region since that's the only part unassigned. Baseband is already occupied, and that's where generic ethernet would sit ). So the NIC comment above must just mean the output of their modem connects to the PC via ethernet (has to be 100Mb ethernet to support their claimed 40 Mbps (which implies 256QAM operation over a 6MHz channel, and that's no given to always work)). My conclusion: it is a modem. A proprietary modem--requiring a 100Mb ethernet card in addition. Exactly what MSO's want to get away from and why they devoted so much effort to DORKSIS. Slim to no chance it can be very cheap since no manufacturing scale, and a company that may or may not be around in 2 years. And from various other articles on their website there are claims of node sizes of 50, 100, and 150 (hey its a network...it has to be shared at some point as you move back). In one reference they are using 180MHz of upper spectrum (which gives them thirty 6-MHz channels to work with) 40Mb of data per 6MHz channel, to (choose one: 50,100,150) users per node. I don't know what they are doing for upstream. There is never any mention of that--but they have to put it somewhere in that upper spectrum they are allowed to use. They make claims of streaming DVD video and HDTV, but 40 Mbps muxed to 100 users...they better hope no more than a few users on a node try to do that simultaneously. Now if each individual user gets sole use of a 6MHz channel (and this is implied in one of the articles, but contradicted in another) they'd be OK (as long as no more than 30 wanted this simultaneously); I just don't see how the MSO's would go for that though. [putting my MSO hat on:] 1 user per 6 MHz channel when they could be selling that same channel to a couple hundred via DOCSIS, granted at reduced data rates? Maybe more specifics will be released in the future...I kinda doubt it though.