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 (9656)	12/11/2000 6:29:10 PM
From: MikeM54321	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12823

Frank- I found an residential FTTH project(but it's a trial) at:http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/utilities/fth/FTTHbroch.pdf Notice it costs $2,400 to order it. And $175/month to use it. And I bet this project is subsidized by taxpayers! When that price can be brought down to free to install. Free first month service. $40/month thereafter with one month free each year. THEN it will take off like wildfire. It's my tired old 'legacy' argument. I don't understand why this doesn't appeal to businesses. A business could justify....oh stupid me. No incumbent will offer this plan to a business as it is a cannibalistic act(T1/HDSL/ISDN killer). Well bring on the BBFW players and I bet the incumbents start rolling out FTTH to the business market tomorrow. -MikeM(From Florida)

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (9656)	12/11/2000 6:37:58 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

My thoughts tend to wander on this topic, and I'm not taking a coherent, wholistic view, apparently. And that's okay in a world where revolutionary outcomes depend on breaking away and thinking out of the box, especially when comparisons can not be tracked on a linear scale. Whether or not fiber is too expensive or not is a function of who is doing the analysis, most often.. and what model they are designing around. Granted, most PONs and other flavors of FTTH have simply taken the approach of emulating the constructs of HFC, using RF carrier that is super-imposed onto lambdas, or over native individual fibers. The end terminals remain the same, and there is no net gain in overall channel capacity or additional feature capabilities. How about changing out the residential hardware model and the payloads that they receive with something that is less restrictive, allowing the potential of optical to manifest itself? "As verification of the expensive equipment problem, aren't there a lot of greenfield FTTH projects completed(fiber run), and the fiber remains dark? If I'm wrong can you point me to some residential builds, beyond a trial, where the fiber has been lit?" Not sure where your point of reference is here, Mike. The greenfield dark fiber builds that you cited are somewhat different from those that actually fit the model you are referencing. I suspect that you are referring to the fiber that remains unlit in long haul venues, for the most part. I would caution here, however, that the strategies employed by those carriers (the so-called fiber barons) who pulled those _extra_ strands, are radically different than those who would do FTTH or even metro area networks. The long-haul fiber barons overbuilt their routes intentionally, with the stated (and demonstrated) goal of selling off dark fibers to smaller players and to those who needed diverse routes, as a means of financing their own builds. In reality, each of the barons will tell you that they themselves don't need the full 288 strands, or anything near that amount, or however many they put in the ground between city pairs, for their own use. Instead, they needed to put those in the ground to sell to others, as a means of augmenting their capital requirements over time. In effect, becoming dark fiber wholesale sellers, and traders, to, and with, other carriers. Here's a surprising view from Verizon, btw, that caught my eye the other day: Message 14961391 As you read this piece, take note that Hoffman from VZ makes a point that their architecture explicitly does "NOT" make use of FSAN, which is the original blueprint for PONs. At the same time, however, they "are" making use of extant ngdls (next generation digital loop carrier) components in certain ways, which in my mind tells me that they are still dealing with bandwidth restrictive measures. The points made in the article that are most noteworthy, however, have to do with the principal's claims that handling fiber now is cheaper than handling copper. A first, as far as I know, coming from an ILEC. FAC