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 : Ciena (CIEN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jeremic who wrote (9968)	12/13/2000 7:49:41 AM
From: jghutchison	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12623

Jeremic, I'm sorry if my statement may have been confusing to you, but it still stands. As the channel spacing is reduced, the channel's (wavelength, or lambda) ability to carry the bit rate is also reduced. Total bandwidth per fiber is the product of the number of channels, which is a function of the channel spacing, and the bit rate. This is elementary physics and simple arithemetic. I happen to love technology. But as a long term researcher and businessman, I understand the difference between concept and implementation. I remain a skeptic but hopeful observer of new technology, until I begin to see rave reviews by qualified people, and subsequent broad market acceptance. Many innovations come ahead of there time. Been there and done that. From what I gather, the Avanex Powermux is not meeting with the rave reviews by the user community as it is perceived as a marketing tactic, rather than a technical breakthrough. Jack Hutchison

To: jeremic who wrote (9968)	12/13/2000 12:31:31 PM
From: mact	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12623

jeremic, agreed...fabry-perot inferometer technology has very big potential and many advantages...the number of channels per fiber is potentially limitless(almost<gg>)...and using the powershaper along with low dispersion leaf fiber from glw will lessen the need for regeneration...the big bottleneck will be switching at the edge imo...switches from xros, calient and agilent will not suffice...1064 X 1064 ports not nearly enough for future needs...imo the technology that will ultimately prevail will be switches made from chip technology...while it will take awhile, both active and passive components(and eventually switches) will need to be mass produced on chips...as i have noted before, the photonics industry is analogous to the semiconductor industry from 30-40 yrs ago...co's like lumm, bkhm and petachip hold some promise...while many are dismissive of gilder, he was talking up glw in 97', brcm in early 98', cien in late 98', jdsu in 97'....the list goes on and on...the key is to use his insights for emerging future technologies but he does nothing with respect to the timing of entering positions...matter of fact, if u buy when he adds a co. to his list, its a sure way to lose money<gg>...but ultimately, i am long cien and will be for a long time...until the newest technolgies gain traction, cien will be the place to be. mact