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: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (9942)	12/26/2000 4:51:06 PM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	Respond to of 12823

"The telephone network took seventy-five years to reach 50 million subscribers; the Web took only four years to do the same. By 1999, the annual growth rate was 10,000 percent, and oover 200 million persons were signed up. By the middle of the 2000s, well over half a billion persons are anticipated to be online, and by the end of the decade, the number will likely be in the billions." Nortel Networks by Larry McDonald, John Wiley & Sons, 1999.

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (9942)	12/26/2000 4:58:17 PM
From: ftth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Hi Frank, re: "...variations going forward, depending on emerging requirements, especially as they apply to VSR carrier applications, and in the local loop." Definitely, the last chapter in 1 Gb (or even 100M and 10M for that matter) ethernet hasn't been written. I was hoping that the new Ethernet First Mile IEEE working group would take some significant steps. Maybe they will (they've only had 1 meeting so far), but after reviewing the presentations I'm not terribly encouraged. There's still a lot of weight behind new copper-based evolutions, and there are even some that are of the opinion that 10Mbps is enough for the future. If the goal of the EFM group is to settle on 1 and move forward with it, I'm afraid right now I'd bet they go the copper route, unfortunately. However, I just can't see wasting time/effort developing a standard that requires new copper cable be laid in order to achieve distance+speed. That makes zero sense. They should split the EFM effort into 2 groups from the start: 1 for copper, 1 for fiber. That way both camps have the opportunity to develop something important, and all the copper vs. fiber wars that will happen if they keep it as one group would be eliminated. There will still be battles within each of these 2 camps, but at least they eliminate the "big" battle. Let these copperheads go off and figure out how to transmit 100Mb ethernet over 10000 feet of existing 24AWG wire, while the fiberheads zero in on something that has a future (not that I'm biased or anything<gg>). The copper vs. fiber battle within this group is not constructive.