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 (10604)	2/28/2001 10:18:46 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12823

Mike, you identified a half dozen stones, and to uncover what those stones are hiding would require a thesis. I'll keep it short. The promise of IP voice has to do with presence, essentially. It would allow for a form of follow-me on steroids and provide the same kind of functionality as ICU/Instant Messenger capabilities today on the 'Net via PC. In theory, these would be incremental benefits to those already allowed by POTS and cellular services today. And then there are the always-touted future "converged" data/multimedia/voice applications we keep hearing about that will surface when the gods give their nod. Wireless voice and voip are not to be considered mutually exclusive going forward, although the promise of IP voice in all of its glory is still a ways off, even on the most advanced wireless platforms. But we shouldn't view them as competing, since future wireless will support it, too. I don't know why the age of the ILECs should be a factor here. They are likely to be among the first to be able to afford the advanced systems (both access/air-interface side and OSS) that will be required to support a fully integrated IP Voice rollout over wireless. VoDSL? This is primarily a business class adaptation of voice over dsl supported by ATM-enabled DSLAMs. Residential DSLAMs do not support it, because of the 1999 FCC decision concerning ILEC DSL, and how it would go unbundled. In short, the ILECs are using a modified form of ATM, not ATM Forum ATM, between the user and the CO. In the case of the ILEC version of ATM (which, by default, is called "Access ATM"), it only supports a single PVC. The reason? There are several, but primarily because you can't unbundle a single PVC. Get it? Also, Access ATM governs the cell transfer between the end user DSL Modem and the CO DSLAM, and then it dies there. On the backplane of the DSLAM it can either resurrect as ATM of another flavor and extend throughout the edge network until it hits the IP cloud, or it can be converted immediately to IP. Forum ATM, OTOH, would allow for an end to end PVC to be set up and torn down, or allow the PVC to be extended deeper and throughout the provider's network, until it hops onto the IP cloud, or may go native ATM, end to end, over a network of their own. In a recent article on this subject, i.e., between the differences between Forum and Access adaptations of ATM, Tom Nolle does a much more thorough job of explaining these distinctions. I believe the article was in the Dec 2000 or Jan 2001 issue of Business Communications Review (BCR). Other providers' DSLAMs are more in line with Forum ATM and support multiple PVCs, so they can support packet voice operating side by side with data apps over the same access pipe. An interesting side note on this topic: Yesterday, Alcatel released a version of their CO-based DSLAM which will support multiple voice sessions over ADSL, but only in countries outside of the USA. This, for the same reason I cited above. Because even their DSLAMs in the USA, due to the purchasing agreements with the ILECs, only support a single PVC. In other countries those same nests support upwards of 8 voice channels, depending on the grade of DSL and distance from the CO. Upstream in this thread, a ways, I made comment of the recent ITU ratification of HDSL-like DSL standards, stating that this is what the ILECs have been waiting for to begin supporting professional/enterprise-oriented flavors of DSL, and other integrated services such as voice and video over DSL. As for expert analysts, I've only read material from a handful of true experts in this space, out of the many who write about it. Sometimes they don't read the technology balance sheets as well as they read the financial ones. So when shopping for an expert analyst, the same general rule applies here as anywhere else: Buyer Beware. Gotta run. Later. FAC

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (10604)	2/28/2001 12:19:54 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Mike, Re: Packet voice Frank has covered the tech side of the equation quite well, so I'll have no comment on that. You say: I don't get it?? .....Maybe holding onto packet voice rollouts is simply a pipe dream? No, you got it. Remember 1999, when the word was that the fiber optic component guys couldn't fill orders and would grow by 100% PA until 2004. This was your "analysts". What is JDSU offering for the next little while? Opacity as opposed to "visibility" (my nominee for the dumbest cliche of the year) and 10% growth in a quarter near you. If you haven't absorbed the lesson about the touts and their "projections", then you are lost. But, judging from your post, I see you are coming around. The real future of voice telephony is wireless. It is not packet. The only country that is close to having the landline infrastructure for packet to have any sizable penetration is the US. And if it were to happen, it would further cannibalize and degrade the landline PSTN. Which would only drive more and more customers to wireless. Packet will be a niche market. I can see the day when a consumer or purchasing manager would be browsing a web based catalog, have a question and click on the "live operator" link and start talking about whatever question was raised by the screen info. But as far as the local or LD telephony market is concerned, I'm starting to see some very attractive ads for wireless fixed rate packages that include generous LD minutes. This was the justification for developing VoIP, i.e. cheap LD. Now that you can conveniently do it with a wireless handset, why in the world would anyone do it tied to a PC? Ray