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.

Pastimes : BS Bar & Grill - Open 24 Hours A Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (2136)	11/4/2002 12:35:57 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6901

You don't understand. Read it again. No.. I think I DO understand... It's bad for those companies which make fiber optic.. but likely good for those companies which make fiber optic SWITCHES, since increase in lambda quantities requires the proper technology to handle the switching. (new equipment) Furthermore, DWDM has a relatively shorter attenuation than other technologies, such as CWDM(Coarse-WDM).. The more you split the frequencies, the more degradation of signal strength you have over distance... Thus, there is an increased requirement for amplication and retransmission over shorter intervals.. That means more equipment is required to handle DWDM, although far few actual Fiber strands are necessary... But yes... there is overcapacity... but the problem is creating the demand, which requires prices coming down to an extent that consumers find an economic benefit in re-doing their obsolete systesm.. We built the internet in pretty much the opposite manner in which we built the interstate highway system in the US.. Interstates were primarily demand driven.. with quite a few people having a car and there being excessive congestion the smaller "routes" which were the highways of the period... So we created something that facilitated interstate transport on a fast and massive scale (modeled after Hitler's Autobahn).. But with the internet, we built the highways faster than we increased demand. Not everyone has a computer, nor have we fully integrated broadband technology into our daily lives (considerably, but not fully).. (Video on demand via the internet would be one way to sop up the excess and put a hurt on blockbuster). And since every broadband provider is trying to charge you a minimum of $40/month JUST FOR ACCESS (and not mentioning the additional fees for content), it's still beyond the justification and commoditization of the average consumer (especially when in recession). The way to sop up the excess bandwidth is to commoditize the internet, so getting on the net is indispensible in our daily lives. Commoditize it with wireless networks, large PDAs from which we can read our newspapers, communicate, and interact socially.. And you have to make it cheap and consolidate.. I don't want to be bill $40/month for broadband, another $30-40/month for my wireless, and then be billed $40/month for my cell phone... They have ALL got to be linked together and merged into one access fee... And I believe we're going to have to see the government step in much as they did when they needed to create a national phone system. And btw, while charges are excessive here, look at the plight of your average Irish netsurfer: news.bbc.co.uk Consumers are fed up with paying per minute for net services in Ireland and urgent action needs to be taken if the so-called Celtic Tiger is to stay competitive, say critics. Hawk