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 : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: NDBFREE who wrote (6688)	7/5/2003 9:57:22 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Hello, ND. You asked: "... what do readers see as the problem(s) with the RBOC using MRVC's Ethernet over VDSL solution (see below URL which deals more with such service to MTUs, etc.) from delivering "up to 15 Mbps" over copper to each of the "many subscribers"? On the surface, there would appear to be no fundamental problem with the EoV approach. Not from a technological perspective, in any event. The problem is one of religion, inertia and the need to preserve a whole bunch of already-installed back end systems that are keyed to administering their existing networks. The Bells are putting in the fiber to the curb (FTTC) networks, almost on an exclusive basis where sizable nets are concerned, and they are predisposed to working with asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) and SONET formats. That is the way they are set up to do business in their sales, marketing, administrative and central offices. Backend-wise, their operation support systems (provisioning, billing software, network management, productization, service creation, electronic bonding platforms, directory databases, etc.) are set up to track and administer ATM-based transport. Swapping into an Ethernet environment for them would be a monumental shift in the way they administer all of these considerations, if not the very way that they are set up to do business. In effect, if they stay with the status quo they simply re-use the systems they now have in place. Changing to another model would require major re-writes, and they're not about to do it, IMO, unless it's legislated upon them to do so. And that's not very likely to happen at this time. And with the joint RFP/RFQ that was recently issued by the three dominant Bells for the fiber to the premises (FTTP) passive optical network (PON) contract, the last nail is about to be driven into broadband-Ethernet's coffin... at least as far as the RBOCs are concerned, because they are almost certain to have specked in ATM as the Layer 2. More than likely, the Bells will offer some flavor of Ethernet, but it will probably be encapsulated in ATM before they let it ride over native VDSL, IMO. I could be wrong about this, of course, but I don't see any signs of them relenting on their choice of protocols at this time. EoV will probably be the province of their CLEC competitors, if those CLECs can ever get close enough to homes to make a difference. But without the ability to ride over the ILEC's fiber out to the neighborhood (due to the FCC decision in February), how can they put in place an FTTC template in the first place? Let me guess: You are about to prescribe a line-of-sight free space optical (LOS-FSO) system for backhauling residential traffic back to the head end or central office, right? Hey! Why didn't I think of that, first? .smile. FAC

To: NDBFREE who wrote (6688)	7/5/2003 2:21:24 PM
From: ftth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

re: "what do readers see as the problem(s) with the RBOC ...from delivering "up to 15 Mbps" over copper to each of the "many subscribers"? Loop lengths in the US are much longer than most of the rest of the world, and the way the copper is physically routed, and small bundles near the homes are combined into medium bundles a few thousand feet back, then into large bundles several thousand additional feet back, makes it impractical to insert active equipments anywhere but many, many thousands of feet away from the homes (unless both new copper and new fiber, as well as new electrical power is installed, which isn't likely). The spread-out nature of US single family detached homes, compared to the aggregated nature of multi-tenant homes in many large population centers elsewhere in the world, makes the US "permanantly disadvantaged" compared to those other countries (assuming of course that you believe RBOC broadband has some key significance, going forward)