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: ftth who wrote (7013)	4/2/2004 9:51:33 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 46821

Hi ftth, Please allow this reply to address your last three posts: 7011, 7012 and 7013. I did not state --or mean to imply-- that there is a potential problem centering on symmetry, but I think I can see how you have interpreted my writing that way. It was a poor selection of terms on my part, now that I've had an opportunity to re-read it within the context of your response. My bad. When I was referring to "the upstream" in my original post, I was not referring to the direction as defined by traffic emanating from the subscriber and sent towards the head end. That, I believe, was the meaning of the term "upstream" that I believe you assigned. I was, instead, referring to another meaning, and that is the chunk of bandwidth required between the access level service provider location (i.e., the SP's head end) and their UPSTREAM Internet partner(s) or provider(s) that provide access to the 'Net, proper. It is a symmetrical pipe, usually a T1, or multiple T1s, or a T3 or beyond, depending on the demand imposed by the SPs access subscribers. These upstream pipes, in other words, connect the SP's head end to the Internet proper, and they are usually directionally symmetrical in nature. And yes, the SP will almost always procure symmetrical T systems for transport, peering, etc. Only in rare forms of hooley-gooley configurations will an SP procure b/w that is asymmetric for this purpose, sometimes when there is a savings to be had where a bandwidth provider is top heavy with unused bandwidth in a certain direction. Not a common practice, but it's been known to happen. I was actually focusing on a problem of a different sort. If a last mile service provider does not have to boost the absolute capacity of his T1s to their upstream provider when they are adding video film download capabilities and other bandwidth hogging applications, then the SP was woefully oversized in their bandwidth to the 'Net, all along. But for economic reasons, and reasons centering on plain old horse sense, this is usually not the case. Before I go on, are you comfortable with what my intent was here? If not, let me know and I'll be glad to rephrase it another way. FAC frank@fttx.org