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.

Non-Tech : Amati investors -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SteveG who wrote (28331)	11/5/1997 10:49:00 AM
From: MangoBoy	Respond to of 31386

[the speed of the net] << 2. only 1 Mbit/sec (CDSL) vs 1.5 Mbit/sec (ADSL DMT) With 40kbps net throughput, shouldn't make much difference.>> not in my experience. i just upgraded to T1-level linespeed and while i'm not maxing out the wire, most sites are downloading much much quicker. upcoming improvements in HTTP and major new backbone capacity coming on line will clean out the arteries a bit too. mark

To: SteveG who wrote (28331)	11/5/1997 12:23:00 PM
From: bill c.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 31386

SteveG: Basic understanding... The CDSL solution will fit into the existing voice racking? For example, the CDSL line card will fit into the existing LU 5ESS voice platform with no splitters. POTS and this CDSL traffic will reside on the VOICE network and isn't split off onto a DATA network. I'm I off on this line of thinking? Does the CDSL stay connected all the time? Can the voice network handle the load? Aren't we back to upgrading the voice network for this long connect times. Voice connections were engineered for 3 minute calls not 2 hour CDSL connects. PS. Just take a step back to understand Aware's lite-adsl and ROK's CDSL solution with no splitters.... until later.

To: SteveG who wrote (28331)	11/5/1997 10:50:00 PM
From: Norman Klein	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 31386

CDSL is still dead SteveG said <<1. It is still in the early design stages To be introduced in 98. (Purportedly not that hard to get 1Mbps) >> According to the Nov 4 EE Times article, <<At a meeting of the International Telecommunication Union's Study Group 15, hosted here by Globespan Technology Inc., Rockwell introduced some core concepts for what it calls Consumer DSL, or CDSL. The proposal was made to the G.ADSL Lite working group within Study Group 15, which is attempting to find ways to reduce the costs of asymmetric DSL deployment. Rockwell is examining concepts for using frequency-division multiplexing modulation concepts similar in principle to the discrete-multitone modulation used by one branch of ADSL adherents>> and further in the article <<The G.ADSL Lite effort is still in a very early stage, and Rockwell is prepared to accept the fact that alternative modulation methods, perhaps based on concepts other than DMT, could win out. Rockwell has been working on its frequency-division concepts for 15 months. Implementation requires the use of Rockwell intellectual property at the physical layer and at other layers in the protocol stack, though Halim stressed that the company is prepared to meet all ITU requirements, and will make any licensed aspects of CDSL available at reasonable fees.>> Unless your sources know better, it sounds like Rockwell was floating a trial balloon and hasn't committed any tangible resources to this project yet. Since this balloon has been effectively trumped with ADSL Lite, I don't think that we will hear from it again. I would be really curious if your sources find out anything differently. I am sure that we have only seen the tip of the iceberg of the gamesmanship that has been occurring between COMS (3Com, USRX), Aware and Rockwell over this issue. Aware clearly had advance knowledge of this proposed project and dedicated funds and personnel to produce a demonstrable model.