To: ahhaha who wrote (778 ) 11/27/1997 12:34:00 AM From: ftth Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 29970
ahhaha, I understand the gambling element to betting on any future technology. Still, there's no denying that the proof of sustainable exponential growth is at least several quarters off. Besides, safety and risk are relative--I just think our definitions differ. A few corrections: Intel is not working on a modem card. PC-pluggable MCNS cable modems are a ways off into late '98. You made a statement a while back about cable modem vendors being nic suppliers. Absolutely untrue. The ethernet adaptor is completely separate from the cable modem, and not manufactured by the cable modem supplier. You seem to trivialize the hardware--the complexity of an MCNS cable modem is orders of magnitude greater than a telco modem, and plopping this into a spare slot in a PC is not as simple as it might sound. MCNS compliance does not assure interoperability. There are many vendor-specific options in both the MAC and PHY specs for MCNS, but let's not go there. Also, I disagree that "Worrying about details like these clouds the issue." Issues like these drive the cloudiness of which technology will prevail--those that are closely following and understand these lower-level issues will have a jump on those that are taking the "10,000 foot view" for the simple reason that such details take time to float up and become clear at 10,000 feet. Also, what did you mean by 90% haven't even thought about getting @home service---90% of what? I'm not sure what you mean. One more and I'll stop raggin': Do you really believe that Bay Networks is just going to design, develop, and test an MCNS modem and "give it away?" And just "toss" the old ones? Pleeeeeease! Have a good holiday, dh