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 : Ascend Communications (ASND) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pass pass who wrote (27858)	12/14/1997 1:08:00 AM
From: jhild	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 61433

Exactly. But the telcos won't be the ones buying them. Neither will people that see what their monthly phone bills will be. Compare that to the cost of a cable modem, that doesn't use any phone line, is 10 to 20 times faster and is connected 7 by 24. I must have missed a technical point here with the shotgun. I know you can call out using one of your lines. But just how does a call come in when you are on your shotgun, or is that what you then need a third line for? So tell me pass pass, are you going to spring for this solution? Be honest.

To: pass pass who wrote (27858)	12/14/1997 2:07:00 AM
From: Vladimir Zelener	Respond to of 61433

<<< The beauty of 112k is that you don't tie up 2 lines. You can still make regular phone calls with any of the 2 lines while you're surfing, in which case the speed slows to 56k. But if there is no incoming/outgoing call on any of the 2 lines, you get 112k. The rationale is that a lot of homes have 2 lines already and the telco loves this idea>>> I think you are correct about the ability to make/receive voice calls while the modem is connected to ISP, but I suspect you are wrong about not tieing up 2 phone lines. Telcos might love it because they will charge you for initiation of 2 phone calls instead of one but ISPs IMO will not support this modem. First it ties up two ports on their receiving end (POP - point of presense) and they pay for each line to telcos, so their cost will not allow them to offer a $20 unlimited access if it cost them more then that . Second to support 112k they will have to introduce some kind of software multiplex/demultiplex the stream of data and that cost money.

To: pass pass who wrote (27858)	12/14/1997 3:27:00 AM
From: Salvador Villavieja	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 61433

I do not see any beauty in 112K modems at all. For one, it does NOT ENABLE new web applications such as video on demand and similar applications (it will probably allow annoying jerky/non full-screen video). For another, it further confuses the public on which to choose: 112K modems, cable modems or ADSL modems. Unlike the last two modem types, 112K technology is only like a jump from 4800 bps to 9600bps - nothing significant just hype. Cable and ADSL modems offer more than an order of magnitude in performance compared to 112K. An ADSL modem allows the use of a phone line while the same line is being used to surf the web. ADSL is in my opinion the best of these three technologies. Ascend should not waste its time on 112K technology and instead should exert the effort on ADSL and/or CABLE modems.