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 : Aware, Inc. - Hot or cold IPO? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: flickerful who wrote (2480)	1/24/1998 9:52:00 AM
From: bill c.	Respond to of 9236

Here is an good article on G.Lite, first posted on the Pairgain thread {19273} The Lucent "WildWire" solution is based on DMT not CAP. Last week, Lucent Technologies' microelectronics group threw its hat in the ring with a proposal for "WildWire," a splitterless ADSL with 1.5-Mbit/second downstream capability, based on discrete multitone (DMT) coding. Lucent is already showing prototypes of a complete chip set with general-purpose DSP, data converters and line drivers. techweb.cmp.com

To: flickerful who wrote (2480)	1/24/1998 11:01:00 AM
From: SteveG	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9236

<.."It may be Christmas, but I don't think it will be Christmas 1998," said Lisa Pelgrim, an analyst for Dataquest, San Jose, Calif. Iain Gillott, director of people and telecommunications research for International Data Group, Framingham, Mass., agreed. "The cynical side of me says there have been lots of announcements, but little follow-through," he said. "These companies are good at making announcements."..> Hi flick- Dataquest has been saying this for almost a year and have been dead-on right. The following may add to the delays (unless Monday's "denial releases" establishes the court's unwillingness to hear the FCC arguments): ============ Supreme Court Remains Mum On Local Phone Competition Case By Scott Ritter WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--The Supreme Court put the telephone industry on hold Friday, offering no indication of whether it would review federal rules aimed at bringing competition to the $100 billion local telephone market. Industry officials and analysts were looking for a decision from the High Court after the justices agreed earlier this month to speed consideration of the appeal. The court Friday agreed to hear three cases, but the telephone appeal was not among them. At issue is a July ruling by a three-judge panel from the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis. The panel concluded that the Federal Communications Commission overstepped its bounds when it set guidelines for prices would-be rivals would pay for access to local phone networks. The July decision was a big victory for local carriers, who argued that the states - not the federal government - had the power to determine so-called "interconnection" rates under the 1996 telecommunications-reform law. The Clinton administration, along with long-distance carriers like AT&T Corp. (T) and MCI Communications Corp. (MCIC), challenged the ruling. The High Court can put cases on its calendar at any time. In general though, appeals not already granted review won't find a place on the court's spring calendar. That means the telephone case may not be heard until October or later, and then wouldn't be decided until 1999. The court could also reject the FCC's request for review. The justices are expected to release a list of cases denied review on Monday. In crafting its rules, the FCC sought a pricing regime based on forward-looking costs, rather than historical, embedded costs that local phone companies argued were a more appropriate gauge for figuring pricing. Local phone companies argued that the rules would force them to sell access to their networks at rates below actual costs. The FCC, in seeking a Supreme Court review, argued that the case had cast a cloud of uncertainty over efforts to deregulate the industry. "That pervasive uncertainty is a principal reason why local exchange monopolists still receive approximately 98% of the $100 billion in annual revenues generated by the provision of exchange access and local exchange services," the FCC told the court. The High Court's inaction follows a related ruling by the St. Louis appeals panel last week. The appeals court said the FCC can't mandate interconnection prices as a prerequisite for entering the long-distance market. Under the 1996 telecom law, regional Baby Bells that can show they have taken steps to open their markets to competition can win approval to jump into the $80 billion long-distance market. But the FCC, in reviewing an application by Ameritech Corp. (AIT) to offer long-distance calling in Michigan, laid out pricing requirements local carriers must follow to win long-distance approval. Local carriers and state regulators quickly filed suit in the St. Louis court. "The FCC's justification of its reassertion of local pricing authority lacks even the scent of merit," the appeals court concluded. Analysts say they expect the FCC to appeal the ruling.

To: flickerful who wrote (2480)	1/24/1998 11:16:00 AM
From: Steve Morytko	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9236

We'll probably be bombarded with "reporting" over the next week so here's my story. <G> The article posted by flickerful is fairly negative. It jumps around a lot and doesn't really stay focused on lower speed xDSL (lite). I guess the real story will come out when we see unit sales of xDSL modems. I predict large-scale deployment of xDSL in 1999 in selected areas. The article mentioned $40-50 - would that be the sum of voice and data/ISP charges? I suspect that would be a very attractive rate for most subscribers. Also, one cannot really compare xDSL to ISDN either because there was no competition for the carriers during it's tenure (ISDN going down for the count). I agree that ISDN was close to a total failure. At this point there is a lot of hype and jockeying for position. The 56K modem equipment makers want to stretch their investment, the telco's don't want to give up their excessively high tariffs on what they have now (ISDN and T-1s), some big companies aren't where they'd like to be with their products, and so on. But, the still very powerful telco's are not about to let the cable companies or their new local-market competitors steal their business so they grudgingly drag their monopolistic thinking to the xDSL arena. They are not used to having to compete in a fast moving, high-tech marketplace so we'll continue hear about lots of "technical" problems until they get more comfortable. However, few of the Baby Bells know how to run a data network either. They have new competitors, WCOM instance, that do. Keep an eye on what UUNET (WCOM) is doing - they seem to be on the fast track. US West is offering service in the Phoenix area and I believe they're expanding it. I think we'll see Baby Bells outsource much of their local data business until they understand it better (possibly by acquisition or strategic partnerships) or give up on it. There are a number of high-tech companies that might want to pursue that business (CSCO, BAY, 3COM, ASND, and plenty more). Be aware that there are already rules requiring LECs (Local Exchange Carriers) to allow CLECs (add Competitive) to co-locate equipment in their central offices. You might also consider that some of earliest large deployments of xDSL might not come from within the US. Singapore has a large project underway. Ironically, relative late-comers to 20th century technology may be in a much better position to deploy xDSL than the US is (SE Asian "crisis" aside) because of their newer infrastructure and un-entrenched management. More food for thought ... Why do you need a splitter (an often used "reason" for not being able to deploy high speed xDSL) if your voice communication system is centered on your pc? Basic pc's will soon become the voice communication devices. Think about that you Baby Bells! AWRE looks good to me. I'm expecting deployment to go much quicker as access to the local cabling infrastructure gets easier. A number of vendors already have chassis' that can handle xDSL deployment for the central offices and the consumer devices are here with more on the way. All that's needed is the pipe and some decent pricing and the customers will come.