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 : YURI ( YURI SYSTEM ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Phoenix who wrote (818)	3/13/1998 7:54:00 AM
From: Keith A Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1181

Gary--Just a couple of points that I would like you to comment further on. From Tek--You are right about the degree of resources being dedicated right now to developing the quality necessary for larger scale acceptance by the end user. IP is the technology that many are making their beds with...and it's coming, but it is a much longer way off than I would have believed from reading your posts. Yours--Why do you say this? Many carriers are already deploying (USWest and Qwest/LCI, Williams, are all being fairly aggressive) You are implying that USWest and Qwest are building infrastructure on around IP versus ATM. Can you explain more fully why? (If I were building the "mother-of-all-networks" like Qwest, why wouldn't I just go with ATM from the ground up?) It also is clear that applications like Video just don't do well when compressed (IP)......... Video need not be compressed to run over IP. And it can be compressed over ATM. Compression does not preclude WAN technology. Note the Precept announcement yesterday. My feeling is that compression should be treated as an entirely separate matter. But are you saying that ATM has an inherent advantage in allowing for compression of video, and this is a pitfall of IP? Thanks, Keith