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 : LAST MILE TECHNOLOGIES - Let's Discuss Them Here -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ernie Kelley who wrote (1516)	6/27/1998 9:54:00 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 12823

Message 5039358

To: Ernie Kelley who wrote (1516)	6/27/1998 11:21:00 PM
From: Warren Gates	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

I wouldn't think local phone service is what AT&T had in mind. They are betting on the Internet going cable. And once the cable infrastructure gets upgraded to 2-way, then the possibilities for them are limitless.

To: Ernie Kelley who wrote (1516)	6/29/1998 9:19:00 PM
From: Scott C. Lemon	Respond to of 12823

Hello Ernie, > With the AT&T TCI merger T is saying that they will be able to > bypass the RBOC's by offering local phone service over TCI's cable. Yep ... for a segment of the population I think that this is going to happen. I am already planning to drop my U.S. West phone service at my house very soon ... > What type of box, at what cost, will allow them to offer POTS over > cable? This is a good question. I have been looking into this for a while. I haven't found what I need to bridge my home wiring to my PC ... yet. > Where will the -48 come from, if its locally generated then the > feature of the phone working when the power is down is lost ? This can be generated locally very easily ... but it does require local power. But this is no different from DSL technologies being deployed today. The DSL modem has to be plugged into the wall outlet. > I would think that is unacceptable to many. A local battery for > each residence would be very expensive. But I do think that people running computers and alarms, etc. in their houses are going to start looking at UPS (Uninteruptable Power Supplies) equipment also. > Who would pay to install and maintain the local equipment? This will be a good question. I remember when the TV repairman actually came to the house ... I wonder if we are going to revisit the home visits of technology repairmen? Maybe the Jetsons weren't so far off ... who was that repairman that worked on their robots? ;-) > Has this ever been done on a commercially viable, wide scale > install? A UPS is a very trivial piece of equipment. These days you can go buy one at COSTCO or Sam's Club. They are little more than a glorified power-strip ... with batteries. Anyone who wants to use equipment at home, during a power outage, is going to buy one ... > Any comments on any of the above would be appreciated. On another note, my Panasonic PBX is able to provide -48 and ring to 8 extensions that support standard phones ... and it runs on 12V ... > Ernie Scott C. Lemon

To: Ernie Kelley who wrote (1516)	6/30/1998 2:21:00 PM
From: Ray Jensen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Ernie, your question on power is coincidentally one of the first things that came to my mind when listening to the ATT+TCI engagement event. Some of the other replies to your question have suggested that a backup battery supply at the customer premises will most likely be the source of power for -48dc for the phones in a home. I agree that is the most likely, and by far the least expensive way for ATT+TCI to handle that issue in the home in event of a power outage. A prior job assignment of mine involved a full service hybrid fiber coax network with thousands of telephone and video customers, where all telephone equipment in the home was network powered. That involved a need for the network to provide about 3 to 4 watts per home . Although that sounds trivial, it adds up to many kilowatts when you want to serve a group of 400-500 homes, taking into account voltage drop over coaxial cables and consumption of power by the fiber node and strings of two way RF amplifiers along the coaxial cable. Providing uninterruptable network power to homes and equipment in a HFC network can cost $50 to $100 per home. I don't think this is in any of the network upgrade costs for ATT+TCI. The majority of existing cable TV systems, including most of those within TCI, lack what can be considered as robust backup power systems for their remote optical nodes and amplifiers in the outside plant. When a power outage occurs, these components rely on distributed battery strings that may last a couple of hours, if they are in good condition. When those batteries hit a certain minimum voltage, a low voltage cutoff usually shuts them down so they don't get ruined. Then the amplifiers and optical node ceases functioning, and the cable system goes dead. However, the power may actually be "on" at many homes in the serving area of the cable plant, depending on how extensive the power outage is. For cable TV service, this is an annoying, but not life threatening deal. However, this type of a power arrangement for a full service telecommunications network including telephone services, would deny dial tone to customers until the power is fully restored. And that can be a bit more serious than just losing the TV picture. Bellcore recommends that remote power systems in local loop telecommunications equipment have an 8 hour backup supply. That is usually able to handle 90+ percent of all power outages, and gives the telecom provider time to reach the remote equipment site with some kind of backup generator if a more prolonged outage is likely (such as after a natural disaster). I don't think we will see ATT+TCI rushing to this type of power reliability until they get some cash flow moving in the direction of telephone services. But it is a chicken and egg thing, because the local telcos will certainly market their service reliability during power outages to their advantage, and maybe discourage some customers from signing up for ATT+TCI phone service. BTW, the "box" for offering circuit switched telephony over a hybrid fiber coax cable system is available from several manufacturers today, and is being used on a relatively small scale by several cable and telcos around the globe. Here in the USA, Cox is probably the most ambitious. Nortel is one of the better known system vendors in this area, along with ADC, Motorola, and a few others. However, ATT+TCI is not talking about widespread circuit switched telephony over cable. They have cast hook, line and the kitchen sink in with IP over cable for voice services. What kind of box would that be? Hmm, I think it might be something like a Com21 cable modem/VoIP gateway combined with a General Instruments digital settop cable box, sort of an all in one digital communications hub in the home. That box doesn't exist today, so stay tuned, film at 11. Ray.