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: lml who wrote (2533)	12/10/1998 1:00:00 PM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	Respond to of 12823

Some numbers on cable modem shipments from cable data comm news AUGUST 1998 HIGHLIGHTS Cable Modem Shipments Pass 500,000 Mark Motorola Cumulative Shipments Exceed 250,00 Units, Bay Tops 200,000 Motorola Inc. announced it has shipped 250,000 cable modems worldwide since 1996. The company says 170,000 of the units were shipped in the first seven months of 1998. If Motorola continues at this pace, the company could sell more than 290,000 cable modems this year. Assuming Motorola's numbers are accurate, the company is the cable modem market share leader. Bay Networks Inc. is the number-two player. Bay says it has shipped more than 200,000 LANcity cable modems to date with more than 125,000 of those units delivered this year. Based on the shipment numbers announced by Motorola and Bay, the total number of cable modems shipped worldwide has exceeded 500,000 units. Start-up Com21 Inc. says it has shipped 30,000 cable modems since April 1997, with 20,000 of those units shipped in calendar 1998. General Instrument Corp. has shipped more than 20,000 telco-return cable modems to date, while Hybrid Networks Inc., Toshiba America Inc. and Terayon Communication Systems Inc. have each shipped more than 10,000 units. While Motorola has managed to capture a leadership position in the nascent cable modem market, the company may have difficulty maintaining it over time. The rapid emergence of the DOCSIS standard has attracted a long list of capable competitors to the market. NEXT STORY You have been reading brief highlights from this month's issue of Cable Datacom News. This sampler is only a small fraction of the content included in the complete edition. For a limited time, free trial subscriptions are available for the full-text edition of Cable Datacom News. Click Here for more information. Cable Datacom News is published by Kinetic Strategies Inc., Phoenix, Arizona USA. Copyright © 1996-1998 Kinetic Strategies Inc. All Rights Reserved.

To: lml who wrote (2533)	12/10/1998 4:03:00 PM
From: Stephen B. Temple	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12823

Anyone: Hidden obstacle's I would like someone to answer if possible in regards to ADSL. Understanding that DSL is relatively new in the fact that trouble shooting this technology possibly shows loop-holes or "loading coils" that are making things worse. 1. Is it possible to have 7Mbps at 12,0000 feet and only have 1Mbps at 18,000 feet? 2. Lets say your installing ADSL, and are under 18,000 feet. Given the fact that early systems might prove to be incompatible, I want to leave that part out and ask about "loading coils". Since ADSL doesn't work much after 18,000 feet and since loading coils are usually beyond that point (right?), then how much of a problem is going to be generated by loading coils under 18,000 feet.? What are the problematic figurs of coils being under 18k, and how is the DSL industry going to combat that problem? I have heard that IDSL is the only alternative, is this also true? One more question....<gg> Can DLCs (digital loop carriers) be a pain in the royal a$$ here too? Does that mean that you need to put DSLAM at the DLC so digital traffic can "skirt" ? around the problem. It seems the more I read, the more I'm confused on what this product actually means in any positive sense! I guess looks are deceiving !! <gg> Frank, I remember you telling me that DSL is a problem, but didn't realize installation could be so problematic. Ug ! Regards, Stephen ps...If I only get part of this answered, I'll be happy ! Its just that I don't have any personal experiences to go by <smile>

To: lml who wrote (2533)	12/13/1998 4:14:00 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

lml, >>For once it appears Kennard & the FCC are standing behind its words -- the priority to create competition along the 'last mile.' And it is clear in the way to do so -- to provide incentive to deliver broadband access to a market that is virtually monopolistic.<< I know from whence you come in this regard, and in principle I agree that competition should be allowed all possible opportunities. But I see a growing form of dilemma here. How do you reconcile these goals against the realities of spatial and other administrative and logistic boondoggles that await such a level of competition at the actual field node, where the rubber hits the road, as described so precisely by WTC in his later post here: from: Message 6796733 >>This gets really messy when you take into account what is available to a CLEC -- will the FCC decide there must be an unbundled network element (UNE) for the loop from the DLC remote terminal to the subscriber? How do you price it? If the CLEC has the only direct connection to the subloop, how does the ILEC test it? (they are still responsible for the physical layer when they sell a UNE). Where does the CLEC equipment (DSLAM) go -- in the existing ILEC cabinet? How do you apportion the limited space? Do you provide a separate cabinet for the CLEC(s)? Who secures the right of way for the new cabinet and power connection? How do you pay for thousands of new CLEC cabinets (say, $4500 each, turnkey, bare shelves with power) collocated with the thousands of ILEC DLC remote terminals? << Stark realities, I'd say, and a re-introduction of the rationales that support a monopoly empowered facilities-based environment. But that doesn't mean that, with today's technologies, the facilities-based carrier should necessarily hold all the cards, as I suggest below. Can you see a lottery in the offing here, for DSL pole and terminal space in the future? Or does the answer lie in unbundling of the upper layers in the stack, say at Layers 2 and 3 from a central point of access in the CO, or deeper into the cloud still, at some regional transfer point [assuming that the ILEC indeed puts a DSL framework in place, to begin with]? Regards, Frank C.