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: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (2590)	12/15/1998 11:57:00 AM
From: WTC	Respond to of 12823

Bill Lin -- I see that Frank offered a much more comprehensive answer than my mild puch back on xDSL in MDUs. That Frank is amazing -- not just his ideas, but also the MEMORY! Glad to see your thoughts on the thread. My experience has been that just because I may be sure of something, it doesn't mean I'm right.

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (2590)	12/23/1998 10:58:00 PM
From: Bill Lin	Respond to of 12823

Early on in my subscription here... I had a similar notion. I think DSLAM has not proven to be successful because 1) Too many chip varieties all which don't talk to each other 2) Too many systems, again, all which don't talk to each other 3) Risk to RBOCs to implement too high 4) IP demand only became heavy this year, due to increase in Internet subscribers. But high-speed access really only demanded by Businesses who are generally happy with T1 capability. So, all the multi million bets on who is going to win the DSLAM war lost, because the "hockey stick" revenue streams moved back 2 years. OK maybe "lost" is too harsh. Cisco's Netspeed offering probably has the best chance to win, because of USWest's backing. Pairgain and the other T1 equipment suppliers will see eroding business as DSLAM biz picks up. *spread VDSL to every desktop in the joint. Think you could lend a hand in this endeavor?"* G.Lite will be stalled until WIN2000, or Win98 B, and there is still suspicion that Dell's G.Lite won't talk to Compaq's G.Lite card, unless they buy from the same OEM. Oh, and that OEM better talk to NetSpeed and US West, or SBC or BLS or BEL first. VDSL will not be needed except by the Fortune Global 1000. The hoopla on Cisco and the Selsius box (allowing VOIP over the Internet) points not to the public phone lines, but the cost savings of communicating from HQ to the satellite offices. 60% of the cost of biz telecomm has to do with calling the "other building". The Selsius box can connect the "other building" over the Internet access line, for free. This will cut costs substantially. This will cause Bandwidth demand for the Fortune 1000 to surge. ATM25 lost, so far. The problem is not the cost of the technology, but the cost of the transition from copper to fiber. Not many Office Buildings are willing to fork over $250k+ per building to upgrade for bandwidth that only a few of the SP100 are asking for. That is why DSL as a transition technology is winning over ATM25. (note, there are 30,000 class A buildings in US or a min. of $7.5 billion in cost to upgrade the wiring. Maybe closer to $28 billion. Also note that REITs suck as investments now, because they are way overleveraged, so you aren't going to see it happen anyway.) Once ATM25 is 15 years old, it will be time to implement it. But by then, a cheaper version will be out. The biz sweet spot pricing is $200-$800/month with a mean at $300/mo. Diamond Lane built the perfect DSLAM for the CO, and therefore screwed up the MTB application. Why they didn't sell themselves to Cisco instead of NetSpeed, I don't know. But they should shop themselves to Lucent or Nortel. I think they are losing the DSLAM war. Pairgain's purchase of Avidia is also a failure. Paradyne and Ascend are fighting for the same DSLAM market but the only clear winner is Cisco. Paradyne and Ascend are trying to do MTB with Teligent and Winstar (wireless trunks to building), but their DSLAMs are too costly and not right sized for the MTB model (# subscribers needed to break even is too large - points to cash flow negative biz model for first year, assuming a 2 tenant conversion rate per month per building or 18,000 biz customers/mo. for Winstar) I think all this points to the IP Transport Network system as separate and distinct from the DLC existing infrastructure. They can be merged as required over ATM Loops, or kept separate on SONET loops. IP over SONET is certainly less equipment intensive than IP over ATM (need the ATM to IP route director like Redback system's box). Voice, don't forget, must work even if there is a power outage. This requirement kills VOIP as a voice provider, because you need power to work the switch. (I'm not sure that Pac Bell stayed up when PG&E blew their circuits in SF last week, but with their backup UPS, they should have). Merging voice and data can be done technically, but there is this one obstacle which is REGULATED, and not likely to change due to the LifeLine requirements demanded by all 50 states PUC. Ugh. So, Frank, you are a man ahead of your time! Glad I didn't sound like a fool, which I was thinking I was, when I typed that statement. The last two posts are the extent of my limited knowledge on this matter. All this to decide to buy some shares in Aware (got in at 18). Talk about overanalysis. I shoulda just bought Cisco. BL