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: DenverTechie who wrote (2636)	12/21/1998 9:37:00 PM
From: lml	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

D-Techie: Thanks again for your reply. Based upon your response, the frequency I was quoted was the 860 MHz figure. My mis-communication on the 850 MHz figure; I wasn't sure of the exact figure -- just that it was 8 hundred something. Notwithstanding, I find your comments regarding the absence of fiber-optic (FO) both interesting & troubling. What do you think Century's reasons are for foregoing the upgrade to FO. I don't know the vintage of the coaxial, but perhaps I can find out. Right now here's what I know: When I lived in Santa Monica, the City compelled Century to upgrade the system to increase channel capacity from about 60 channels to at least 80 today. The upgrade included a FO loop around the City. This was necessary because the City had a considerably antiquated infrastructure that prohibited increased channel capacity demanded by increased cable broadcasting in the early 90s. I unfortunately no longer live in Santa Monica, but in Bel-Air, & am serviced out of Century's Van Nuys office, which also serves the San Fernando Valley. The issue of age of existing cable capacity might be answered by the fact that my channel capacity today is also at least 80 channels. Re: "Older cable won't support [higher frequencies] though. And the number of amplifier locations would increase on a 750 or 860 system because the spacing has to be less to deal with the attenuation at higher frequencies. More amplifiers equals more noise and distortion to the signal, more devices that can fail which reduces reliability and requires much more power in the network, on and on." Could you first explain the technicals on this? Higher frequencies in the pipe equate (1) to larger bandwidth?; (2) less spacing between channel frequencies?; (3) which result in lower tolerance of inherent distortion?; (4) so higher frequencies must be attenuated thereby requiring amplification at some point along the path? What are the distance parameters on this issue? At what distance is the attenuated higher frequency insufficient to require amplification? TIA lml Does this spell trouble ahead? Is Century pursuing a 'quick-fix' strategy here. How much money are they saving by foregoing a FO upgrade. Are subscribers being short-changed? Thanks for your insight.