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 : Ciena (CIEN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Daniel G. DeBusschere who wrote (6237)	1/26/1999 8:44:00 PM
From: Nevin S.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12623

Let me respond to your comment regarding competing technology from Silk Road. I found this on George Gilder's thread. For those of you unfamiliar with GG, he is probably one of the most educated and knowledgeable gurus in the area of leading edge technologies and specifically with respect to communications. First the post regarding Silk Road: Message 6268553 In its technology demo, Silk Road will transmit 144 distinct TV programming signals from a video wall with 144 monitors to a second video wall through a strand of fiber optic cable at 93 gigabits per second. Silk Road's technology simultaneously carries voice, video and data signals over long distances on the backs of photons in a bidirectional laser beam that does not have to be replicated or amplified. ....... And George Gilder's response: techstocks.com Subject: George Gilder - Forbes ASAP To: Robert Grutza From: George Gilder Nov 6 1998 7:22PM EST Reply #804 of 905 I really cannot tell you whether the technology is viable. Certainly the idea of sending 144 distinct TV channels at 93 gigabits per second is ridiculous--MPEG2.x from DirecTV was used and it would allow sending 144 channels at 350 MEGABITS per second. Blowing this up to 93 gigabits is itself a major feat of decompression. All that aside, Jim Palmer, the scientist behind Silk Road, has an absolutely fascinating theory, which seems valid to me and which may allow major advances in the future, but not--despite their claims to the contrary--at the expense of WDM. It is quite complementary with WDM, improving the speed on a single lambda and possibly facilitating add-drop, obviating Sonet.