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 : AUTOHOME, Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jay Lowe who wrote (4822)	1/27/1999 5:53:00 PM
From: Jay Lowe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

FYI - DSL in general ADSL Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line transmits data asymmetrically meaning the bandwidth usage is much higher in one direction than the other. Typical ADSL applications transmit 8 Mbps downstream and 768Kbps upstream, depending on the length of the local loop. G.lite a variant of ADSL known as DSL-Lite or G.lite. DSL-Lite technology delivers data transmission speeds of up to 1.5 Mbps downstream and up to 512 kbps upstream at distances of up to 24,000 feet HDSL Unlike ADSL, High Bit Rate Digital Subscriber Line (HDSL) is a symmetric method of transmitting data at rates up to 1.5 Mbps in both directions. Because of the symmetric properties, the highest transmission rates can only be supported at lengths of 15,000 foot distances of two or more twisted pair lines. Because of these distance requirements, HDSL is an ideal service for campus environments and digital local loops. VDSL - Very High Bit-Rate Digital Subscriber Line An extension of HDSL and the fastest xDSL technology. VDSL supports data rates up to 52 Mbps downstream and 1.5 Mbps upstream over short distances of 1,000 to 4,000 feet. Ideal for video services, VDSL also supports the same services as ADSL. DSL Overviews: xdsl.com DSL FAQs: xdsl.com DSL Glossary: aware.com

To: Jay Lowe who wrote (4822)	1/27/1999 6:51:00 PM
From: Jay Lowe	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 29970

There's lots of apples and oranges comparisons being made here. Let's try to keep the issues and claims somewhat clear, eh? Cable vs. DSL What is better? Multi-drop over coax or point-to-point over existing copper? What are the speed/cost tradeoffs over existing and new plant? The Last Mile thread is home to this discussion. Subject 4754 ATHM's version of cable vs AOL et al's, version of DSL There are many issues involved here; it's quite a furball. One of the clearest is that ATHM has developed the business model and network infrastructure to support fast connections from source-to-user. ATHM currently has a 6-12 month lead in technology. AOL, SBC, BA, and many others are playing catch-up. Their challenge is to develop the broadband service structure that ATHM already has... their limitation is that they operate in a business model where they do not control all the pieces. In other words, ATHM is homogeneous, the DSL players face a more heterogeneous situation. ATHM consciously seeks to provide the user a high-speed experience which travels completely over ATHM's wires, servers, and business relationships. AOL has the same concept of insularity. The RBOCs and indepedents have no such concept. ATHM's capability is likely to be leveraged by AT&T into a New Media future where all of your core media experiences are provided under one umbrella, including new generation telephone services and a wide range of other media services. The triad of AT&T/TCI/ATHM have a 12-18 month lead on the field in terms of business readiness to move in the New Media direction. AOL is less connected to the New Media future at this time, but has demonstrated conclusive agility. AOL's leaner, meaner management style may overcome the Triad's inherent advantages, but only by (1) quickly opening their business concept to New Media partnerships, and (2) developing "phone company" telephony options probably in association with the RBOCs. The other DSL players have no unified vision and no concensual process for developing one. Microsoft or AOL may have a role to play by stepping forward with a plan to scoop the Triad with an organized open-systems architecture encompassing the broadband, New Media, and new telephony future. Such a plan would have immense power if it provided a role for all existing players to fit into a new paradigm. Such a New Media Architecture will happen ... whether by design or by default is unforseeable. If it develops quickly, then the Triad's existing potential for near-monopoly of consumer New Media is defused. Both cable and DSL have very large existing subscriber bases ... via the cable MSO's and the telcos. Both services are very significant improvements over existing technology and both will be popular. Neither service is capable of fulfilling demand at such a rate as to effectively exclude the other. Both services have certain advantages in specific situations. Both services expect to be obsoleted by newer technologies in the 5-8 year timeframe. Neither service has yet demonstrated that it will uniquely benefit from future technology waves. Both services have options whereby a graceful transition to even higher levels of service are possible. The short and long term success of both services is likely to be governed far more by business factors than by the technology employed. One of the few things completely known is that subscribers tend to stick to their existing services where the alternatives are not conclusively better. So the immediate goal is to grab as many subscribers as possible. And ... the market does not yet understand the significance of these services ... they are the next wave of the information revolution.

To: Jay Lowe who wrote (4822)	1/28/1999 12:47:00 PM
From: ahhaha	Respond to of 29970

Too complex for immediate readout. The FCC knows that cable accomplishes what reciprocal compensation could not: open the local phone markets. The problem is that the FCC balks on the exclusivity of the T-TCI deal. Oregon demands that AOL should get a free ride on TCI fiber. Armstrong demands that Oregon can get another provider. If the FCC interferes, the cable can opener will be stymied. The answer is simple. Allow T-TCI to merge. Then SBC must emulate that arrangement by buying cable companies and by pursuing last mile cable technologies. SBC should be free to choose DSL, cable or wireless for the last mile, but the copper solutions won't generate the presumably desirable market opening. The local to long extension of powers is potentially negative for all Internet traffic even though it is the intent of Congress to keep "hands off". If Internet access is deemed long distance, the ISPs will have to be assessed and so rates will have to be increased. There isn't enough to take it out of carrier's hides which is the preference of government and the people. This is somewhat of an extrapolation because the recent Supreme Court ruling is too twisted to reach many conclusions as to where and to what extent the FCC will take the decision. The FCC is trying to re-write rules regulating phone traffic that would be consistent with the new ambiguities between the Supreme Court ruling and the "96 Act. The situation is exactly what you could expect when fairness is pursued over freeness. The article suggests there will be a solution in weeks not months, but there can't be a solution to this dilemma. There can't be a declared solution, that is. The free market will solve it in any case, so the best thing the FCC to do is to effectively do nothing and continue to deliberate. However, expecting the free market solution requires that you put trust in government agencies to do the logical thing. That hasn't been historically true. Perceived fairness is more important than realized fairness.