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 : Silkroad -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Carl Hindman who wrote (273)	3/4/1999 7:49:00 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 626

Carl, it's uncanny how close your assessment, in certain parts, is to one which I sent in email to others here. Although, yours was far more elegant and qualified, whereas mine was more intuitive, if you could envision that, and lacking in theoretical foundation. I haven't fully digested your message, I'll need to read it over some more, but I thought that I'd drop you this note to let you know it was appreciated. Later, Frank C.

To: Carl Hindman who wrote (273)	3/4/1999 8:35:00 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 626

Carl, I'm looking for that message I referenced in my previous post. Maybe later. Here's an excerpt from another p.m. I sent recently, edited for ease of read and to protect the innocent, which speaks to some other considerations at the operations level. Regards, FAC ======= Once I got past the parables and fables, it begins to look good. I was, and still am to a healthy degree, naturally skeptical. What jumps off the paper immediately... is that some very substantial efficiencies can potentially be achieved in central office infrastructure costs, dollarwise and administratively, on the higher density, long-haul routes, and in concentrated metro situations. I also envisage what this may mean in the last mile. By high density, think of NY to Chicago as an example: the required strands, the mechanical moving parts in terminal devices, and then number of I/O ports that must be administered. One LASER instead of 128. But the SR platform, being prototypical still, presents a physical novelty (hence, wariness) which is not the only obstacle that it must overcome. Out of every high density stream derived from traditional and evolving DWDM systems, there may be tens of thousands of lower order tributaries (one per end user session) that are already suited to the administrative hooks now in existence. SR has none of these capabilities, yet, and the operations support systems (OSSes) that would be needed to allow for automatic service creation (automated circuit ordering and dynamic provisioning for a broad range of circuit profiles) would take a long time to design and implement, and an equally long time to gain acceptance, conceivably. Although this is Internet Time we're dealing with now (as trite as that may sound), so the curve may not be that severe. Don't know. Therefore, they (SR) would have to plug backwardsly into the larger framework, which would in all likelihood lead to significant compromises. What else is new? Let me examine this some more. Maybe I'm full of crap, but those are my first potentially positive and negative observations. We've talked about some of these in the past. I think their real advantage might be with the newer IP- and IP-/ATM- only carriers (most assuredly, those planning to implement an all-IP infrastructure would be the first takers I feel), where such traditional hooks are also lacking, and therefore the possibility of mutual gains made by each... if they (the vendor, SR in this case, and carrier, alike) pursue a mutual end game model together, like the ILECs and Bellcore (previously Bell Labs) have done, and like the ITU and the PTTs and all of the above have done, historically, in symbiotic fashion. In other words, if there is a sharing of memes between them. For example, I could see this device front ending the [xyz] Terabit Router, instead of the [DWDM mfgr] box with its moving parts and seemingly extraneous features. I'd bet that this is already on the minds of the next gen carrier we discussed. Such an assembly in the emerging frameworks would be far simpler than integrating this model into a standard telco-like environment of yore. In any event, it would still represent sizable advantages there, in the telco space, as well. But with more work, very likely, on the back end, in order to harmonize dependent subsystems. Like I said, let me look at this some more.

To: Carl Hindman who wrote (273)	3/5/1999 12:30:00 AM
From: George T. Santamaria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 626

...However, what if we assume that the action of the modulator is to 'wind up' each subcarrier mode of the beam into a set of angular momentum states which are disjoint from one subcarrier to the next simply on the basis of the frequency of the subcarrier... If they need to do that to send a signal down a fiber, then they would need to do something similar with the electrons that they are sending over an electrical wire from the mixer to the electro-optical modulator! It's very hard to see how the electro-optical modulation process will impart a modal quality that depends on the carrier frequency. It all looks like a possibility but whatever they are doing, they don't speak with the clarity and freedom of speech that comes with a good patent position.