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: Bernard Levy who wrote (3124)	3/16/1999 7:53:00 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Bernard, your observation in some ways actually made my point. The following is not a straightforward matter, however, if one wished to take a purist's perspective, IMO. >So, T1 should really be viewed as a member of the xDSL family.< A T1 employs certain rules which all DSLs of the 1.5 Mb/s rate are not obligated to conform to. When I lease a T1, I more often than not can be assured that it conforms to certain T1E1 framing criteria (D4, ESF, etc.), timing and synchronization rules (master-slave relationship of some convention, even if it's arbitrary), and signaling capabilities which are embedded within its bit stream. E.g., the abcd on-hook/off-hook supervisory capabilities per DS0 channel; the framing bit itself (which contains a number of sub-channels for user data and carrier maintenance purposes); and other integral qualities that allow it to conform to the conventions of an industry-accepted digital hierarchy. These same attributes cannot be said in quite the same way for many of the xDSLs. Although, you are probably correct re: the HDSLs, based on the manner in which they are being deployed by the xLECs. FWIW. [Tim, can you chime in here and shed some more light on this issue, even if it's boring everyone else, including Bernard, to sleep? ] Regards, Frank_C.