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: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (3633)	5/11/1999 1:46:00 PM
From: Doughboy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12823

Frank, I know the thread dances around the regulatory questions every once in a while, but let me try to clarify whether there are any legal reasons why some ILECs have shied away from a full-scale assault on xDSL. It is my understanding that the FCC has issued an order stating their intention to require ILECs to unbundle DSL at cost if the ILEC offer it themselves. If the ILEC creates a separate subsidiary (with all the attendant handcuffs), the ILEC can offer DSL without having to unbundle. Can that be something that is slowing them down? Maybe they are waiting to see whether they can win at the FCC or in the courts to squash the unbundling requirements. In my experience, I've noticed that a lot of ILECs have completely overlooked the DSL unbundling issues in their negotiations, and there are a lot of screwy contracts out there which give savvy CLECs powerful unbundling rights over ILECs that deploy DSL. Just throwing that out for discussion. Doughboy.

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (3633)	5/11/1999 2:35:00 PM
From: Darren DeNunzio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Frank, regarding relevant... I was attempting to illustrate how far this thread (sector)has shifted over the past few weeks. I go surfing in Mexico for a couple of days, and when I return, the "last mile" has become the "first mile". Many say that the convergence of the telephone with the computer, will change the way we communicate. I know however, it will be the convergence of the television and the the computer that eliminate the need for a telephone. AT&T will become a broadband content provider. Do you belive that there will be a separate line for the television, and another for the telephone? Will DSL be capable of delivering High Definition Television, I think not!

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (3633)	5/11/1999 7:54:00 PM
From: Hiram Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12823

Frank, this is another point of view. HLIT has said they are going to get down to 125 subs per node with invisible hub architecture. When asked if they could get down to 50 subs per node,Tony said,it is not practical nor achievable right now. But if you increase the modulation from 64 QAM to 128 QAM you increase the bandwidth per 6 Mhz channel from 19 Mbps to 38 mbps. So divide that up by 125 subs per node,and you get the maximum potential for HLIT's system that is achievable with present architecture. So minimum throughput on the most highly advanced system if everyone were accessing information simultaneously is 300 K. But what are the chances that all 125 subs are on at the same time,and receiving information simultaneously. Hiram