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 (3981)	6/1/1999 2:02:00 PM
From: Ray Smith Jr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Frank, the recent change in direction at Cisco is hinted in this article: techweb.com <The ability to monitor the behavior of ATM cells at link speeds above 2.5 Gbits/second has proven so difficult, according to a Cisco source, that the company is turning to more use of pure optical-path routing for backbone speeds above OC-48 links.> Optical switching is the way to go.

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (3981)	6/1/1999 5:09:00 PM
From: WTC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Frank, Re: IPRS service arrangements ... < Just for my own edification here, Tim, how would IPRS (IP [re]Routing Service) come into play with residential customers using different ISPs? I think that this would require that all of the non-AOL ISPs affected would need to be subscribing to the same service from BLS. I don't view that as likely, but one never knows. What do you think? > IPRS, sold to an ISP, is as suitable for residential dial-up customers as for business dial-up. Calls to the ISP directory number are simply directed to the IPRS serving arrangement in the ILEC central office rather than delivered normally. With IPRS-2, each ISP has a virtually separate arrangement from a traffic management and port access standpoint. An ISP can continue with their many-business-line present modem pool arrangement with a data pipe out the back door, or they could opt for IPRS -- it's a customer decision, and certainly multiple ISPs could elect to go with IPRS, each with an independently sized solution. The realities seem to be that ISPs have a big investment in their modem pools, and there is nothing beyond V.90 on the horizon that would trigger a dial-up modem pool upgrade. If an ISP were facing a big investment in a modem pool upgrade, IPRS looks better. You are correct that there is a reciprocal compensation issue that IPRS did effect -- at least until the reciprocal compensation agreements expire and are rewritten in accordance with the FCC finding that calls to ISPs traffic is interstate. The motivation for the creation of the IPRS serving arrangement, however, I believe had more to do with a hunt for workable, low capital approaches that would deload as much data traffic as possible off the voice switches. IPRS works at least at the terminating switch end to remove long holding time internet connection traffic from the PSTN. However, by deftly [!] eliminating the benefit of the enhanced service exemption from access charges for the ISPs, and torpedoing the ISP/CLEC argument for reciprocal compensation payments, it has made itself a bit of a skunk at the garden party. The product manager is probably not taking his wife to Hawaii this year thanks to his sales award.