x
<<   <   Page 3 / 5   >   >>
SiO2 12/4/2012 | 11:04:08 PM
re: All-Optical Smackdown in Secaucus Litewave writes:

> ...in reality though, the oustanding
> issues with a pure OO based solution
> currently negates any capex savings
> versus an OEO based solution.
>
>> Notice the words pure OO, yes? I meant
>> not hybrid, not mixed, just one versus
>> the other.
>>
>> Thank you for telling me what we all
>> already know.

my apologies. it wasn't clear to me from
your post that you understood this fundamental
truth. at least, it wouldn't occur to me to
discuss the relative merits of a pure OOO
network as compared to an OEO network without
mentioning that the hybrid is cost optimal.

regards,

SiO2


optigirl 12/4/2012 | 11:04:07 PM
re: All-Optical Smackdown in Secaucus It was on Monday that they tried.

Your question on Lucent sending a rep was in regards to?

Love your name, btw.
let-there-be-light 12/4/2012 | 11:04:05 PM
re: All-Optical Smackdown in Secaucus Ok, I know I've been a big critic of RHK in the past, but, come on, they have revised their numbers down considerably, so I think it's time we give them a break.

No, I am not a new RHK employee.
fanfare 12/4/2012 | 11:04:05 PM
re: All-Optical Smackdown in Secaucus "at least, it wouldn't occur to me to
discuss the relative merits of a pure OOO
network as compared to an OEO network without
mentioning that the hybrid is cost optimal."

Indeed.... it seems pretty clear from Litewave's original post that he didn't fully understand the current deployment of OO infrastructure. Why would anyone present an argument contrasting OO and OEO conversion with a premise that 'pure optical' isn't cost effective (ever hear the term 'master of the obvious'?).




optigirl 12/4/2012 | 11:04:05 PM
re: All-Optical Smackdown in Secaucus That's funny....

Just making a compliment. Got a great husband already and not interested in anything else but him.

Anyway....



hawkman 12/4/2012 | 11:04:05 PM
re: All-Optical Smackdown in Secaucus Optigirl writes: "Love your name, btw."

Are we seeing a LR message board love connection developing here?

I can see it now, a "Lightpersonals" hyperlink, and then an annoying email to be added to the current list of annoying emails from LR that no one reads. Now I will get Byte and switch daily and weekly, Light work daily and weekly, light reading daily and weekly and light personals daily and weekly.

SWM likes Physics and theoretical mathmatics, candle lit bunsen burners, chemical reactions, long walks to the library and the smell of new test and measurement equipment. Seeking a woman that knows the metric system and can think in differential equations.

optigirl 12/4/2012 | 11:04:04 PM
re: All-Optical Smackdown in Secaucus Well, the fact remains that having cut the numbers that much says a lot about their level of competency as well as their ethics. How many investors did they mislead? How many VCs did they bs? And please spare me the talk about everyone else was wrong. They were wayyyyyy over the top with their forecasts and what compounds the problem is the equity positions that they solicit for and accept from companies in exchange for work/services.

Think there's not a conflict of interest when you "analyze" companies and forecast markets and also hold positions on the sly?
big daddy 12/4/2012 | 11:04:04 PM
re: All-Optical Smackdown in Secaucus Personally, I'd just be looking for a Fast Fourier Transform-type of relationship on the side.
let-there-be-light 12/4/2012 | 11:04:03 PM
re: All-Optical Smackdown in Secaucus Optigirl,

All good points (as usual), but still, the optical industry lost its innocence long ago, that includes most of us (probably including you). I don't think we'll ever regain it. It would be nice, but I don't think its going to happen.

Most of us contributed one way or another to this debacle (either by action or inaction). It's not fair to blame it mostly on our "soothsayers", even if they might be a somewhat corrupt and devious bunch. We paid them good money for their services. And for a good reason...
Steeler 12/4/2012 | 11:04:02 PM
re: All-Optical Smackdown in Secaucus Oh good, we're back onto a topic with a tiny bit of substance. I was reading through this board and thought I might be in the Geek Dating Network.

I recently found a 1998 Forrester report that said set top TV Internet access would grow 146% annually, while videophone Internet access would emerge from nowhere to grow 136% a year. Of course there was no mention of cell phones and the lowly PC was supposed to be a legacy access device with limited growth potential. And if the numbers weren't ridiculous enough, the report was filled with crappy buzzwords like "mind share".

Optical research firms should have at least learned from the past mistakes of forecasters in other tech sectors.



<<   <   Page 3 / 5   >   >>
HOME
Sign In
SEARCH
CLOSE
MORE
CLOSE