Global Crossing - GX (formerly GBLX) Message Board

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 : Global Crossing - GX (formerly GBLX)

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Marty R who wrote (3034)	11/1/1999 7:01:00 PM
From: barry fowler	Read Replies (2) of 15615

Re: Capacity >> How does current and pending wireless technology compare to fiber with respect to transmission capacity? It doesn't take much fiber at all to get "a lot" more capacity than wireless. However, today, wireless is offering "a lot" of capacity -- I'll be getting 1.5 Mbps via a wirelss ISP in the next couple months. It'll cost $300 to install the antenna and $80 / month service. However, the ISP's antenna has to be within a few miles of my house -- not sure what the distance requirement is. So, with a wireless solution, I'm still not "wireless all the way across town" let along across the US. That'd be really expensive. Fiber inherently has "a lot" more capacity, and the distances are virtually unlimited, but it's expensive to string it around everywhere we'd like to have it. So ... companies like GBLX are stringing it around to create a "backbone". Then, chaps like you and I can use wireless to tap into it. So, wireless isn't going to dry up due to all the fiber being install -- they complement each other. On the other hand, with the old copper (POTS) lines ... their days are numbered (except maybe 3rd world places).

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next