The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum 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 : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (12740)	1/6/2006 2:22:54 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (1) of 46821

Frank, I didn't mean to imply that the munis are looking for a lucrative solution. Many that I have seen are looking at it as an emergency communication system and in many cases a surveillance system. Much of the funding is coming from DHS (department of homeland security) monies that are being distributed to counties and cities to upgrade their infrastructures. In several of my more promising opportunities, the driving department is the police department that wants the ability to download wanted posters and such while in their cruisers (as well as wanting cheaper surveillance solutions). However, the public access portion of the network has seems to be the crowd pleaser though. Some are focusing on providing internet access to lower income areas and others are focusing on commercial zones. My point is, that in spite of the buzz surrounding muni wifi networks, the market still seems to be figuring out what the best implementation model is and how best to fund it. I have seen numerous cities run into internal resistance and decide to delay implementation. And the reason is not that the technology isn't there, it is. As far as the mining applications, looking at both open pit and underground. Open pit has more mobility involved and requires that there is no static infrastructure. For underground, I think that it is important to understand that the backhaul is wireless. Each node has two 802.11a radios on separate channels, one for upstream traffic to the root node and one for downstream traffic from the root node. And then there is a third radio which is for client service (basically an access point) that is using 802.11bg. The underground nodes would simply require power and would not require a data connection. A logical map of the network would look like an upside down tree. I see this as being a less successful application than open pit applications due to interference of heavy machinery with no alternate wireless paths.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next