Hi All, Here is another post that I, once again, feel compelled to respond to..
< StaggerLee > I'm short MCOM at $14.25.
<David> I could have guessed this!
< StaggerLee > I considered shorting it when it was at $5. I consider this recent rally a gift from God.
<David> More exactly it is a gift from Paul Allen, but if you feel he is worthy of a pedestal that high, that's OK.
< StaggerLee > As cool as this product is, in the business world there is simply NO DEMAND for it!
<David> According to WHO?
< StaggerLee > 1. IT'S A TOY -- Metricom's client base thus far is made up of techno nerds (seeking the newist techno-gadgets) and college kids (using daddy's coin to play on-line games on campus, during class). Why else would there be such a demand on campuses?
<David> Oh Please! From this statement I assume that you could tell me the percentage of our subscribers who are "college kids". I know what it is, Do you? FYI, less than 20% of our subscribers are students.
< StaggerLee > What's so freaking critical that a college kid needs instant data transmission?
<David> Well,. there may be nothing so freaking (nice word) critical that he/she needs instant data transmission, however, data transmission itself may be critical. Modem banks in colleges are very overloaded. It can take hours for a student to actually get a line into the campus network, then there is, as with every phone line connection, the chance of being cut off. With Ricochet, there is no phone line, or modem bank, so the students can get into the campus network when they NEED to, not when an available modem ALLOWS them to. This is just one advantage
< StaggerLee > The point is, the ricochet system isn't a business tool -- it's a gadget. It's a toy.
<David> WOW! There re a lot of people who do not know they are using a "toy" to enable them to do their job better. A large percentage of our subscribers are doctors, real estate agents, reporters, sales professionals and so on who need to have access to data while portable TO DO THEIR JOB, They may argue this point with you.
I am also curious as to how you would classify a cellular phone, When was the last time you made a cell phone call that absolutely could not have waited until you got to a "land-line" phone?
Assuming that the internet/ email is an important useful tool, why is providing wireless access to it a toy? If on the other hand this Internet / email thing is just a passing fad, then I see your point.
< StaggerLee > 2. IT'S INFRASTRUCTURE CONCEPT IS STUPID -- The "node-every-mile" concept made sense in the 1930's when phones were becoming popular.
<David> It seems to have worked well in the 1980's and 1990's for Cell Phones also.
< StaggerLee > But in the 21st century everything is going to be satellite-driven.
<David> LOL ! Satellites are a tad pricey. Where do you suppose that the companies who put this satellite system in place will recoup their money? I would guess it would be the user's wallet!
Let's take a look at Cellular phones. They have been around for about 11 years now and they are still somewhat pricey.
Now lets take a look at physics..
Lets assume that it is very easy for the satellite to communicate with me on the ground. It is not so easy for me on the ground to communicate with the satellite. This requires one of three things.
Transmitter Power or
Antenna Gain
Or you have to give up bandwidth
Lets look at antenna gain,
As the gain of an antenna increases for a given frequency, it's size has to increase. OK, So, no big deal. Lets assume that the frequency of these satellite systems is rather high, ( which means that there would be NO in building penetration, but lets ignore that fact to keep this short...) this would make an antenna with a reasonable amount of gain be (perhaps) a reasonable size. However, as the gain of the antenna is increased, the directivity of the antenna also increases, so now you would have to have the antenna pointed precisely in the direction of the satellite. OK, you say, no big deal, I do not see the TV satellite dishes having to move, I will just set it up and leave it! AHHH, but wait, those satellites are in a geosynchronous orbit, 22500 miles away. The satellites for the system you mention would have to be "Low Earth Orbit" (LEO) satellites. This means that the satellites would be moving, so, you see, a very directional antenna would not be the solution.
Alright, lets make them geosynchronous orbits. You just moved the satellite thousands of miles further away, now you need more gain, or more power or a narrower bandwidth.
Lets look at power
Basically, this is determined by the size of the battery you are willing to carry around with you, OR, how long you want to use your device. Small battery, small time, larger battery, more time. If you wanted to communicate with the satellite using a device with an antenna similar to the one on a cell phone, or our modems, (without running through all the numbers) you are now carrying around a car battery with you.
Lets look at giving up bandwidth
Basically, lesser bandwidth = less speed. How slow are you willing to move your data?
Lets move on.
< StaggerLee > MCOM's current infrastructure--representing everything they've ever done-- is going to be completely worthess in two years.
<David> wow! No. BIG WOW! Since you stated this so "matter-of-factly", I know I would be very interested your sharing the facts that would support such a grand statement.
< StaggerLee > 3. FAILED ONCE; WILL FAIL AGAIN -- Metricom failed at 28.8. What has changed in their business plan that will make their future any different?
<David> Define "FAILED". If we have failed, then I assume that there is a wireless data system out there with better price / performance. I challenge you to find it.
< StaggerLee >Cool concept, no practical use.
<David> More Nonsense....
< StaggerLee > Management has gotten rich on investors who have become intrigued with the concept of their system.
<David> Maybe there is a reason that they were intrigued that you have missed...
< StaggerLee > But face it: In 1997, there's still no time-critical need for 99.9999 percent of data transmissions,
<David> HUH? Where did *THIS* come from! Ya Know, Your right, and now that I think of it, there is no need for cars, horses work just fine, and planes, hell we got by without them for thousands of years. Oh Come on... it is called progress! Statements like " Why do we need that. We have gotten by without it for this long" have been said about virtually every advancement. The chairman of IBM once said that he saw a need for about 5 computers in the world.
< StaggerLee > The Ricochet system is expensive and immobile,
<David> Yep! Just like the current phone system, or the cell phone system, or the .
< StaggerLee > and if there were any real demand for it, it could be easily duplicated by AT&T or any other major communications carrier for a few pennies a share.
<David> WOW, again.
There are these things called patents.
Did you ever stop to think that maybe the reason that it has not been is because you may be incorrect and it may NOT be that easy to duplicate? (Things that make you go HHHhhhmmmmmm.)
< StaggerLee > Unfortunately, it's not the future of wireless communications, folks.
<David> There are many of here, myself included, who would like you to tell us what is and back it up with some technical facts as to why.
< StaggerLee > Paul Allen, lol. A fool and his money, <More rambling snipped out..>
<David> A fool who co-founded Microsoft who is worth 16 billion...and.. Oh. I'm tired. I give up! I wish I was as foolish as Mr. Allen!
Do me a favor, do not take my word for *ANY* of this. Go find an Engineer in the field of wireless *DATA* (NOT voice) communications and ask him if what I have said is true. I would also suggest not making inaccurate statements in a public forum just to try to force the price down on a stock that you have shorted!
Tanks everyone for allowing me to chew up more that my fair share of bandwidth!
david
david@metricom.com |
