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: Darren DeNunzio who wrote (4316)	6/24/1999 4:09:00 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Hi Darren, I hate to rain on your parade. But, I've visited the Teledesic Website and paid attention to the press releases as well. The reality here is that the money men behind Teledesic are getting cold feet. And your notion that Teledesic is backing away from MOT because of IRID is nonsense. MOT is backing away from Teledesic because Gates and McCaw failed to comply with that most basic of requests as posed so deliciously by Cuba Gooding Jr. MOT requested of Teledesic, "Show me the money!" and none was forthcoming. Regarding the latter half of your post: Don't confuse design parameters with reality, it can ruin an investment career. Dos Centavos, Ry

To: Darren DeNunzio who wrote (4316)	6/24/1999 8:15:00 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Hi Darren, You've presented some information that needs a good deal of qualification, IMO. The overstated throughput rates that I mentioned the other day for satellite systems comes into play here, as well. You stated: "The Teledesic system is designed to support millions of simultaneous users. Users will have two-way connections that provide 64 Mbps on the downlink and 2 Mbps on the uplink." [What follows assumes that Teledesic gets beyond it's current crisis-of-spirit stage, and actually comes to fruition without an umbilical cord wrapped around its neck.] This is far too vague of a statement to be making concerning throughput expectations at this late date when we know better. We learn through hindsight, after reviewing the original claims that were made concerning HFC systems and how it is actually working out when it takes up users, that this will only be true during the early adoption stages. We've come to learn the harsh realities that set in once users take up services in large numbers. A fairer representation of throughput expectations would be made possible using a sliding scale model depicting number of users, average hit rates per unit time, average file/payload sizes, holding times, packet modality... whether it was mainly TCP or UDP, and a whole slew of other factors which have to do with terrestrial considerations (land-based portions of users links which are indeed a part of end to end measurements), etc. On top of the final figure, add another 10 to 20% for retransmissions due to errors and packet loss during periods of sustained congestion on all systems concerned. Otherwise, your statement would lead the uninitiated to conclude that they will have access to super-T3 transmission rates on the downlink all to themselves, on an on-demand basis. I think that I once saw such a utilization graph showing some of the parameters I've listed here, but I cannot find it at this time. Do you have such data? I'd also be a little wary of the latency numbers Teledesic cites, for they too seem to be best case, avoiding many of the delay intensive applications and media types of the future which will constitute the land-based portions of end to end links, such as IP telephony, pcs, cellular, tandem wireless/satellite, etc. FWIW. Regards, Frank Coluccio