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 : The New Qualcomm - a S&P500 company -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nbfm who wrote (3068)	11/8/1999 10:33:00 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

WCOM has always been stronger on marketing. When they start talking about technical advances better than those of the technology leader (QCOM), I'm skeptical.

To: nbfm who wrote (3068)	11/8/1999 11:27:00 PM
From: lkj	Respond to of 13582

The Ricochet modem, which I used 4 years ago, always had 128Kbps capability. But it has always been commercially sold at 28.8Kbps. It uses either the 900MHz or the 2.4GHz junk band, I don't remember. It uses frequency hopping spread spectrum. While the modem is solid, it hasn't enjoyed much commercial success. I talked to Metricom two months ago about when they plan to roll out the 128Kbps service, they told me that it will be some time next year. Like any shared network, Ricochet's 128Kbps is not guaranteed. When I used it 4 years ago, it was marketed as a 128kbps service at UC Santa Cruz. My experience tells me that the Ricochet modem sends data in bursts. You could get a burst data rate that's close to what it promises, but this all depended on how many people are using it. When the number of users increased, the performance seems closer to a 28.8 modem. I don't view Ricochet as a threat to HDR. Maybe the Yahoo message should be titled "Ricochet Hype". Khan

To: nbfm who wrote (3068)	11/9/1999 12:19:00 AM
From: engineer	Respond to of 13582

So,lets see. I got a private network which only covers about 10% of the US populaiton and I am going to run it faster, as opposed to one which has nationwide coverage with as many as 5 carriers per city and I can upgrade them to 2 MBPS (10x faster than the richochet) and roll it out for 5 times less cost? I have no other business to offset the network costs, so buildout will be slow, and I offer the service at about 4 times the per minute cost that HDR should be priced at. Hype or richochet bulls***? More like the R guys are scared out of their wits because the HDR will take away not only their market, but CDPD as well. The author would be more correct if he were to say that HDR was an answer to the EDGE and others. I am not sure, but you decide.

To: nbfm who wrote (3068)	11/9/1999 2:06:00 AM
From: RoseCampion	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

Ricochet 2 is a high speed wireless internet service that offers between 128kbps and 180kbps sustained data rate to mobile users. It is being deployed by MCOM with the help of a $600 million investment by WCOM and Paul Allen's Vulcan Ventures. FWIW, I used Ricochet 1 here in Seattle for about six months in 1998, well after they first rolled it out. Although they claimed 28.8KB speeds, I never got over about 19.2kb even though my (fixed) location allowed me to "see" about a dozen transceivers at close range. So if that's a typical experience, and if the Ricochet 2 claims of speed are similarly inflated compared to real-world experience... Notes: Ricochet is deployed using hundreds - or even thousands - of small trancievers mounted (and drawing power from) the photocell on top of city streetlights. They pay the host city a lease fee for use of same, and blanket the area with these nano-cells (each one might cover a 10-square-block area, I'd guess). Technology, IIRC, uses the unlicensed (900mhz?) band and uses some sort of spread-spectrum, bursty, packet-optimized transmission scheme (I am very hazy on the details, as should be obvious from the preceeding). The poletop units communicate to the mothership WAP (wired access point) - a big base station connected to the Net at large. From there you're talking straight TCP/IP to the world. The service was very reliable for me, but it was too expensive and too slow compared to a simple copper pair after 56kb modems became widely available, so I dropped it. Will be interesting to see how the 'high speed' service fares. Would appreciate it if someone who knows the technical innards of both systems to comment on the similarities and differences, as well as the potential competitive aspects. -Rose-

To: nbfm who wrote (3068)	11/10/1999 2:37:00 AM
From: JGoren	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

In addition to the informative comments of actual Richochet users, plus the good technospeak, I am always very skeptical of companies that decide to make press releases on top of Qcom, as this one clearly was imho intended to be disruptive to Qcom's HDR trial. Regarding Dr. J's laid back confidence; he can now afford to be. Qcom has proved out so well on its promises, there is credibility in the marketplace and on Wall Street. I think that Jacobs' view that the move to 1x and HDR will be faster than most think because the carriers need to provide stationary internet services as well as mobile. To this non-techie the upgrade path seems a lot easier than relying on different types of technologies, which in the long run may cost more. Plus, the compatibility factors to the end consumer -- re all sorts of devices and the pc -- appear a much better deal and sellable.