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* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bernard Levy who wrote (377)	7/10/2000 1:37:11 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 46821

Hello Bernard, "In the patent (see Figures 13 and 14) it seems to me that the beams are fixed but can be shaped fairly arbitrarily." Did you deduce that from the pictorial, itself, or from the narrative? I don't have access to it right now. But I also concluded that their downstream cones (not the upstream beams, however) were shapeable, too. The window rights for the central site are a major factor, one would think, in their central-site selection process strategy. The signal launch would not necessarily be best served by the highest point (the roof) at all times, since they have a need to reach "every" window, or as many windows as possible, in the surrounding buildings. An optimal vantage point might even be one that is average height --if they had to select only one level in a building-- as opposed to the highest point -- on the roof. The angle of entry, and the interference caused by the windows themselves, when the signal enters at too sharp an angle, can also prove to be a problem. Likewise for the material makeup (metallic content in the glass) of the subscribers' windows. I know that the vendor has poo pooed this, but I maintain that it's still a factor. One which is fixed in its relative weight among other factors, and which under normal circumstances not push the quality issue over the top. But at the same time one that must be factored in with many variable environmental factors, as well, which, when combined, may be the straw that breaks the camel's back. And then there is the increased possibility of interference from the sun if very-lower floor subscriber transceivers are forced to look skyward for the mother ship, if the main antennas at the central site are mounted on the roof. Which reminds me.. have you heard anything further about skystation.com? The continuing possibility also presents itself re how the up the riser organization folks (the UTROs) will treat this matter when their bread and butter riser systems are eschewed for the new i-r stuff. Of course. They will partner with the IR company, right? And the landlords. Just like BEL wanted Corning to introduce bit rate limiters twelve years ago to retard the ability of dark fiber to transmit too much data, do you suppose that building owners would be incented to change their lease terms to reflect new rules concerning the use of their windows? And the material used in the glass that constitute those windows? FAC

To: Bernard Levy who wrote (377)	7/10/2000 1:42:22 AM
From: ftth	Respond to of 46821

HI Bernard, yes, so many questions. Nice, convenient geometries in their figure 14, eh! The beam that blankets the entire building in the upper rt of fig 14 is curious. The figure does imply they have full control of eccentricity. That figure also seems to imply that there is no requirement for the beam to be even close to perpendicularly incident (see 1402a in fig 14) I'd like to see a drawing with all the upstreams from all the users too, and how they are "collected." The upstreams are are pencil (collimated) beams. You make a point I've wondered about re: roof rights since if you think of shooting out a window--you just dont have the flexibility in aiming that you have from a roof, in general (depends on heights and relative heights I suppose). Yet they've stressed this point so much they are going to look pretty silly if they tell a customer that they need roof access to hit their branch office down the street. Also, depending on the recesses of the window, as well as overhangs outside (depending on architecture), the window frame may create a limiting aperture that almost forces you to the roof in some cases. As for hardware costs, I haven't seen anything--even an estimate--for the hubs. I've heard some low number for the client equipment that seemed impossibly low (I think it was during the LU/TB conf call).