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: David Klein who wrote (8471)	9/13/2000 10:30:02 AM
From: justone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

David: I have to agree with Mike here, that the deployment of WLL is not likely to happen, in my opinion. About 3-5 years back there were efforts to improve WLL to support so called low mobility (hand-off at under 50 mph). Everyone was excited then: Marketing staff had invincible arguments and predictions similar to the ones you quote, if only you could offer mobility. Use it in Malls! At concerts! Around town! And everywhere at home! Big market! The low mobility was solved, with developments integrating Cellular SS7 technology with WLL. However, when suppliers went to check the market, they found that, with or without mobility: In the US: 1) cordless phones are are lot cheaper when you have wired access, and with DSS are of even better quality 2) even back then, the cost of high speed mobility was not substantial, and PCS/Digitial deployment was eminent, and who wanted to capitalize another set of hardware and towers? 3) who wanted the political hassle of deploying even more antennas than PCS? In Europe: 1) ditto on cordless 2) GSM was everywhere and dropping in cost; why go to a lower capability In Japan: 1) PHS was there already; they were basically getting rid of a system that was like WLL, but had low mobility, and going to high mobility and 2) they were going fiber (even FTTH) In India (I haven't personal experience with China, and other emerging companies, but I suspect it was the same: 1) they didn't have much of anything, including money, but they didn't want second rate technology (a pride issue, partially, but also a reasonable concern about being left behind in technology) 2) WLL might work in a village, but I don't know of any deployments (I haven't looked lately) 3) even WLL wasn't low cost enough; they would rather share a pay phone and use voice mail for incoming calls (actually a reasonable solution) The real issue that killed it, ultimately, in my opinion, is that GSM and other handsets dropped to a cost (AND WEIGHT) level about the same as a PHS or proposed WLL handyphone, and became ubiquitous. In fact, you can now get dual mode phones pretty cheaply now. Analog phones are also low cost. So I guess I don't see the market. It must be for areas where copper wiring isn't available, but Cellular AMPS/TDMA/GSM/CDMA/whatever are too expensive. Since the deployment of WLL requires almost as much equipment as cellular, and more antennas; ok, in GSM systems you can eliminate the BSC, but GSM systems don't need that anyway, and you can use a CO instead of a MSC, but the savings are not that large). So where is the cost savings of a WLL network? Even without mobility, fixed WLL systems require equipment that must front end a TR303 or V5.2 enabled switch, which is more costly than simple copper. Ergo, the network cost is about the same for WLL, cellular/PCS, and both are a bit more expensive than wireline. So whatever the cheerful marketers say, the technology cost points don't seem to back them up. justone opinion

To: David Klein who wrote (8471)	9/13/2000 10:35:07 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 12823

Time to say good bye to the WLL 3-letter acronym (TLA). A few years back, mid nineties European came with the DECT standard and WLL was born (that is this site of the swamp). The makers of WLL are exactly the same makers of fixed line and GSM. The potential of a poorman's GSM was good. We learned a lot from the WLL roll outs. Mainly that there were (and still is) a huge repressed demand for telephony in the developing world. The waiting list. GSM kept getting its prices lower killing in its way any technology that it faced. Iridium corpse is still warm. In its wake was WLL DECT, PHS (isn't I-mode based in PHS?, I think it is). The GSM juggernaut saw the potential for waiting list and knew that GSM 2G would be obsolete by 2 and 1/2G and 3G. The GSM crowd devised a new way of using GSM: Here is born a new TLA. FMC Fixed-Mobile Convergence. We will have this smaller cell dual band phone which makes local calls as a kind of WLL terminals but once you move you are in plain GSM world. Wireless technology having a better price-performance than fixed line will eventually replace wired networks as a means of carrying voice. Now what we -who sell and build that stuff- have to do dump 2G all over the place into Brazil's, Turkey's, Indonesia's and Peru's of this world. That's what we are doing right now.