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: Peter Ecclesine who wrote (1605)	12/29/2000 12:58:01 AM
From: axial	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 46821

Hi, Peter - Your points are well taken. I suppose we'll just have to see how things unfold. I don't have any quarrel with the statement that the gestation period for the Euro standards is too long; the pace seems glacial, at best. And I seem to recall someone describing the HiperLAN2 standard as "baroque". Fair enough. I suppose the point is lost here in North America, but it seems to me that we have a choice: invest the time in properly crafting the standards, or spend years, afterwards, paying engineers to patch together systems of disparate elements. One way or the other, we pay. On a more philosophical level, reading the IEEE documents and correspondence (and I don't want to denigrate for a minute the beneficial work they do) - there seems to be a telling difference in the outlook of the standards bodies. In general, the unfinished HiperX standards are meant for the world: they are meant to provide a seamless RF interface that spans education, commerce, internet access, telephony, and entertainment (including television). Small wonder the standards take so long to create. The question seems to have been "What societal benefit would we like RF technology to provide for the world?" Whereas, in North America, the questions seem to have been "What is the market? What is the current regulatory climate?" I have yet to see any documentation on any proposed IEEE standard that takes more than an engineer's viewpoint on the matter. Reading the correspondence, as much as I admire the difficult work that is being done, IMO there is a qualitative difference in the approach to the problems, and the solutions. This is not an attack on the IEEE. I am simply trying to point out that one standards body seems to be guided by humanistic concerns, and the other by pragmatic concerns. Perhaps, in the end, that is the way it should be. Still, I think we should consider bending technology to the needs of the people, instead getting the technology on the market, and then trying to figure out how it can benefit people, if it can. If the standards, and the technology, are designed with the world, and its needs as a market, I venture that the resultant price points would bring state-of-the-art RF technology to the poorest of people. Billions of people: now there's a market. Best regards, Jim