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: Dexter Lives On who wrote (12042)	12/31/2001 4:20:24 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Hi Rob, Yes, I had seen that article before, and it was in the back of my mind when I posted on this topic earlier today. Once you get beyond the actual arbitration and switching issues, it's the integration of the public carrier's (and the fact that there is an almost infinite number of them) accounting and locator functions with that of the enterprise's (or individual's) network administrative setups where I see the bugaboo. Those, and just as importantly, network capacity and sizing issues that we don't often think about. In general, if one can conceive of a networking scheme in theory, then they can almost always implement it. Getting profit-motivated network operators to agree on fees and settlements, not to mention security and network sizing, is another story. On the matter of sizing, it was not very long ago that I examined another, similar scheme with another poster here on SI. This one was interesting, imo, because it opened my eyes to some of the concerns of local wireless operators, both from their business modelling and their network architectural perspectives. It was an 'in-building' setting and had to do with installing a "leaky feeder" system in a new skyscraper. The proposed systems would allow a user to drive into the basement parking lot, enter an elevator and continue talking on his cell phone straight on up through their penthouse office without loosing their connection (the always-on or always-connected capability, if you will, that you mentioned earlier). Likewise, the proposed system would also allow laptop users to travel elevators, go out into the courtyard, wherever, and remain connected. [I had actually had a part in such a leaky feeder design for cellular traffic handling some years earlier for a Hong Kong building developer, but in that case there was only a single carrier (by choice) to content with at the time, and I didn't get involved with the business end of the problem as much as I did the technical issues, thankfully. Since then, WLAN roaming has become a standard offering by some vendors, but not for the purpose of supporting both voice and Ethernet data over integrated-private-public networks.] rubytron.com After exploring this further we found that we needed to involve the carrier (multiple carriers in our case) in this scheme. I found it informative that there is no patent rule as to who pays who here, since sometimes the building landlord actually acts as the agent for the carrier(s), and sometimes the carrier sees this as an unwanted burden on their infrastructure, hence, you pay them, making for interesting horse-trading. In any event, we took the design to the next step and suggested implementing a customer owned leaky feeder system by Andrew (similar to those that are installed in tunnels and mines) with broadband amplification brought out to access points throughout the building. And then we explored the 802.11 voip with hand off to the carriers' cell systems. Where do you tie into the carrier's cellular network? While this might seem like a no brainer, again, in reality there is no single solution. And it does call for the carrier to do appropriate "sizing" of their pipes and trunks and call handling capabilities between their closest cell site <in this case, "our" cell site> and their main switch or basestation, requiring oodles of other tuning in other disparate network elements, as well. Now, suppose that these scenarios called for scores of 2 or 4 Mb/s 802.11x traffic streams flooding those unsuspecting cellular networks, instead of a handful of transient 13kb/s talkers, without tuning then up for the chore! Not an impossible task, by any means, but an interesting design and engineering problem that must be agreed to by a plethora of players, nonetheless. If a solution evolves that is entirely "open" it could succeed universally, if sizing is not an issue. However, if operators insist on their own branding and keep with a measured minute and feature approach to billing, it could take eons to catch on. All imo. FAC