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 : 4G - Wireless Beyond Third Generation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (97)	12/31/2001 3:22:43 PM
From: Dexter Lives On	Respond to of 1002

Hi Frank, I agree about the writing and generalizations made. Also, no doubt fiber will play a growing role; satellite and broadband wireless have roles to play as well (reach and mobility, respectively). How long it will take these kinds of networks to take hold in the 1st world nations is partly tied to how successful they are in no-man's land (no insult intended to developing countries but the reality is there is often little to no technological infra). If successful models are developed the entrenched will face difficult decisions. Who knows how far in the future that might be?! Btw, I'd like to see some suggested hand-off schemes for [never mind for now how operators are going to make money by] orchestrating 802.11x to PCS and 4G traffic flows. If I find anything along these lines I'll be sure to post it... Rob PS Credit for article goes to IW on the Wi-LAN thread.

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (97)	12/31/2001 3:48:33 PM
From: Dexter Lives On	Respond to of 1002

I assume you've seen this: Message 16808287 As for PCS/WLAN roaming I'm sure I saw something recently but I can't remember where. I think a number of companies are working on solutions; once VoIP takes hold in mobiles will anyone care about dedicated voice? Again, no idea on timing. :?) Rob PS nice minor grub, leaving the big one open to all comers <gggg>

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (97)	12/31/2001 11:37:02 PM
From: Peter Ecclesine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1002

Hi Frank, >>My take is that fiber to the last 300 feet will probably prove in as the best access platform for neighborhoods and communities of interest that cannot support it all the way. Here I see wireless extending in those instances over those last 200 or 300 feet, where ftth (and a gateway to in-house wireless) does not prove to be economically viable.<< All of fixed wireless is the extension of fiber All of access is regulatory, if it is not business [The FCC means business] >>Btw, I'd like to see some suggested hand-off schemes for [never mind for now how operators are going to make money by] orchestrating 802.11x to PCS and 4G traffic flows. Should prove to be really interesting if anything other than fixed fees for usage are proposed.<< Non-fixed fees for usage == telco pricing [pay for what you eat?] If 5/6 of the world's people don't have cellphones, are they credit challenged or is technology lacking? My interest is how the credit challenged get served. petere Happy New Year

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (97)	1/1/2002 12:36:32 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1002

Here I see wireless extending in those instances over those last 200 or 300 feet, where ftth (and a gateway to in-house wireless) does not prove to be economically viable. I wouldn't be so sure about that. An in-depth perusal of the link found below might cause many folks to think twice about wireless in the home. wardriving.com Hawk

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (97)	1/16/2002 12:52:46 PM
From: Rob S.	Respond to of 1002

>"Traditionally, telecom networks are called switched networks and this limits their use in the internet world as they are not flexible enough to handle the always on connectivity needed for the internet." What does always on have to do with being IP enabled? The ILECs offer "always on" in their DSL offerings, which are based on ATM at Layer 2, despite the option of IP being carried over it in a prevalent manner. Likewise, private lines and various forms of ISDN, are (or can be made to be) always on, as can other formats supported by the telcos.> Switched networks are not granular in their data structure and have a heavy burden of header overhead and system latency. Besides being inefficient, they are not able to be nearly as reliable or redundant as needed to handle data traffic. They weren't designed for data traffic. OFDM on the other hand can handle as little as a single bit of data, such as a status bit, with little overhead. Or it can send a large packet if configured to do so. or it can send packets from two or more separate sources and re-assemble them at receiving end. Or it can be used in a mesh networking topology with alternate multiple paths for simultaneous routing. Or it can utilize smart targetable array antennae technology more efficiently. The wave of the future, now recognized by IEEE and other design authorities IS IP based systems based on OFDM and other technologies. Given another 2-3 years and every other idiot on the planet besides myself and these standards bodies and a few firms will recognize this! ; ^) .