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: Keith Feral who wrote (12078)	1/28/2002 4:06:41 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Hi Keith, I feel like a geezer on this thread. But let me distill the essence of about 3 years of whizdumb I've gathered hereabouts: Re: Fixed wireless is a product waiting for real sponsorship. Unless and until you can identify the customer, this solution isn't going anywhere. This has been the problem for as long as I can remember. Keep in mind, anyone who has a landline isn't going to be interested in this solution. Anyone who has foliage around their antennae probably isn't interested. That's most every suburb in the nation. Just who are you going to sell this solution to? Answer that question first, then think about the technology. Gilder is terrific at misdirecting avid newbies. The technology sounds so whizbang and special. What he doesn't ever discuss is the economics of these technological advances. That's why people who accept his religion are now about 80% poorer than they were two years ago. Think about them apples. -Ray

To: Keith Feral who wrote (12078)	1/28/2002 4:54:35 AM
From: axial	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12823

Hi, Keith - I agree with Ray. The economics of broadband wireless are pretty bad. The regulatory environment could be better. Spectrum is mangled. The high ground (ie., dense urban environments with large profit margins) is already well-served. The cost of setting up a cellular infrastructure, even using existing towers (which also have a cost) is large. The barriers to new towers/repeaters for infill are huge - NIMBY at work. The market is not well-defined. There is a chance that standardized networks will make appreciable gains: ie., IEEE 802.11x and up, because they will have the best chance of overcoming costs. The real question for broadband fixed wireless is: can it compete successfully with other forms of broadband in price, ease of use, and ease of implementation? Setting up a cellular system, with base stations, repeaters, and properly estimated backhaul is not trivial or inexpensive. If you're going to maintain a consistent data rate throughout the geography of your network, then you need a certain density: as distance increases, your throughput rate drops off. There are companies who now have the technology to deliver broadband fixed wireless using advanced forms of modulation. We read over a year ago that OFDM tests by Sprint had achieved 80% penetration in urban environments. There's only one problem: it ain't selling. It's a solution, looking for a market. Broadband fixed wireless is one of those things, on the face of it, that is instantly appealing: it should be cheaper; it should be easier to implement; it should be capable of generating a profit. I echo Ray's opinion: look very, very carefully before you commit your hard-earned dollars to a wireless investment. Broadband fixed wireless is one of technology's oldest Cinderellas. Regards, Jim