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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GVTucker who wrote (165816)	6/6/2002 10:58:53 AM
From: John F. Dowd	Respond to of 186894

GVT: For us the answer is simple in concept and becoming more doable every succeeding day in terms of a wireless solution. In countries where they didn't have established and heavily capitalized wireline infrastructures wireless voice took off dramatically compared to the US. Now is the time for this technology to come to the rescue and put the US in the van of these developments i.e. the wireless last mile. The wireless net is going to be big and it probably will be moved from the home or office to the curb in the near future in a cost effective way. Just a little transceiver placed here and there will probably be the mode and will be probably introduced by the wireless companies. I think NXTL is on that track already. MSFT is on this track with their tablet PC concept where you move around the house/office with this etch a sketch like device and be able to interact with your PC and the net.JFD

To: GVTucker who wrote (165816)	6/7/2002 6:07:35 PM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Hi GV, RE: (Broadband to the home)...And that solution leads me to wireless solutions." Not for densely populated areas where there's no spectrum available for long range wireless. I believe FCC won't give out long range spectrum for Fixed Wireless in metropolitan areas (homes are fixed) for broadband to the home. It's a low priority. Other city services have higher priority for the spectrum (emergencies, police, taxis.) So, I don't see wireless broadband solving the last mile problem in metropolitans (not to be confused with short range spectrum, or the last 100 feet.) In rural areas, as long as there's not a military base, I would believe there's probably enough longer range spectrum available, and assuming most farms have satellite dishes, the wireless wouldn't have to carry the TV load that would take up more bandwidth than what wireless could handle. The answer I believe is fiber, at a minimum, to the metropolitan neighborhoods, because there's not enough long range spectrum available for Fixed Wireless for broadband to the home. Broadband to the home is a very interesting topic, enjoyed reading your post. Regards, Amy J

To: GVTucker who wrote (165816)	6/7/2002 8:12:31 PM
From: milo_morai	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Not a catch 22. Your Cable MSO's are the most fiber rich of all the CLEC's/LEC's. The last few miles are Coax, but have ton's of capacity for Broadband solutions. Fiber to the Home is so far off it's not even on the scope. Hybrid Fiber Coax is the best bet IMO.

To: GVTucker who wrote (165816)	6/8/2002 9:33:45 AM
From: Exciton	Respond to of 186894

Other reasons for broadband "success" in Korea While population density is a factor, the fact that the major S. Korean providers are only charging $25-$30 per month for DSL or cable connections is an even larger factor. Unfortunately, none of the three large South Korean providers are making money at these prices. The Korean government may not let them fail, but propping up companies with government subsidies is probably not a model that will work for the US.

To: GVTucker who wrote (165816)	6/9/2002 5:15:01 AM
From: dumbmoney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

I'm still trying to figure out where to go with this. Teligent, Winstar, and ARTT went broke exploring this solution, which raises the probability that I am just flat wrong with this solution. I think that the technology just wasn't advanced enough, though, rather than there being an inherent problem with the solution. I still think that broadband will become prevalent when we find a firm that comes up with a technology that delivers a dependable, inexpensive wireless solution to consumers. Cable TV passes >95% of US homes. Of those about 70% can currently get high speed internet, and most of the rest will get it within a few years. DSL is also an option in many areas. With that competition, there's not much hope for wireless, except in rural areas.

To: GVTucker who wrote (165816)	6/10/2002 7:20:19 AM
From: Amy J	Respond to of 186894

Hi GV, Re: Fixed Wireless limited in long range spectrum Possibly a counter point to my post on Friday might be: Mobile has higher priority than FW. DoCoMo's wireless video is at 384Kb/s. Though this is not video, it's tiny-video, probably something like 240x180 that'll fit on a small screen handheld device. It's probably just MPEG4 encoding running into a small screen. In the context of our posts, any large object that isn't mobile, starts sounding like FW, which gets back to FCC's treatment of FW, and unless a mobile redirects data output to some type of large display, I don't see wireless broadband for the home consumer as a family shared medium. Video really sucks up the spectrum. nttdocomo.com Keiji Tachikawa: "Under a 10-year plan we call Mobile Frontier, we are aggressively developing new communications services for our increasingly mobile society." A very focused company with a focused plan. And it's not just a quarterly plan either, but a long-term plan. This company is neat. Regards, Amy J

To: GVTucker who wrote (165816)	6/10/2002 7:54:38 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Hi GV, RE: "Barrett ignores the primary reason that broadband IS a priority in Korea and Japan--population density...Running fiber to the curb is an expensive proposition. To justify this expense, you have to be able to project a very large revenue stream per strand of fiber" -------------- The only way to do that is to guarantee the ROI to a limited number of companies. (i.e. gov't intervention to get the ball rolling.) Palo Alto is focused on fiber-related ideas for broadband to the home. The estimated costs are approximately 30M or $2,000 / home. $2k is cost prohibited, unless you amortize it over 10 years, like you would a road, then it starts looking trivial. Fiber is just glass, glass doesn't change. It'll last longer than a road. But how do you pay for it? You really can't - that's why they keep "talking" about doing it, rather than just doing it. You can't float a bond to pay for it, not even if you expand this to include all cities in the USA in order to create an attractive market size for investors. The problem is: floating a bond is not going to be attractive (regardless the market size) for investors, unless the ROI on the bond is reasonably guaranteed as bonds tend to be. (And one can forget about VCs funding fiber to the neighborhoods in America, because VCs want the return in 3 years, not 10 years.) The only way to attract investors to solve this problem is by providing investors with enough guarantee on a bond to make the risk worthwhile. And that can only be done if the number of companies is limited. And that means gov't intervention. I know you prefer no gov't intervention. But the capital markets have already tried this. They threw billions of dollars trying to solve this problem, and that resulted in a waste of money that exceeds the S&L disaster. Do we really want retires to throw even more of their savings (by way of the capital markets) onto more disasters? The gov't needs to step in and assure only a limited number of companies, to attract investors. Nothing will move until this happens, regardless of how we may dislike government intervention. Regards, Amy J