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: Amy J who wrote (166011)	6/7/2002 8:13:37 PM
From: milo_morai	Respond to of 186894

Nice Post, but I disgree with the one statement about fiber to the house #reply-17575092

To: Amy J who wrote (166011)	6/10/2002 10:41:42 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Amy, Not for densely populated areas where there's no spectrum available for long range wireless. There would have been a lot of bandwidth available for wireless if the government in its infinite wisdom has not given it away for free for terrestrial HDTV broadcast. HDTV, as everyone is aware of, has been a complete bust, which is fine in business, when a company just goes under. But we are on a government regulated and mandated course which clearly is a dead end. (In addition to being probably the biggest giveaway to corporations in recent history) BTW, this is in response to another post of yours ( #reply-17570162 ), in which you alluded to the government intervention / subsidy of the broadband deployment. If you want healthy industry, the best thing is to keep the government as far as possible, otherwise, we will get HDTV scale debacle. As far as long range wireless, I am not sure what you mean by long range. The present wireless solutions are smart enough that you can deploy the towers more densely in high density population areas, meaning that the same amount of wireless spectrum can serve many people in the cities, with support of many towers, few people in rural areas. In a densely populated area, you are talking to a tower near you, in sparsely populated area, you are talking to a tower further away. About a year or 2 ago, I read an interesting info, which said that Sprint PCS used at that time only a single channel of spectrum (of 1.5MHz I believe) across the country, from Manhattan to their most sparsely populated area for all their voice traffic. 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.) The problem with these "higher priority" users is that they use obsolete bandwidth wasting technologies. This is another price of letting government dole out spectrum. In a market based system, these bandwidth wasters would have to convert to more modern, bandwidth efficient technologies, rather than use 1950s technology. I think wireless will have its place in broadband deployment, but basically, cable companies have the inside track. Not much have changed. They have the best solution (most economical with sufficient bandwidth) to last mile, which is a combination of fiber and copper. Joe