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: elmatador who wrote (12534)	6/4/2003 11:43:06 AM
From: ftth	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12823

re: "over the past year, the 802.11b (“Wi-Fi”) standard has created an entirely new market for wireless networks in the home and office—without any form of government initiative and during the depth of telecom's worst recession. That is what can be done when manufacturers and users are set free to exploit just a tiny unlicensed chunk of the radio spectrum." [elmat] Sounds like somehting that has the DNA to survive!!! -------------- Yeah, but then again, growth always sounds huge when starting from zero base. It is also growth that is locally sheltered from outside constraints and influences at the moment. Metcalfe's law says this "wireless archipelago" must grow and interconnect, or its value is very limited. The CLECs/DLECs also created an entirely new market that led to mass euphoria of expected new freedoms and new markets, only to be squashed by the monopoly bottleneck owner that still held all the controls, and they could tighten them any time they saw fit. WiFi seems a lot like a remote, rather than co-located, version of the same thing, in many respects. It solves a piece of the troubles the DLECs encountered, but doesn't solve all the troubles. Those WiFi bitstreams still must ultimately pass through all those same control handles, unless someone deploys an open-access bypass network. The access points that are put in place by the monopoly bottleneck owner (as a veiled strategy that has a public face of furthering growth of new technology, but has the likely covert intent of preventing bypass of their network from outside the CO) are probably responding to that threat. At the end of the day this may well end up with no net gain in market development...just another way to do the same things we already do, with all the same constraints. Yes, it re-arranges the deck chairs...but they are on the deck of the Titanic.