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 : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Ecclesine who wrote (6976)	3/24/2004 9:04:15 AM
From: George Gilder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

I am all for an increasingly wireless local loop, but I find the peer-to-peer wireless mesh unconvincing. It strikes me as a nirvana notion that tends to distract attention both from existing cellular advances and from feasible fiber deployments. Wavelength muxing is demonstrably practical, and there are several million customers for Qualcomm's EVDO in Japan and Korea. But an endless shuffle of radio paths and handoffs is a latency and reliability nightmare. I find that the U.S. technology community is increasingly preoccupied with pipeless dreams and increasingly uninterested in actual technologies that are advancing a headlong pace in Japan and Korea, which while we were out gained a 40-1 per capita bandwidth edge. --GG

To: Peter Ecclesine who wrote (6976)	3/26/2004 10:58:23 AM
From: ftth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

re: The ultimate emancipation is the peer-to-peer all wireless network, which is agnostic to control. The all wireless network is intrinsically personal and routed at every radio. It uses all frequencies legally available (e.g. 3.1-10.6 GHz) on a where and when basis. Any circuit system will be so drastically impersonal that it will succumb to wireless. On the lighter side...in order for that to materialize there'd have to be a substitute slogan for "we got our wires crossed" and "we're not on the same wavelength." Somehow I don't think "our spreading codes aren't orthogonal" will catch on ;o).