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: George Gilder who wrote (6980)	3/24/2004 9:41:17 AM
From: Peter Ecclesine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Hi George, >>I am all for an increasingly wireless local loop, but I find the peer-to-peer wireless mesh unconvincing.<< Being inside the 802.11 ESS Mesh group, I find packet radio experience all around me. Plenty of demos, plenty of contracts being awarded. >> It strikes me as a nirvana notion that tends to distract attention both from existing cellular advances and from feasible fiber deployments.<< I find Reed Hundt's calls for the nation spending $400B for access a nirvana notion. About ten years ago Japan was fixated with FTTH, estimating a cost of $500B, or $900B if the fiber had to be buried [$400B for extra trenching]. >> 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. << Then came radios that route locally in a global context. You might look at IEEE 802.11-03/266r1 for an example. >>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.<< Speaking of pipeless dreams, who pays to bury the fiber? petere