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: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (11155)	8/31/2005 3:39:53 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Respond to of 46821

there are a couple of issues...first, packethop is notorious for making incredible claims (and getting funding on those claims) and never delivering a functional product. but this claim is absurd "But PacketHop's system allows an unlimited number of users to be added to the network. The more users that are added, the stronger the signal becomes because of redundancy" these are single radio systems and therefore they all have to be on the same channel. This means that the more hops from the root, the more bandwidth degradation there is. Whether it is a client or AP, the system is still bound by the characteristics of radio frequency communications. the only way to avoid the bandwidth degradation and increased latency is to go with a multi-radio system where the backhaul to the network root is on a separate fequency than the client service. A two radio system is better than one, and a three radio system is better than two. Tropos is a single radio mesh system....and they are having serious issues at their latest installations (most notably Chaska MN and Oklahoma City). Single radio systems: Tropos, Locustworld, Meshnetworks Two radio systems: Nortel, Firetide, Colubris three radio systems: Belair, Strix, MeshDynamics I'm sorry, but the packethop guy makes it sound like ad-hoc client networks are something new. To me it sounds like they are putting lipstick on a pig...an old pig, not a young pig. VoIP on 802.11b is a bandwidth hog. Cisco calculates the number of simultaneous VoIP calls to be 14. cisco.com There are other claims of up to 17 calls, and I am aware of efforts being made to increase the number by a factor of four. If there are any other processes running on the client devices forming the mesh, I can't even fathom how they would make any claims of predictable latency. This is horsepucky, several products can do this. But PacketHop seems to be unique in creating what it terms a mobile mesh, which forms and reforms as wireless notebooks and tablets come within range of each other. These clients can also connect to any fixed conventional wireless LAN access point. A recent police department pilot also made use of directional antennas and a radio amplifier, both mounted in the squad cards. PacketHop executives say the higher-power cards have a range of 1,000 to 2,000 feet, compared to typical indoor WLAN ranges of around 300 feet. In the pilot, the special antenna and amplifier boosted the range to nearly a mile. Let's talk real life. Directional antennas? On a moving vehicle? right...LOL! yeah, yeah, yeah, the vehicle will be stationary, but can we expect first responders in an emergency situation to tweak the antennas to bring up the network? The only reasonable configuration would be to have low gain omnis so that you don't have to worry about direction or elevation changes. Of course, this greatly reduces the range, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. But it does show that packethop is truly using the thickest reddest lipstick that they can find. IMVHO....of course

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (11155)	9/2/2005 1:45:34 AM
From: axial	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Frank, while not familiar with PacketHop, I'm inclined to share BenWobbles' scepticism. As far as VoIP is concerned, the capability isn't mentioned. The following statement probably attempts to disguise the reality: "• Voice Traffic decreased: Voice radio communications were reduced by as much as 70% during the exercise." packethop.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Given the realities of emergency communications being discussed here, the PacketHop claims, and the cute Flash demo: packethop.com - - - are questionable. I think Ben nailed it. Jim