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 (14760)	4/24/2006 8:46:08 AM
From: elmatador	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 46821

Elmat Mail to our account manager last week: Knowing that this (I'm in Dubai) a real estate based economy. Let me exercise my sales juices here: Indoor coverage was a second thought 15 years ago when charges were high, terminals were expensive and people were used to rely on the fixed line. Today? Indoor coverage is THE deal!! Today mobile is used MORE indoor than outdoor Customer wireless user pattern is: almost 50% placed when indoors, those are studies findings not mine. Operators already know that improving the low performance of in building networks is one of the key solution to improve service. Placing a call outdoor here in the U.A.E in summer? Placing a call outdoor in Finland in winter, and where is forbidden in-car call? When was the last time your fixed line phone rung here? Can a business case be built for that, if economical or technically feasible? Propose for to real estate developers to build a *** indoor coverage solution under the following shared model. * provides project management and the licensed spectrum plus the infrastructure to carry the calls. Real state owner pays for full indoor solution costs. The benefit for developers would be that they would be allowed to charge a roaming fee to any * customer calling from within there. * would share the money but would build an installed base cheaper and much quicker that the traditional way of doing from outside looking in or secure indoor foot print paying nothing. The benefit for * would be to remove all complications of building the network in a traditional manner. Both * and * would benefit of a much faster rollout since the real estate owners have an economical interest in the outcome. TARGETS: First: Semi-private developers building the so-called 'intelligent buildings' and who are investing a lot in the visibility of those type of projects. Target buildings that are just being completed. Second: Then we could also approach with the existing big properties that have already coverage: all major hotels, airports, Malls, Emaar or Nakheel propose for them the same thing. Possibilities: It would still be seen, by the law, as in the competitive spirit but would 'squeeze' * out of those properties. (Did Bill Gates got that money being competitive?) * can try copy the strategy, but being a monopoly they move too slow, and by the time they understand the model *** is ahead in the game. If any other owner would like to share revenue from a roof top or from a site from across his street, it can be argued that it is in an open air and as such cannot be control access and he would never afford the costs of building to have a right to share the revenue.

To: Peter Ecclesine who wrote (14760)	4/24/2006 1:42:06 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 46821

Excellent, Peter. Great imagery. "These repeaters become 802.11s mesh, and install like nite-lites" I view this as the penultimate blow by the forces of commoditization to the egos and paychecks of networking professionals the world over. Whouldathunk that Seidenberg's basement call quality dilemma would be solved through the periodic placement of night-lites. The only improvements that I could envisage at this time that would make this story complete would be the addition of color-coordinated, programmable air-fresheners and neutralizers with inaudible microburst sprays and a web cam as part of night-lite's, er... I meant to say, "repeater's", standard design. FAC