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: Rob S. who wrote (20230)	3/14/2007 12:36:41 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 46821

Rob S., I've sensed, and asked about, the tensions that exist between .11 and .16 in the past, as well as those between competing .16s, .twenty-somethings, and 3Gs, as well. Explanations often cite scale and dwell on the efficiencies of one format or protocol suite over another, and such arguments are usually skewed by the interests of those being asked. I tend to think that the nature of the point solution being sought actually has a lot more to do with it, where cost optimization and budgetary constraints are key. For example, where a small community requires backhaul for its local hot spot or remote users, .11 when done right might suffice. Some .11 configurations done with directional antennae, in fact, when bonded, can double the aggregate link rate of the base protocol (minus some penalty) for backhauls. The same solution, however, would fall short when the job calls for higher speeds at greater reach and user densities. Of course, when mobility at the vehicular scale is required, as you noted, we're talking about a different level of needs again. Would you agree with my above assessments? In any event, thanks for those synopses. In any event, I often find it quite edifying reading your posts. Thanks. FAC ------