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: ftth who wrote (21882)	6/6/2007 12:26:56 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 46821

ftth wrote: "we have enough platform choices and sufficient competition therein; innovate within these." The tragedy of the few? I can't help but note how apropos your statement above is to the Cathedral-Bazaar dichotomy from the "Ignorance of Crowds" article we've been discussing. In fact, much of your post reads like it could have been a sidebar piece written specifically for that article. FAC ------

To: ftth who wrote (21882)	6/7/2007 1:30:46 AM
From: Rob S.	Respond to of 46821

Yes, that is correct, this is an interim step. I heard about htis in Vienna as if it were a 'done deal' but have read 802.16 and other communications since that point out final decision will issue latter. I recognize the opposition but think it is very unlikely to defeat the effort. The arguments that there is not a another technology needed are mute imo: LTE is an entirely new air link that is 100% incompatible with current networks. The evolution that Ericsson and others talk about is higher order compatibility to which WiMAX will for the most part comply, even up through hand-overs and billing systems provided outside WiMAX. The argument that a new system based on a new set of technologies that has worked itself through world wide standards efforts and on to develop a development infrastructure of over 450 companies and meets the requirements of regulatory bodies should not be granted a seat at the table is arbitrary and capricious: If governments and operators don't see the need for additional technology platforms and they don't wish to use WiMAX, then so be it: let the market decide. The fact i that OFDM will become the core technology for 4G whether it is called WiMAX, LTE or China's FuTURE 4G system. IMT-2000 is not likely to open up that much opportunity for WiMAX but it does set the stage for IMT-ADVANCED. Ericsson, Qualcomm and a few others oppose WiMAX because it dilutes their position of dominance in the future of wireless. What would anyone expect? Meanwhile, E argues that LTE will come along in 2009 and be 'evolutionary'. What a self-serving example of crock! And Q continues to publicly say that WiMAX has few merits.. even while they have morphed FLASH FH-OFDM into something that looks very similar to WiMAX (Adaptive modulation, etc.) and accelerate develop and acquisitions of MIMO-OFDM and related areas of technology. If CDMA is extensible via MIMO to become 4G then why develop OFDM at all? DoCoMo has been a long term developer of 3G-3.9G systems and has proposed a B3G Super G alternative. But they are also doing development and trials of WiMAX. If it doesn't work, they are unlikely to use it. What should rule are open markets and open mandates for use of technology. But the link technology is hardly what describes what will be new in 4G: the major shift is to higher bandwidth enabled via the spatial domain. And it is open, all you can eat variety IP personal broadband access. This would come about regardless of WiMAX but WiMAX forces more immediate consideration of the disruptive shift. Some of the incumbent service providers are supporting WiMAX because they would rather be in front of new trends than get side-stepped by them.