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 (21942)	6/9/2007 11:49:34 PM
From: Peter Ecclesine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Hi Frank and Rob Cisco's Winning Telepresence By Mark Veverka, Barrons THE LONG-AWAITED PROMISE OF VIRTUAL MEETINGS has arrived, and it is only going to get better. When I touted videoconferencing micro-cap Telanetix (ticker: TNXI.OB) two months ago (Plugged In, March 26), an editor asked: Haven't we been talking forever about how telecommunications technology is supposed to reduce business travel? Why now? Excellent question, and I have an answer: It works. Because of that column and a previous feature story on WebEx, which is now a unit of Cisco Systems ("Why WebEx Will Shine," June 12, 2006), I've received a flock of offers to check out their competitors. There is something for everybody. At the lower end is WebEx, which is a desktop videoconferencing solution whose upside is its utility for workers to collaborate on different continents over the Web. Then there are Telanetix, Polycom (PLCM), Hewlett-Packard's super-high-end Halo (HPQ) and Cisco (CSCO), which developed its own higher-end solution prior to purchasing WebEx. Last week, I gave Cisco's version a whirl, and it was impressive. I interviewed internal start-up chief Marthin DeBeer from San Francisco while he was in San Jose. By the end of our meeting, I had forgotten that we weren't in the same room. Honestly, it's that good. "This isn't videoconferencing," DeBeer implored. Videoconferencing is so last century and usually implies a Web camera and a personal computer. This incarnation is called "telepresence," which sounds a little Star Trekkie but, understandably, tries to create distance from the industry's underachieving past. Like it or not, the moniker is here to stay. The first TelepresenceWorld trade show was held in San Diego last week. An episode of the Fox television drama 24 gave folks a decent idea of how Cisco's system works. (You can watch it at www.telepresenceworld.com.) It requires a devoted room, with three high-def video panels (a one-panel option is also available), mounted cameras, screens for slides and a crescent-shaped meeting table. This setup gives you the feel of a conference room, allowing participants to look each other in the eye across the table and even hear voices coming directly from the person talking via an audio speaker under his or her image. Most important, the pictures and sound are crisp, without disruptive delays or glitchy interference. Cisco's 60-inch plasma screens boast high-definition TV technology that twice exceeds current industry standards. Lastly, it's CEO-proof: A meeting can be set up using Microsoft Outlook, and the call is launched by the touch of a button on a Cisco VoIP telephone. Retail cost for a three-screen telepresence room is $299,000 and $79,000 for one panel, which is suited for executive offices (Cisco CEO John Chambers uses his frequently). The expense, including installation and upgrades, runs about $10,000 a month over three years, DeBeer says. What's more, it is an all-you-can-eat proposition, with no monthly fees because it runs on enterprise broadband. Still skeptical? Cisco claims it's eating its own dog food. It created 18 rooms for its own use 18 months ago and is up to 120, with each operating an average of five hours a day. Says DeBeer: "Telepresence is like chocolate. You must taste it to know what it's like." I must say, it tastes pretty good. == Whatever 4G turns out to be, we do not know it now - we haven't tasted it. petere

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (21942)	6/11/2007 10:25:24 AM
From: Rob S.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Thanks for the extensive comments. I'll change the message.. the posts need to be edited and supported by references to studies and independent opinions. 4G has not been fully defined yet: the ITU has laid out goals and 3GPP/3GPP2 and WiMAX have responded with initial road maps on how to evolve to meet these goals, but we are a few years away from 4G. I don't think 5G will become a goal for at least 4-5 years. But I see your point. A reason for calling it 4G is to provide a concrete banner upon which equipment and service providers can participate to sell goods and services. If you take the ITU definition of 4G as being 1 Gbps fixed-nomadic, 100 Mbps mobile, low cost, granular deployment, etc. then WiFi can be seen as fitting into the general framework. I encourage WiFi Alliance and other groups to position WiFi as part of the evolution of 4G, which I believe it is. The purpose is altruistic but has to be rooted in commercial and political benefits. To clarify what is different and enabling about what wireless can deliver over the next few years from what has long been envisioned and promised boils down to it being low cost, open IP Ethernet extension. What is different is reaching a threshold for bandwidth and coverage under flat rate or high cap plans that makes it practical for people to stay 'always connected' with the same services they have wile in their offices or connected to DSL or cable BB Internet access. Arguably, 3.5-3.9G cellular has evolved to be high enough in bandwidth and low enough in cost to be similarly enabling. However, the reality is that caps will become standard practice and price parity with wired service won't be reached. A major focus of Green4G or Green wireless BB is that as it reaches price parity of wired and metro scale and RAN range of service, it fills the gap that has existed for implementing the 'always connected' vision that is needed to cut the physical connection between worker and the information based work, education and services that much of business, government, entertainment, and personal communications are now comprised. When I have studied the plans for 'Business 2.0' and similar visions for shifting operations from location based organization to information flow and personnel resource organization, the remaining weak link is need to have an always connected/in-touch the 'first mile' connection to the individual. Without filling the gap, which can only be done with untethered wireless BB, plans for this new age of business and government organization fall short and organizations are forced to cling to commuting into offices even for those jobs that are entirely information based. Also, for practical societal reasons, people must have he comfort of always being connected with the same connections they have in their office. No virtual conferencing connection totally replaces the need for person-to-person direct interaction, but if the goal is to replace time behind a screen at the office with time connected at remote locations, then with the always connected 4G vision, telecommuting can now fit in to enable a major transformation. -Robert Syputa