|
The wireless that was announced two years ago has
none of the high cost characteristics you mention. It was faster than 20 MB and
capable of getting to 100 MB, and the cost to perpetuated beyond the 30 miles
was comparable to the consumer cost of reception....which was less than what a
homeowner now pays for routers and modems. In short, there were no high
costs. That is why it is hard to understand why this approach is not being
undertaken.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 6:47
AM
Subject: [amibroker] Re: OT:Two DSL
Services
Just to chime in on this as I used to be in this
business.
Wireless deployment is the most expensive type of deployment out
right now. Granted the long term revenue stream will net back all of
the expense involved and without having to have a commitment to a
Bell
operating companies for backhaul it is well worth the effort and
expense. The problem is 2 fold with it as it stands
currently.
Maximum non-line-of-site deployment is limited to 5 miles from
tower
to home. Maximum line-of-site deployment is limited to 25
miles
(this is on a good day with a clear view of the source and
destination). And deployment cost per tower. Carriers are spending
in the neighborhood of $250,000 per tower to get the speed and
distance. Just aa bit ouot of the reach of most start-ups.
So when
wireless arrives it will be great but until someone ponies up
the money to
do it it will never achieve what it can really be.
Verizon offers a
good wireless service but it is not fast enouogh yet
to get my
attention. Maybe for others it might work, just not for
me.
Hope my thoughts help.
Gene
--- In
amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "wavemechanic" <wd78@xxxx> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
Michael Robb
> To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 5:05
PM
> Subject: Re: [amibroker] Re: OT:Two DSL
Services
>
>
> wm - as noted in my note, the
FCC has approved use of electric
lines for broadband. See
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/15/technology/15power.html?
>
> As mentioned, we no longer need it.
>
> "10 to 100 MB wireless transmission with reception
assured by
small cigar-shaped antennae was introduced two years ago; it
is,
naturally, in existence nowhere (except a few small private
real-
estate developments where the developer is the transmitter and the
owners/lessors are the receivers. Why? Because the technology is too
good - It has a range of 10 to 20 miles,and too cheap - parts cost
about the same, or less than individual home networking devices used
now."
>
> wm - Oh, I don't know about not needing
it. Once you leave
simple home or limited area-type installations
for the "big wide
world" things get very expensive. Ask the
Australians who got it
recently (maybe they have a market in the
boonies). I'll opt for an
electiric line that is competitively
priced vis-a-vis DSL, etc.
Anything that is not competitively
priced, reflecting $$$ to get
things going, etc., will not fly,
imo.
>
> Maybe we agree about something....but not
this. How could it be
preferable to plug into rusty copper?
when wireless is available
that extends 30 miles (beyond the last power
pole...or anywhere
else) at the same or less money? Maybe it's
a matter of preference.
OK. Let the buyer decide. FCC is not a competent
technology Czar, is
it? Look at dial up. Why should they be
permitted to stifle wireless
in favor of rust? But they are.
Otherwise we would have had the 30
mile wireless last year, not this rust
belt relic, Dear Mother.
>
> wm - as noted above the
Australians might be interested in the
boonies (non-electified).
However, if a electric wire (does not
rust) goes to your place and it is
significantly cheaper than
wireless, wireless is dead. Electric
utilities have the
infrastructure in place and appear able to deliver at a
competitive
rate, and the FCC has OK'd it. So most likely it will
fly. I don't
know the story of FCC and wireless and what problems
wireless has in
our airwaves, but based on Australia's experience it will
not fly
because of cost (about A$350). I have no axe to grind and
just want
good, economical service, which electric seems to have the
potential
to offer. Only raised this subject to find out if anyone
knew the
status and not to debate the merits. Enuf ced. We'll
see how things
play out.
>
>
> Check
AmiBroker web page at:
> http://www.amibroker.com/
>
> Check group FAQ at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/files/groupfaq.html
>
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your
group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an
email to:
>
amibroker-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
Check
AmiBroker web page at:
http://www.amibroker.com/
Check
group FAQ at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/files/groupfaq.html
Check AmiBroker web page at:
http://www.amibroker.com/
Check group FAQ at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/files/groupfaq.html
Yahoo! Groups Links
|