Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 0
When discussing the "last mile" concerning broadbanding to the home and office, how many here believe it will be done wirelessly as opposed to cable or fibre? It would seem much easier if the technology was there to do this. If so would QCOM CDMA be a big winner?


Any thoughts appreciated

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

A couple of thoughts come to mind immediately -

1. Privacy/security concerns with all the wireless data floating about. It will be too easy to tap and abuse.

2. I don't think there would be enough spectrum to have wireless broadband in urban areas. It would probably required too many frequency channels to spread the traffic around and still maintain quality of service. Remember, voice channels only require a fraction of the bandwidth of broadband channels (roughly 6KHz vs. 6MHz). Perhaps in rural areas with reduced source/destination pairs, it might make econimic sense.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Although your question seeks an answer at the macro level, I can share an anicdotal observation, and wonder if it won't hold at the macro level.

My neighbor was one of the first in the neighborhood with wireless high-speed. About two years ago, I noticed He had a small diamond-shaped antenna on the roof of his house.

Then, just last month, I noticed the antenna disappeard. As @Home has finally rolled out high-speed Internet service in our area, people are switching to it. Maybe he didn't like the unsightly antenna attached to his house. My hunch is that @Home offered him the same or a better deal at a reduced price.

Cable runs to a lot of home in the US. If Sprint or TeraBeam want to compete, price is going to have to be less than, and their service at least as good as, @Home's. It will be very interesting to see what happens in 2003 when @Home's exclusivity agreements run out.

I think it all has to do with where they price their products. I think Internet usage -- especially high-speed Internet usage -- is highly price elastic.

Rambyte
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
When discussing the "last mile" concerning broadbanding to the home and office, how many here believe it will be done wirelessly as opposed to cable or fibre? It would seem much easier if the technology was there to do this. If so would QCOM CDMA be a big winner?

What about a company like NSATF????

AK
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
1. Privacy/security concerns with all the wireless data floating about. It will be too easy to tap and abuse.

CDMA is intrisically "safe", Encrypted signal.

AK

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
When discussing the "last mile" concerning broadbanding to the home and office, how many here believe it will be done wirelessly as opposed to cable or fibre?

If it is done wirelessly (and it will be in some places) I expect it will be done by means of fixed wireless antennae (FWA). Or as Lucent like to call it "fiberless optics". Broadcasting in non directional ways as done with Cellular technologies simply doesn't have the bandwidth to deliver the speeds required.

DD
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

If it is done wirelessly (and it will be in some places) I expect it will be done by means of fixed wireless antennae (FWA). Or as Lucent like to call it "fiberless optics". Broadcasting in non directional ways as done with Cellular technologies simply doesn't have the bandwidth to deliver the speeds required.


A lot of buzz currently centers around TeraBeam's technology, which claims speed of 2 gb/s. I'm unsure if/when they are planning to IPO.

The August issue of Red Herring touches upon TeraBeam and Last Mile data (p 58). Haven't read much on their technology so I will leave it to others to fill in the details.

Bottom line is I agree with Dingus. Cellular technology bandwidth capability may be impressive compared to today's 56kbs wired connection, but it will not compete with fiber optics nor with a TeraBeam (if and when) for the last mile.
DP
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>CDMA is intrisically "safe", Encrypted signal.

Perhaps, but I know that security experts and business leaders still do not trust it. I personally have been in a meeting when security in business issues was the topic, and we were advised that you never discuss sensitive business over a cell phone (M&A, contracts, financials, etc). Only non-sensitive material.

The point being, to tap a landline, one must obtain two things - a court order, and access to a specific set of wire pairs (assumption is you already have the tools and equipment).

To tap into wireless traffic, all one needs is the appropriate receiving equipment and the knowledge necessary to scan, filter, and decode - no physical intervention required.

It is too easy for anyone to scan to airwaves unseen by others in the privacy of their home, office, or vehicle - where they can take all the time they need to crack the streams of received traffic.

DP
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
It is too easy for anyone to scan to airwaves unseen by others in the privacy of their home, office, or vehicle - where they can take all the time they need to crack the streams of received traffic.

It is indeed too easy to crack GSM. In fact a somewhat major scandal between French intelligence and a British corporation (with the French intercepting wireless GSM communique) recently occurred.

CDMA resolves this problem almost completely. To "crack" a CDMA signal you need a multi-million dollar supercomputer, and even then good luck.

Possibly sentiment amongst business leaders right now is one of lack of trust in regards to wireless. This is well founded in regard to all wireless except CDMA. But the reality is CDMA is safer than your landline. With the landline all you need is a court order. With CDMA you need technology beyond that which exists today. Good luck trying to crack your communique even with a court order.

Tinker
P.S. Again not saying impossible, but practically impossible. At the very least it would take millions of dollars in equipment.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>CDMA is intrisically "safe", Encrypted signal.

Perhaps, but I know that security experts and business leaders still do not trust it.


That is the difference between TDMA, and it's cousins, and CDMA.

The US government trusts CDMA... Hell I remember when people believed the world was flat.. (sorry)

AK
Print the post Back To Top