There's no reason any one of them _has_ to win... That's the beauty of the Internet, as long as we're all talking the same at L3 and up, we can still communicate, whether it's wireless, cable, or IP over Carrier Pigeon...

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by drogers
[B]There's no reason any one of them _has_ to win...

 

DSL will die, 'cause phone lines suck and are already tapped out. More badwidth through phone line means higher frequency (analogue, remember), higher frequency means decreased range, decreased range means that to get DSL much faster they will pretty much have to put a relay station in every house.

 

Back in March this year, the FCC held a meeting with the major Wireless carriers (ATT, Sprint and Verizon) about plans to bring the US into 3G era.

Each had agreed to take on the challenge, as ATT is already licensed to provide GSM mobile services and will be operating in a year or so, who recently deployed GPRS technology in the US mobile communication market ..... seems like they are a step ahead.

Sprint and Verizon, both agreed to invest 2 and 5 billion dollars on Lucent's 3G router, and by the end of 2002 they will be able to allow 128k to up to 768K (about 12 DS0) on wireless data transmissions. So Verizon said, then we have to upgrade our residential network up to speed otherwise who needs land line to get connected anymore ?

See all the phone companies digging up your neighborhood lately ? or the cable tv trucks swinging by every other day ? everyone is fighting for the pie .......

Whats your opinion on what the market is favoring ?

 

I think cable will win in the short term since there are so many dsl horror stories and how bad the customer service is. The problem with wireless/satellite services are, the more successful you are, the more capacity you need. If you can't add capacity, you'll just slow everyone down. For a satelliute service, adding extra satellite bandwidth is a pretty costly proposition. You have to either rent more transponder space, or shoot up another bird.

 

I waited 3 months trying to get a DSL hookup, then gave up and had a cable modem installed the next day. It's a little slow at time, but beats the hell out of 56k (ha!) over phone lines.

The reasons for the death of DSL have already been well stated. I believe that wireless service will continue to improve and become much less expensive. As a former employee of Qualcomm with a few shares of their stock still in my portfolio, I'm also rooting for CDMA, with its potential for much better utilization of the spectrum.

None of this rules out some breakthrough advance that may be in an R&D lab somewhere already.

cal

 

What's wrong with DSL? I get two static IP's and a shell account for $60/month. It's always plenty fast and the customer service is rock-solid. The only problem was getting Verizon off their asses, which is hardly my DSL provider's fault.

I don't like cable modems because I don't like cable companies. My house will probably always be DSS and DSL, on principle alone.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mstw
[B]Back in March this year, the FCC held a meeting with the major Wireless carriers (ATT, Sprint and Verizon) about plans to bring the US into 3G era.

Each had agreed to take on the challenge, as ATT is already licensed to provide GSM mobile services and will be operating in a year or so, who recently deployed GPRS technology in the US mobile communication market ..... seems like they are a step ahead.

Sprint and Verizon, both agreed to invest 2 and 5 billion dollars on Lucent's 3G router, and by the end of 2002 they will be able to allow 128k to up to 768K (about 12 DS0) on wireless data transmissions.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sunchild
[B]What's wrong with DSL?

 

Cable ratio to DSL or any other Broadband Connection is 3 to 1 always been and no change in site even with Direct Satellite Broadband.
Some Cable Providers do give provision static IP but you might have to request a business account rather than a home account.

Tan

00 Red S2000 w 18" Volk 3 PC GTN Polished Lip 10 spoke Gunmetal.