Mark van der Hoek:

As for investing in wireless -- anyone considering it should take a HARD look at the demand for high speed mobile data. Look at the Metricom disaster. Yes, they spent money like drunken sailors. But poor management aside, where were the customers? They weren't there. They just weren't there. Where are all the customers lining up for Sprint's (and other's) fixed wireless Internet access? They aren't there. They just aren't there. DSL and cable access is geographically limited. There are tons of potential customers who cannot get either one. If the demand for high speed Internet were what it is touted to be, Sprint should be having trouble keeping up with the demand. Instead, the response has been so poor that they have stopped marketing, preferring to hold on to existing customers and hope the demand picks up. Someday. And that's for FIXED Internet access, a much larger market than mobile access.

And who wants mobile high speed Internet access? A few road warriors. Where do they want it? Spread out, over the city, a perfect market for 3G. IF 3G can deliver it there. 1xRTT can't. It's higher speeds are limited to locations close to the sites. Out at the cell edges, speed drops to 9600, no faster than current CDMA data. Which nobody wants. Even if 3G services become all they are cracked up to be, we still have to ask the question, "Where is the market? Where do people want this service?" Yes, the road warriors sometimes want it in their customers parking lot. But mostly they want it at the airport. At their hotel. At places where a wireless LAN can, and will, be available, no thanks to Mr. Cellular Carrier. And no revenue, either.

The Internet is a useful tool, but those of us who are techies often lose sight of the fact that not all of the world is enthralled with it. We used to say, "If we build it, they will come." But the novelty of the Internet has worn off. It's a useful tool, but it's not magic. There is no new economy, and the old rules still apply. Always have, always will. Will we see the demand some day? Almost certainly. But not this year, and not next year, and probably not the year after that. The wireless industry's free ride is over. It was nice while it lasted. Now they'll have to work for their revenue. They'll have to build the networks and eat the losses until the demand slowly builds to profitability. It's not a game for the get in get rich get out crowd.

Dave Mock (Dave Mock's site -- external link)

Mark's opinion of making money by investing in wireless is consistent with mine. The opportunities to buy into network operators and expect the growth akin to 3-5 years back just won't happen. The growth model that everyone latched onto in 1999 is gone - a new approach has to be taken (ie - it's not a no-brainer anymore). I think a new phase will open up where the opportunities shift to applications, software, niche markets, etc. I don't think 802.11 will kill 3G cellular but it will steal some lucrative opportunities due to it's lower cost too. The best thing about 3G may end up just being its capacity for extending voice services...of which the U.S. is still missing out on until we resolve our spectrum issues.

| Permalink | Comments (0)

Tom:

I have completed a manuscript that discloses the true story about who invented the telephone. And, it was not Alexander Graham Bell. The manuscript is currently with a literary agent who has some interested publishers. I have literally thousands of pages of research and some here-to-for undisclosed information that shows a clear line of invention and documentation that though Alexander Graham Bell should only be given credit for having received a US patent for a device that became known as a telephone. My book will conclude that history books and encyclopedias should record that Antonio Meucci was the first to successfully and repeatedly transmit speech through an electrical wire, i.e., should be recorded as the inventor of the telephone. This manuscript also shows a definite connection between Antonio Meucci and Alexander Graham Bell and A. G. Bell's father-in-law. If you'll send my your mailing address I'll provide you with some published sources of information

Russell Pizer

Dear Rusell:

I wish you well with your manuscript. If a low standard of proof is observed then Meucci, Dolbear, Gray, or Reis may be credited with inventing the telephone. I will not agree to a low standard. It is true sometimes that the wrong people are credited for an invention. Morse, for example, did not invent the telegraph, Edison did not make the first incandescent light bulb, and Marconi did not originate radio. But all three are given credit, in the main., for inventing these things because they published their findings and brought practical systems first to the marketplace. Unlike the previous three, however, Bell's claim to being first to transmit intelligible speech is well documented.

Like Gray, Meucci claims Bell stole his ideas. This means Bell must have falsified every notebook and letter he wrote about his conclusions. Nothing in Bell's writing, character, or his life after 1876 suggest he did so, indeed, in the more than 600 lawsuits which involved him, no one else was credited for inventing the telephone.

It is not my mind alone that you must change, nor even that of the public, it is the mind of the world scientific community. They will demand a high standard of proof. Again, I wish you well with your writing. I think it not necessary to prove that Mecuci invented the telephone, I am sure his is an interesting life to write on, proven claim or not.

Best regards,

Tom Farley

| Permalink | Comments (0)