IP: Re: Cisco closes out on their WT-2700 Fixed Wireless Product Line

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>
>
> [Note:  This item comes from a reader who doesn't wish attribution. My 
> thanks to the reader for their candid comments.  What is said here makes 
> good sense to me.  DLH] {and to me djf}
>
> > To: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () dandin com>
> > Subject: Re: Cisco closes out on their WT-2700 Fixed Wireless Product Line
> > Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 22:45:18 -0800
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> >
> > Dewayne:  No attributes, please!!!
> >
> > There's really no scoop.  The commercial market for
> > fixed wireless isn't really there, unless you're a
> > small player and still working off of VC money, where
> > you have to justify your existence by a number of
> > trials.  Sprint, AT&T are out of the business;
> > WorldCom had a major layoff of their fixed wireless
> > folks (Tony Klinkert is still there).  They've delayed
> > (or cancelled, depending on with whom you're speaking)
> > deployments this year, and all along, they were the
> > most likely candidate to succeed (they were
> > emphasizing the business model, rather than
> > residential). Nucentrix is not really buying either.
> > While the FCC "opened" up the frequency band to the
> > mobile application, there's no deployment until all of
> > the licensees arrive at sharing agreements, similar to
> > PCS.  And, there has been no let-up with the band
> > requirements.  So, if you were a licensee with no
> > current plans of deployment, there may be no harm in
> > holding onto the frequency because you might gain by
> > signing with the big boys for the mobile application.
> > Any FCC build-out requirements for the band, might be
> > easily be postponed, given the softness of the
> > economy. Whatever gets built in the band has to have a good,
> > solid, business case.  Granted the 3G pico cell
> > technology (self-install/no truck roll) has the very
> > wonderful advantage of a high take rate (pick one up
> > at Fry's/Best Buy), however the cost of the numerous
> > cells for their shorter range does not solidify the
> > business case.  With 3G, the carriers have accepted
> > lower data rates as well.   Lower power is required
> > due to the SAR limits in a Class B (residential)
> > environment.   The 3G design looks more like a
> > Ricochet II experience, which is why there has been
> > few trials and little excitement for the industry.


For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/