Posted on 07/26/2005 4:04:49 PM PDT by Mike Bates
"wireless sucks!"
Dude, it's a killer app, and a main driver in laptops exceeding desktop sales.
People like it, and use it.
The next killer app is cellphones able to roam on WiFi nodes.
Cordless phones operate on 900MHz, 2.4GHz (802.11b&g), as well as 5.8GHz.....there are interference issues, yes.....it's a matter of Access point placement, most of the time.
As for your microwave - maybe you need to get a new one. Your existing one might be leaky - my experience is that they aren't as bad an interferer as you indicate (cordless phones are worse).
Now we've got WiMax coming along - probably another killer wireless app - especially when the mobile standard is released.
WiFi CAN be adequately secured depending on your specific data - I wouldn't run classified data on it (without additional encryption) but it's "good enough" for most purposes. The biggest problem is just getting people to enable it.
We agree though, gov'ts shouldn't get involved in "Free" wifi schemes.......it most assuredly isn't "Free" and their competitors are highly taxed by these same gov'ts - so if they'd forgoe the francise fees and other taxes that they levy, then it's a more level playing field.
"Qualcomm is a loser company.
I dont see too many Qualcomm cell phones, do you?"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! *ahem* Qualcomm sold their cellphone business to Kyocera, and most of their basestation business to Ericsson (I think) They license their technology.
The margins on cellphones are exceedingly small. One reason is that Qualcomm gets a BIG taste of the revenue from every CDMA cellphone sold. Now, what would you rather do?
Run a manufacturing facility, product development, and all that goes with keeping ahead of the curve, or let someone else do it and pay you to use your technology?
Qcomm made the right choice.
Sort of like getting tech support from the IRS? /maniacal laughter ensues
Seriously, it's none of the guberment's business. Like that ever stopped them.
They answered unanimously - NO!
Sure, as it stands right now, the government could get those IP logs from a privately-run ISP. But they'd have to get probable cause that a crime has been committed, go to court, and obtain a subpoena from a judge.
With the government as the ISP (shudder!), they just yank the records from their own database without all the legal fuss.
Why make it easier for them to intrude on our activities than it already is? Heh heh.
"What are the folks who live in rural areas and places where the cable and phone company will not install broadband to do"
This won't help those rural areas, at least not on a large scale.
I live in one of those areas. The gov't is not going to install "free wifi" for me, because they can't backhaul it cost effectively.......same reason why the cable company doesn't provide cable and DSL isn't available. It just costs too much money to run fiber to backhaul the WiFi to the internet.
Certainly not. Qualcomm has a vested interest in broadband wireless becoming as widespread as possible. Every broadband wireless handset or device (notebook PC, Blackberry, etc) that is sold increases QC income. QC has done everything in its power to accelerate the adoption of the latest, fastest, greatest bandwidth technologies. The faster that all happens, the more chipsets Qualcomm sells.
I think satellites are a good investment also.
How is the public interest served by restricting internet access?
How much does Qualcomm spend lobbying DC,Cali and San Diego legislatures?
How much is a CEO's time worth?
In the amount of time money and energy Qualcomm spent lobbying govenment, for the same money San Diego could have stood up a wireless network with decent coverage of the downtown area.
If someone has a clue - and there are hobbyists that do -
this could probably be done with under $20k not counting network access.
Some good Senao and Cisco AP's and cable and antennas and some sweat putting the antennas up. Some people do it for fun.
I find it less than ethical and a bit hypocritical when Qualcomm lobbies the feds for CDMA in Afghanistan and Iraq and the US and wishes to keep lowcost wireless broadband out of their hometown by lobbying and lawyers in it's own downtown.
Corporate self interest is all well and good.
My question to you, which you have not answered - is how much San Diego and the State of California are giving Qualcomm in tax abatements. How much are taxpayers and cell phone users going to have to pay to get broadband internet access in San Diego? $50-$75-$100 a month?
How much is EV-DO going to cost?
If I remember correctly; Qualcomm was in cahoots with the folks who sold sattelite technology to the Chinese and two failed Sattelite telephone operations. I dont think those corporate shenanigans are much to be proud of.
As well as being Dhimmicrat sponsors.
Hope you are happy.
What do you mean?
I have TWO cordless phones (two different #'s) next to my computer which is about 10 feet away from my microwave oven. My wireless computer connection always works. Maybe I don't understand what you were trying to say???
Bullshit.
I have an upstairs office and my walls don't lend themselves to wiring.
If not for Wireless, I would have cat 5 running all over my house or I would have to spend weeks trying to figure out how to run the cable.
With wireless, it was install the router, configure and go.
You can configure the channel, you know so it doesn't interfere with your phone. If you are a "computer and networking professional" you aren't very good at your stated craft. I feel sorry for whomever you work for.
Yeah it sure is a loser company. Jacobs promised UCSD $100 million for thier $1 billion fundraising campaign.
Yeah Qualcomm is a real loser company!
He's trying to say he doesn't understand wireless or he has some incentive to lie about it.
Oh, ok, I see.
I wonder what his beef is??
We have three computers on wireless and they all work fine...
Hope you got all your retirement money in QCOM if it's such a great moneymaker.
And answer the question as to how much qualcomm gets in tax abatements in SD, and Cali.
If they have billions to blow, then they should not get tax incentives and rebates on corporate tax and taxpayers should not have to subsidize their existing by force of law. (FCC)
Where is Globalstar and Iridium?
These were Qualcomm partners. Both went bankrupt.
Qualcomm had a bit to to with illegal technology transfers to the Chinese as well as being great rat and Clintoon supporters.
You need to do a search on Loral,Globalstar,Bernie Schwartz
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1129220/posts
http://www.skyenetwireless.com/
I think he makes a living from long runs of CAT-5 and crimped connections.
I'll say this one more time: Qualcomm makes its money from high-speed wireless chipsets. The more widespread that internet wireless becomes, the more money QC makes. To say that Qualcomm is trying to limit wireless internet is to say that Qualcomm is working to limit its own income.
QC was part of the Globalstar consortium, along with Loral. Loral was doing that stuff with Clintin and the Chinese, not QC or any of the other members. If your brother-in-law cheats on his wife, are you an adulterer?
Yes, Irwin is an old-time, legacy jewish democrat. And he supports the democratic party with donations. Is that illegal now? And guess what? All the conservative engineers on his payroll at QC (which is most of them) give our donations to the republicans. I'll say this for Irwin, there is never a hint of politics at work; how to vote or who to give money to.
And speaking of giving money, he's given away most of what he's made out of Qualcomm. $140 million to UCSD, $100 million to the SD opera, tens of millions to various school projects around town, more I can't remember offhand. Irwin gives it away like it was water. If he thought your internet thing in downtown was a good idea, he'd have done it. He did do it at UCSD.
Ah, this is pointless; you've got some kind of a grudge against QC, and it will forever be the Evil Empire to you.
Good night now.
Friend....
Qualcomm is right on this, but not for the reasons you seem to think I believe.....
Yes, it serves their interest for commercial wireless to be rolled out.
Why do you think it hasn't been rolled out? I'd guess because there is no critical market mass to support it - or maybe because there are regulatory/tax hurdles, or maybe zoning hurdles, or maybe all of the above.
You think that forbiding "free" wifi is restricting internet access? I think it's just the opposite. Follow me here.....anything the gov't provides will not be run effectively. Technological evolution will be slow, if at all, and service will SUCK.
If it's free, then EVERYONE will use it in place of, say, a tax-generating T-1 line....at least until they get sick of it not performing to their needs.
Then there is the whole issue of "Free".....it won't be free. Taxpayers will pay for it....and it will be substandard, just like all things the gov't gets involved in.
To your points about Qualcomm.....they lobby....lots of companies do. Their competitors do. Hell, in Europe, they have basically OUTLAWED Qualcomm technology - unless, of course Ericsson rolls it out as a variant. How's that for lobbying?
Qualcomm is a great success story. They are smart folks. and I have no interest or relationship with them....but I respect the way they have managed their technology and intellectual property......there are some funny stories about how they've been running roughshod over Ericsson. They licensed them their technology, but they didn't tell them about the stuff they DIDN'T patent that Ericsson has to figure out....it'll take them a couple generations of handsets to get there.
I have no idea if San Diego offers them incentives to stay,( you didn't ask me....) but since incentives are the norm in many cities, these guys would be a better target than most companies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.