[IP] more on Spectrum Gold Rush
Begin forwarded message:
From: vijay gill <vgill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: August 31, 2006 11:50:17 AM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Spectrum Gold Rush
This seems an appropriate time to bring up the Moore's law
(observation) post again. Moore's Observation when applied as a
blanket statement is naive at best and actively harmful at worst.
I don't understand why this is so hard to get across.
As an addendum to what Jim posted below, see this earlier message on
IP a little while ago on basically the same subject, also addressing
the backbone "infinite fiber capacity" myth.
http://lists.elistx.com/archives/interesting-people/200505/msg00025.html
/vijay
David Farber wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Jim Innes <innesj@xxxxxxxxxx>
From what my clients (primarily the "Big Four" wireless carriers)
and I see
for the foreseeable future, meeting these requirements will still
involve
many, many thousands of cell sites at $150-600k capex each, with
expensive
field maintenance operations infrastructures, monthly recurring
costs for
backhaul to large hardened switch sites and antenna site rentals,
and radio
base stations with backup power and HVAC, high performance
antennas, and
thick, heavy low loss RF transmission lines to make it all play.
IMHO these last few items alone would seem to be highly resistant
to any
Moore's Law effects on their costs of manufacturing, deployment, and
operations.
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/