Actually, the application I have in mind involves filming a
life-threatening operation and sending the streaming video to the MD expert
who couldn't be there in person.
Seriously, high-bandwidth wireless applications will become more popular.
Bandwidth is like closet space. There's never enough of it.
Priscilla
At 02:45 PM 10/30/00, Chuck Larrieu wrote:
>To clarify further, at this point in time what you have is really a return
>to the old 10baseT hub, if you will, with all the bad things that may
>entail. On the other hand, it might be argued that those most likely to want
>this mobility are management types who want nothing more than to read their
>e-mail during boring meetings ;->
>
>This discussion can go in a number of directions from here. But in general,
>high bandwidth users are probably not real good candidates for this kind of
>mobility anyway. Most places I know of have their conference rooms wired for
>high speed LAN connections to accommodate those who need high speed
>connectivity during meetings and presentations.
>
>Also, I have this theory that for a good percentage of mobile users,
>wireless connectivity to e-mal and customer name and address databases is
>really al that is necessary. Palm or some similar wireless device would be
>more than enough for these folks, assuming the back ends are in place.
>
>Chuck
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
>Irwin Lazar
>Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 2:11 PM
>To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
>Subject: RE: Wireless LANS
>
> << File: Irwin Lazar.vcf >>
>Something to note, the 11MB is shared by all users of the base station, they
>don't each get 11MB.
>
>Irwin
>
> > Slow? How many end-users (not servers or datacenters)
> > really need more
> > than 10 megabit of bandwidth? Unless you are an engineer or architect
> > pushing around 100 meg Autocad files or an IT department
> > deploying software
> > packages and updates, the average desktop user, who is opening Word
> > Documents, surfing the Internet, and viewing email do not really need
> > anything more than 10 megabit for day-to-day needs.
> > Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't deploy anything under a
> > 100 mbit today, with
> > the exception of wireless, but do the _majority_ of end-users
> > really need
> > the bandwidth that they have available to them?
> >
> > Perry J. Lucas
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> > Priscilla Oppenheimer
> > Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 3:34 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: Wireless LANS
> >
> > 1. It's pretty slow (< 11 Mbps shared bandwidth)
> > 2. Mobile wireless is fraught with issues. How do you get a
> > new IP address
> > when you move from subnet to subnet? (Of course, that's not too
> > straightforward on wired either, come to think of it.)
> >
> > Priscilla
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________
> > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
>
>_________________________________
>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
>Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________
Priscilla Oppenheimer
http://www.priscilla.com
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
