> thats why intelsat and a cosortium of telcos has
> a charity that built a box that is solar powered
> and provides n gsm phones access + 1 64kbps uplink/
> downlink to geostatinary atellites
So that's what, 64/5 = 13 kbps per user? Even as current Internet designs
require ever more bandwidth and strain even multi-megabit connections? And
has anyone considered what happens when you have 6 million active ground
transceivers trying to communicate with a single satellite?
> actualyl, a LOT of places that are really poor in
> the world dont even have electricty- but they can get
> batteries and if they use sms (e.g. for calling
> emergency service/flying doctors/vets etc), they
> can make them last quite a long time
Why use SMS instead of just voice?
Has anyone considered the ergonomics of WAP? Even if it works perfectly,
how many people are willing to work on a screen smaller than a credit card?
How many people are capable of touch-typing on a keyboard with only ten soft
keys that must be pressed in various arcane combinations for almost ever
letter? It just doesn't make intuitive sense.
Anyway, I have a really good instinct for picking technology winners, and
thus far I put WAP in the same category as MiniDiscs, bubble memory, color
fax machines, and quadraphonic sound. I think the growth area is in
broadband land-based links; I don't understand why people have flown off on
tangents towards wireless when land links are just starting to come into
their own. I suspect it is more politically motivated than technically
motivated, and that is one reason why I think it will fail. A lot of time
and effort is being wasted on WAP.