""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Howard makes good points. Let me offer another view, perhaps more > >mainline-business" oriented, vs. the very special requirements in > >medicine (which I do appreciate -- I'm alive, thank you, > >radiologist and surgeon). > > > >The increase in productivity due to wireless is believed to > >come--and I can't be more specific than "believed" since I don't > >know the quality of the supposed studies--from capturing value in > >otherwise wasted time, and/or from making qualitative > >improvements in the work environment, leading to more output from > >the extant inputs. Whether it is a good idea in the long run to > >capture the work that could be done when not at the desk (via > >802.11 systems) has not been assessed; we are gathering much > >empirical evidence, though ;-). Personally, the time away from > >the desk is most useful to me--I decompress, and I think. > > Perhaps you have some perspective from your Air Force days on whether > having constant communications available is, in fact, a good thing. > My impression is that air traffic controllers, tactical controllers, > etc., have enforced rest breaks, unless emergency conditions require > otherwise. > > Wireless -- or perhaps more correctly, ubiquitous communiation (a > term from Xerox PARC) -- may increase total production, but at what > error rate? Does it result in quicker burnout?
I like Annlee's direction - just because I as a wireless user am more productive, is there a hidden hit to the productivity of others? I.e. more distractive noise in cubeland, higher support costs, both in terms of infrastructure and help desk support ( more calls about connectivity problems as I roam about, being "more productive"? ) There remains the bandwidth question. How much is enough. Check out the Long Reach Ethernet presentation at http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/video_audio_archive/?video about 3/4 down the page. seems like Cisco is saying that 5 megabits is more than adequate for AVVID applications. which means that a reasonably well thought out wireless infrastructure offers all that most organizations require for such apps. > > Working at home, I used to keep a laptop in the bedroom, but I only > do that now if I'm sick enough that I can't get downstairs to my > office. I do keep a notepad, colored pens, etc., in the bedroom. > Indeed, sometimes when I have creative/writers' block, it's very > helpful for me to switch modes -- write rather than type. I will even > do what I'll call Zen Design -- relax on the bed, thinking about a > design problem, and even drift off to sleep -- and I'll very > frequently wake up with a key insight. > > > > >Improving the work environment qualitatively may be as simple as > >giving people the chance to work while getting up and moving > >around--not being chained to their plow, er, desk. If this makes > >people more comfortable overall, the theory goes, all their work > >will improve overall. Theory really is a wonderful thing, and > >qualitative improvements do matter. Whether this is among the > >ones which actually help is moot--I recall being grievously > >annoyed in my cubicle days by people whose conversations made it > >hard for me to work--getting their voicemail over a speakerphone > >was a pet peeve. Someone walking around my work area chatting on > >a portable phone could make me go postal if I need to concentrate > >and can't. > > > >But, as Howard said, this is one of many potential tools in the > >kit. In a sense, it may make our job harder, since we will need > >to be able to recognize the appropriate tool to solve the > >problem, which puts us squarely in the problem-recognition > >business. And we may need to persuade customers they don't need > >the gee-whizziest tool; the same amount of money could provide x, > >y, and z, or they could simply spend less money. Probably not an > >argument that will go over well in your present job, I know. But > >I have a customer who keeps coming back--because I keep finding > >him the most economical solution for the problems I've identified > >which he is choosing to solve this month vs. deferring. Every bit > >of business not deferred further comes back to me. > > > >But that's a long-term view again, and many businesses don't feel > >they can take a long view; the stock market may punish them too > >severely. > > > >Annlee > > > >Chuck Whose Road is Ever Shorter wrote: > >> ""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote in message > >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > >>>What's the medium cost between the two cities? Can you use demand > >>>circuits as a backup? Can you live with one more PVC and trust the > >>>physical connection? Is QoS-unpredictable cable or DSL available? > >>> > >> > >> > >> Funny you should ask this, Howard. I've been struggling for several weeks > >> how to pose the question. Have we, the engineering / technical sales > > > community oversold the idea of dedicated bandwidth and QoS? > > > > >> Take, for example, wireless. > >> > >> Wireless is essentially a step backwards. For years we have been > convincing > >> customers to get rid of their hubs and move into a switched domain, with > >> dedicated bandwidth for every user. This is often done in the name of > >> productivity. Fewer interruptions of data streams, meaning work completed > >> faster.Now all the wireless vendors ( Cisco included ) are producing > >studies > >> showing how wireless is increasing productivity to the tune of an hour a > >> day. On a shared contention medium. Cisco will shortly release their > >> wireless telephone as part of their AVVID suite of products, competing > with > >> the SpectraLink product that has been available for a couple of years. > >> > >> All this gives one reason to re-evaluate what we have been told for the > >last > >> couple of years. a contention medium provides the means for greater > >> productivity? > >> > >> You mention QoS in your response above. QoS is something being pushed as > >> necessary for voice, video, and other delay sensitive traffic. Cisco > >> wireless AP's offer one way quasi QoS. Wireless, however, remains a > >> contention medium, and will remain so until the FCC changes the rules. > I'm > >> not sure they will be able to release sufficient radio spectrum to permit > >> all the bandwidth and services that wired can. But wireless is so damn > >> convenient! > >> > >> I'm not suggesting that dedicated bandwidth to the desktop is a bad thing > >or > >> that there is not need for QoS. However, I'm wondering how all of us > might > >> reconcile two seemingly opposed points of view regarding bandwidth and > QoS > >- > >> recognizing that wireless, whatever it's limitations, is here to stay, > and > >> will become and remain essential to any and all networks, enterprise or > >> small business, going forward. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72668&t=72645 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
