| To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (30987) | 8/15/2009 1:16:37 PM | | From: elmatador | | | | generator charges mobile phones' batteries. the generator will be on at night anyway, so lets sell phones batteries charge.
there is no electricity in the majority of the county outside cities. |
| | The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: elmatador who wrote (30979) | 8/15/2009 4:18:02 PM | | From: Frank A. Coluccio | | | | re: "I even think here that LU and NT bit the dust because they were mired in the North American view of how technology should be developed. While the wireless guys not having that 'memory' of a wired centered mindset focused on other possibilities."
Interesting and largely true, although I wouldn't yet suggest that LU's going anywhere anytime soon. But to put it a bit differently, I'll borrow a snippet from another discussion, courtesy of poster saraw:
Begin snip: "Over the past 40 years, it has been pretty clearly established that play is the single most important 'driver' of a child's cognitive development. Play has no "purpose," and achievement is certainly not the major focus in play--a category from which I exclude board games and computer games, which are typically developed by adults for children. Child's play is invented: it's make believe, it's imaginative, etc. Perhaps Eric Hoffer said it best:
'We are more ready to try the untried when what we do is inconsequential. Hence the fact that many inventions had their birth as toys.'"
--/snip
------ |
| | The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: elmatador who wrote (30981) | 8/15/2009 5:34:09 PM | | From: Frank A. Coluccio | | | | Elmat, this post was perhaps your most pertinent one of your recent run. I think it deserves some further attention, and I thank you for sending it this way. You noted:
"When you explain the technology, of your posting, you explain the technology that can be applied to that original OECD 1 billion consumers. Cannot be applied to the 5 billion. It is a niche market."
The significance of the 1 Billion market could not be any more profound than it already is to the future of the 5 Billions. That the 1 Billion market is stuck in the mire of its own remedies is another set of anomalies I'd gladly discuss, but therein lies a key benefit in itself: the opportunity to identify shortcomings, which only adds to the potentialities of untainted marketplaces. If each successive Billions segment didn't leapfrog each preceding one, then there'd be somethng drastically wrong taking place.
"Of course there are some pockes of consumers among the 2.5 billion in the big cities. But the vast majority is way out there beyond the reaches of the wired central office architecture."
This is mainly true, but absent the "numerical magnitude" of the 5 Billions market, don't the same conditions hold true in the boondocks of any nation, whether OECD or not? It's also true that we've been seeing similar forms of "wireline" leapfrogging taking place in our own domestic markets, especially those that have gone without any form of high-capacity connectivity up until now. Although, the same spirit of adventure does not appear to be prevalent in the wireless space, largely due, IMO, to the near-total dependence that has been placed or assumed by (or taken, or bought or otherwise obtained through whatever market-winning means) for the implementation of 2G and 3G wireless -- on the same incumbent actors who support wireline connectivity, which is a condition in itself that is worthy of further discussion, IMO.
------ |
| | The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2) |
|
| To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (30990) | 8/15/2009 5:48:20 PM | | From: elmatador | | | | coincidence again! my friend just sent me some photos burned pole.He works for my previous project. Fiber metro Luanda
The locals ask for what are the poles: fiber for telephony.
They say: "we do not need telephony, telephones we have already (he means mobile). we need electricity." They burn the poles in revenge. If they put the poles they put electric wires on them before he passes the fiber
 |
| | The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3) |
|
| To: elmatador who wrote (30991) | 8/15/2009 6:42:34 PM | | From: Frank A. Coluccio | | | | Elmat,
That's a fascinating story. That citizens who've already been sated by mobile would burn poles that were designated for fiber, or that they've in some cases already commandeered those poles for their own electric distribution purposes, says volumes.
I don't suppose your colleagues were very successful at convincing the natives that their wireless capabilities would also increase by several orders of magnitude through the addition of fiber. Nor do I suppose that the fiber operator affiliate of yours ever considered dual-purposing the build to include both electrical and fiber distribution.
It's a very interesting problem that you've illustrated, indeed. Thanks for posting about it here.
FAC
------ |
| | The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (30990) | 8/15/2009 6:51:17 PM | | From: ftth | | | | re: "Although, the same spirit of adventure does not appear to be prevalent in the wireless space, largely due, IMO, to the near-total dependence that has been placed or assumed by (or taken, or bought or otherwise obtained through whatever market-winning means) for the implementation of 2G and 3G wireless -- on the same incumbent actors who support wireline connectivity, which is a condition in itself that is worthy of further discussion, IMO."
Not the most coherent sentence you've ever written ;o), but the long history of mobile telephony, from the late 60's up to the late 90's, had a lot of "adventure" actually. Much of it didn't involve the incumbents (they weren't even that interested in mobile cellular after the break up of AT&T), but after various startups proved and developed the markets in both cellular and PCS (ignoring the cellular lotteries which were a sidebar adventure in and of themselves), they all eventually sold out to the incumbents. Even the incumbents sold out to the incumbents. And here we are. |
| | The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: ftth who wrote (30993) | 8/15/2009 7:18:16 PM | | From: Frank A. Coluccio | | | | That's pretty funny. Your last line, I mean: "Even the incumbents sold out to the incumbents. And here we are."
I was reminded by your message about how the regs seemingly (if not in fact) conspired with the incumbents, for all of the years you accounted for, to constrain alternative forms of wireless communications, conceding only in a scant few areas, albeit where monopolists already had a hand-up in the process, or in some very limited "pioneering" types of spectrum awards that were granted in support of multimedia distribution innovations.
Cellularvision, in particular, which was granted its pioneer license during the early Nineties, comes to mind here. A quick search of Cellularvision reveals how even its pioneering status didn't stop the incumbents from setting their sights on the company for co-opting it. Witness:
findarticles.com
BTW, there's no entry for Cellularvision in Wikipedia yet, which is a telling message, itself. I should get my netosciate & friend Shant on this immediately. Shant Hovnanian, president of Speedus (the name that Cellularvision later assumed), I should add, was at the helm of the original launch when Cellularvision began serving homes in Brighton Beach, Brooklyn during its pilot phase. The following NY Times article from 1995 sheds a good deal of light on the competitive landscape of wireless communications during the era:
F.C.C. Proposes Dual Use For One Part of Airwaves
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: Friday, July 14, 1995
nytimes.com
--
While there currently exist some latter day alternatives to those earlier "adventurous" approaches, they're mainly in the ISM bands or are also packaged under lotteries, as we've spent a sufficient amount of time discussing during the recent past, or they are silo'ed under a proprietary design under a single vendor's control.
Your earlier point was well taken, incidentally, concerning my opaqueness of style in presenting one of my main points -- although, if one takes the time to read it enough times and tries really really hard, it actually begins to make perfect sense. Also, as the creator and moderator of this board, isn't it one of your primary functions to catch this sort of thing before the edit timer runs out?
------ |
| | The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (30968) | 8/16/2009 2:07:46 AM | | From: Frank A. Coluccio | | | | Mind Jogger: The Gaia Hypothesis
The Gaia hypothesis is an ecological hypothesis proposing that the biosphere and the physical components of the Earth (atmosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere) are closely integrated to form a complex interacting system that maintains the climatic and biogeochemical conditions on Earth in a preferred homeostasis. Originally proposed by James Lovelock as the earth feedback hypothesis, it was named—at the suggestion of his neighbor William Golding—the Gaia Hypothesis, after the Greek supreme goddess of Earth. The hypothesis is frequently described as viewing the Earth as a single organism. Lovelock and other supporters of the idea now regard it as a scientific theory, not merely a hypothesis, since they believe it has passed predictive tests. [Continued]
From Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org
------ |
| | The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| |
