SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   Technology StocksThe *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum


Previous 10 Next 10 
From: Frank A. Coluccio8/16/2009 10:52:38 PM
   of 46820
 
[Opinion:] Who Pays for All This?
Dr. Barry Sullivan, IEC | Aug 16 2009

We seem to live in an era of broken business models. The stress test of an economic crisis will expose weaknesses that go unnoticed in better times, which might lead one to expect a surge in the rate of bad assumptions and false premises detected in times like these. That may be true, but it doesn't answer how we pay for the things we thought we had covered.

Cont.: bbwemedia.com
--

FAC: So what do you think? Has the author a good point, or has he been standing much too close to the Kool Aid stand for too long a period of time? Is there a problem with the industry model that he's not facing up to? Me thinks there is. It's called the onerous overhead of back-office billing and scarcity-management systems, where tens of billions are spent annually across the sector to support a model whose time has passed, and without which new opportunities for profitability might easily, in fact I'm certain that in many cases would, emerge. But who is going to be the first large operator to risk tossing out billions of dollars worth of back office systems to see if this hypothesis holds water? Listen, it's not as though an unconstrained connectivity model would be supported gratis. Subscription fees would still be applied. It's the things that the incumbents "do" with those fees that I am mostly questioning here. Thoughts?

------

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (31007)8/16/2009 11:09:34 PM
From: ftth
   of 46820
 
I think it would be more correct to say that regulators often write unenforceable quid pro quo language into regulations, with a predictable outcome.

Might consider shifting a bit of the blame, or even most of the blame, to the regulators. They get what they give.

It isn't even necessarily the case that a given company itself made any promise, they just saw the language as unenforceable (whether by design or by ignorance) or inane, so they stayed silent on the matter, knowing it wouldn't matter in the end.

Why focus on companies? "People" will often agree to conditions they know aren't plausible, in exchange for getting what they want.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: ftth who wrote (31009)8/16/2009 11:15:31 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio
   of 46820
 
Good point, ftth the poster, although I'm not so sure that I'm any more comfortable knowing that the condition is as systemic and all-pervasive as you are suggesting, rather than just being able to point a finger to large companies that are usually top-heavy with capital ;)

------

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (31010)8/16/2009 11:26:24 PM
From: ftth
   of 46820
 
re: "I'm not so sure that I'm any more comfortable knowing that the condition is as systemic and all-pervasive as you are suggesting..."

I wasn't meaning to suggest that. Kushnick was the one that used the word "always."
I just used the word "often," meaning "less that always" but more than "never." That gives me a wide, unenforceable range to say I'm right ;o))

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


From: Frank A. Coluccio8/16/2009 11:26:50 PM
   of 46820
 
Russian and Belarus Telcos to Begin Deployment Of EPON Fiber Networks
August 16, 2009 | The Being HAD Times <sic>

According to Teknovus, a developer of access chips and embedded software for the FTTx market has announced that Russian and Belarus telcos have begun deployment of EPON fiber networks using the company’s products.

Broadband penetration in Russia is expected to grow from 18 percent in 2008 to more than 28 percent by the end of 2010. Many Eastern European telcos are following the EPON testing and deployment process adopted by China Telecom (News - Alert), which began with evaluations of PON technologies in 2006, and now, has more than 14 million EPON-based subscribers throughout the country.

Paul Runcy, director of carrier marketing at Teknovus said they are delighted about the wins in Russia and Belarus that have a combined population of more than 145 million people.

“Eastern European telcos and national governments understand the importance of high-speed fiber access communications for business and residential services and for national growth and prosperity,” said Runcy.

Teknovus’ offerings support EPON at 1G, 2.5G and 10G speeds and allow for the delivery of advanced triple-play services like IPTV (News - Alert) through optical fiber networks.

In addition, their solutions ensure carrier-grade service management with guaranteed bandwidth per service per user.

Premier Electric, which distributes electronic components and modules for the telecommunications industry in Russia and Belarus, is one company supporting Teknovus’ EPON projects in Eastern Europe with communications equipment vendors like General Datacomm, Angstrem Telecom and Mikst.

According to Pavel Katlerov, marketing manager at Premier Electric, Russian and Belarus communications equipment vendors are enabling their respective service providers to cost-effectively deploy fiber-based access networks.

bhtimes.blogspot.com

------

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: ftth who wrote (31011)8/16/2009 11:29:47 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio
   of 46820
 
Nicely, and undeniably plausibly, put.

-----

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: Frank A. Coluccio8/17/2009 12:10:44 AM
   of 46820
 
Consumers are Drawn to E—Reader Convenience but Seek Tactile Experience
6 August 2009 | cellular-news

E-reader adoption has piqued some interest among consumers, but according to a new report from market research company The NPD Group there is still some consumer convincing to be done. While 37 percent of consumers surveyed expressed interest in purchasing an e-reader, more than 40 percent of consumers said they were "somewhat uninterested" or "not interested at all."

Cont.: cellular-news.com
--

FAC: Leaving the e-readers alone for a moment, some of my longest-standing 'romances' with hard copy editions of my favorite mags have been utterly ruined by publishers bringing their content to Web zines exclusively, or bastardizing their delivery by bifurcating between the two media. It particularly pisses me off when they employ subtle measures to discourage use of the hard copy by ever-reducing the font sizes (I think one of my regulars is now down to an 8pt font) and altering the coloration and contrast levels of print against background in the hard version. Yeah.. yeah.. I know, I'm just getting older and can't see as well as I used to, I know. But, what I'm saying here is true just the same. After being unable for years to get users to "opt" into using e-zines through email polls, they'll now use tactics to get their way, anyway they can, even if it means resorting to subterfuge and feigning ignorance about how they're doing it. Don't get me wrong. It's sometimes nice to have access to the zine edition too, as an option, but I find that when they are the "only" option they're wanting, since they are not as portable and convenient for knock-around reading, and frankly I don't find them as ergonomically pleasing and enjoyable to read as their tactile kin. So there! I'm glad I had this opportunity to bitch a little. Now I can go to sleep.

------

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: ftth who wrote (31009)8/17/2009 12:35:47 AM
From: axial
   of 46820
 
When you consider the degree of capture, and the regulator's historical failure to enforce regulations already on the books, I think it's fair to say the regulator's decisions favor the companies.

That is, the regulator acts for the companies - to the even when companies are clearly in violation the law, and defrauding taxpayers of billions.

Intentionally vague language is merely part of s duplicitous strategy, designed to make regulations opaque and infinitely arguable. That's how the regulators disguise the extent of capture.

Hair-splitting distinctions are merely part of the game. Clear, intelligible regulations are the last thing status quo players want, in the same way the financial sector wants maximum obfuscation in credit-card agreements: to increase the likelihood of end-user ripoffs, and the probability that challenges will be accompanied by protracted and costly litigation.

Does anybody seriously believe promises, if made, cannot be enforced? That clear agreements, demonstrably upheld, are beyond our ability?

Jim

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: axial who wrote (31015)8/17/2009 1:58:24 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio
1 Recommendation   of 46820
 
You've made some good points too, Jim, to add to ftth's.

I'm convinced that some of the most inexplicable and bizarre circumstances and conditions exist throughout any given area of interest (be it local politics, industry groups, labor organizations, the corner saloon clique, among college alumni, you name it) based on the dynamics of cultural memes within each of those areas. I've never understood (maybe someone here, or a lurker looking in, will be kind enough to explain it to me?) how the regulatorium could ignore the claims made by Bruce in his exposé of the $200 Billion ripoff, and do so without even an acknowledgment of being in receipt of the message. Not even to stand up and say Bruce You're Wrong about this.

Now I could be all wet about this, but the only thing that I've been able to gather concerning the latter is that through some means of don't-bother-me-with-the-facts and, as if through an act of executive fiat, the powers that be decided to grant forbearance and forgive the commitments earlier made by the telcos to actually build what they had earlier claimed they'd build if they' were granted (which they were) the rate treatment that they'd asked for and received. Hence we come to “Kushnick’s Law” – 'A regulated company will always renege on promises to provide public benefits tomorrow in exchange for regulatory and financial benefits today.'

In some ways it's similar to how the underground cash world operates, a lot of see-no, hear-no, speak-no evil going on. Things have changed somewhat in my neck of the woods, when taking a view of the whole, compared to twenty years ago in some of the accepted practices in the building trades area. But for a time, the memes possessed by landlords and certain factions of labor and even field engineering forces of large vendors, for example, made it perfectly reasonable for even the most prestigious and bluest among blue chip organizations to overlook subtle acts of extortion (oops.. I mean 'customary practices') that were acted out in order to get work done after hours or through the use of the 'freight elevator', or in some other marginally non-ordinary circumstance.

[Yeah, ya give a guy a tip if ya appreash what he's done fer ya, but after the fact out of yer own digs, not outta yer client's.]

I recall once refusing to play ball, which resulted in my being very close to being asked to end an engagement because of it. In that instance an associate stood in for me when he saw I was unwilling to budge and arranged to donate several tens of thousands of dollars (obviously, this was being done with the complicity of the client) to a given entity's "retired members disability fund" in order to get an installation deadline honored for a project that had some very serious Fed compliance-related repercussions associated with it, if missed.

No one except I even flinched. OK, so I'm a wuss in this respect, but a wuss who prefers to remain squeaky clean nonetheless. It was as if...so what, dude... what do you care? It's not as though it were your money!

It was all very normal and customary. A part of the culture. This meme was freely and unabashedly shared throughout the collective, top to bottom, is my main point. I sense that a similar meme permeates the regulatorium. Some may notice, but no one speaks, hence no one else ever gets to learn about it, much less cares. Yet, bizarre occurrences appear to unfold regularly, and when all else fails the answer is: Forbear it. Again and again and again until you've created a revolving door of forbearance.

I suspect that the latter would be the explanation, were anyone to bother answering Bruce's claims, concerning the now-infamous 45 Mbps lines that were once promised but never installed in NJ and elsewhere during the Nineteen Nineties.

So whaddayathink? Ya think it's time I assumed an alias in these parts? Eh?

------

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (31016)8/17/2009 3:24:24 AM
From: axial
   of 46820
 
"So whaddayathink? Ya think it's time I assumed an alias in these parts? Eh?"

Maybe. It's a question of degree isn't it? Nobody works in a completely honest system. Not judges, not cops, not purchasing departments, not governments, not unions.

"Yet, bizarre occurrences appear to unfold regularly, and when all else fails the answer is: Forbear it. Again and again and again until you've created a revolving door of forbearance."

When does forbearance become acceptance? I don't know, but at some point we begin to realize there's no practical difference between our supposed "morality" and that of the Banana Republics we disdain.

Then, we're not just talking about petty graft by low-level players, we're contemplating systemic corruption that goes to the highest offices in commerce and government. In many cases at present, corruption occurs in so many sophisticated ways that it's indistinguishable from business as usual.

Are we there yet?

Jim

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10