The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum

STOCKTALK

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 Stocks The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum

Previous 10 Next 10

From: LindyBill	8/13/2012 11:03:48 AM
	of 46821

More on America's Energy Bonanza from CARPE DIEM by Mark J. Perry Below are some excerpts from an article today in Bloomberg highlighting America's energy bonanza and the powerful economic stimulus it's providing to the U.S. economy, including the creation of millions of shovel-ready jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars in investment: "On the eastern bank of the Mississippi River, about an hour upstream from New Orleans, the outline of Nucor Corporation's new $750 million iron-processing plant is rising between fields of sugar cane and sweet gum trees. It’s a harbinger of a nationwide investment boom spreading from the oil fields of North Dakota and the Marcellus gas shale in Pennsylvania to power plants in California and chemical refiners in Texas. A surge in U.S. natural gas development has spurred $226 billion in spending plans on pipelines, storage, processing facilities and power plants, most slated for the next five years, according to Industrial Info Resources, a market- intelligence provider in Sugar Land, Texas. U.S. energy supplies have been transformed in less than a decade, driven by advances in technology, and the economic implications are only beginning to be understood. U.S. natural gas production will expand to a record this year and oil outputswelled in July to its highest point since 1999 (see top chart above). Citigroup estimated in a March report that a “reindustrialization” of America could add as many as 3.6 million jobs by 2020 and increase the gross domestic product by as much as 3 percent. ".....there are signs the economic gains have begun to expand beyond the oil and gas fields and that the promise of abundant, low-cost fuels will give a competitive edge to industries from steel, aluminum and automobiles to fertilizers and chemicals. That would provide a boost to a U.S. manufacturing sector that has lost 5.12 million jobs since 2001 and become the focus of a national debate over how to revive factory employment. Manufacturers have added 532,000 jobs since January 2010 as the economy started to recover, Bureau of Labor Statistics data show. The expansion of fossil-fuel production -- coupled with a weak economy and increased energy efficiency -- has helped the U.S. pare its crude oil imports by 17 percent since the 2005 peak, Energy Department data show. Imports in 2011 accounted for 45 percent of U.S. consumption of crude and refined products. The department predicts the share will fall to 39 percent next year, which would be the first time since 1991 that imports dropped below 40 percent of demand (see bottom chart above)." MP: As I have commented recently, America's ongoing energy revolution is one of the real bright spots in an otherwise sub-par economic expansion, and provides one of the best reasons to be bullish about America's future.

Share	RecommendKeepReply Mark as Last Read

From: Frank A. Coluccio	8/14/2012 12:31:37 PM
	of 46821

The coming wireless spectrum apocalypse and how it hits you Small carriers are worried about getting snuffed by the deep pockets of AT&T and Verizon Wireless, and they want help. What judges and regulators decide to do could impact your wallet for years to come. by Marguerite Reardon August 13, 2012 C Spire Wireless, a small, southern wireless provider formerly known as Cellular South, has an ambitious plan to build a fast, 4G LTE network to reach its 900,000 customers. To do it, C Spire bought $192 million worth of 700 MHz wireless spectrum, which is considered some of the most valuable wireless spectrum that's still available because it can travel long distances and penetrate obstacles. But there's a problem. C Spire claims it hasn't been able to use this spectrum and hasn't been able to deploy its 4G network. It says the bigger carriers, especially AT&T, have used their market power to ensure chip designers and device makers make equipment compatible with their flavor of the technology, leaving smaller carriers in the cold. And without devices and network gear, C Spire says it's been sitting on a costly resource it can't use -- and thus can't deliver to you, the consumer. Continued, with a video of a Marguerite Reardon straight-talking interview.: news.cnet.com hat tip: Gordon Cook ------

Share	RecommendKeepReply Mark as Last Read Read Replies (1)

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (41271)	8/14/2012 12:54:11 PM
From: LindyBill	1 Recommendation of 46821

It says the bigger carriers, especially AT&T, have used their market power to ensure chip designers and device makers make equipment compatible with their flavor of the technology, leaving smaller carriers in the cold. So what do they expect the Gov to do about it?

Share	RecommendKeepReply Mark as Last Read Read Replies (1)

To: LindyBill who wrote (41272)	8/14/2012 1:18:49 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	of 46821

Good question. If this were a single carrier, that would be one thing. But here the implication is that two dominant carriers are benefiting from a common (presumably quasi-proprietary) chip design. Given this, I suppose that, if the effect is to create an environment that excludes outsiders, hence implying restraint of trade, and if this could be traced to collusion, then, is it unreasonable that some form of inquiry, or possibly intercession, might come into play? ------

Share	RecommendKeepReply Mark as Last Read Read Replies (2)

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (41273)	8/14/2012 1:25:15 PM
From: LindyBill	1 Recommendation of 46821

and if this could be traced to collusion, then, is it unreasonable that some form of intercession might come into play? How? Sounds like sour grapes to me. You build your network with what's available. If the equipment available is not as good or as cheap as what you competitors are using, "tough toenails." You should have known that coming in. You certainly can't expect some manufacturer to build you cheap, lower volume equipment.

Share	RecommendKeepReply Mark as Last Read Read Replies (1)

To: LindyBill who wrote (41274)	8/14/2012 2:40:47 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	of 46821

There has never been a good reason to suspect collusion leading to anti-competive activity, if I follow your logic. Never mind the fact that the "spectrum" in question, despite who bribed the government to "own" it, is a public resource? BTW, the expense comes deeper into the network, not the cost of chips alone, but likely the effects on billing & who is allowed to support the iPhone, for example, and other features requiring engineering that are, in all likelihood, considered "proprietary" (or very close to being alike) to the larger actors' architectures. And when have we seen this before - despite it being far more egregious, arguably, and going for the most part unnoticed? How about with the more explicit DSL Joint RFP, and a half-decade later in the form of a Joint RFP for FTTP gear in the residential wireline space? In both of those initiatives only the four, and then three RBOCs defined the specifications, thus dictating where economies of scale would exist, despite suboptimal designs for the purposes of the majority of competitors needs. Agreed, there's nothing new here, but allow me to ask you bluntly: If the two top players in a space were in fact acting in collusion to exclude all other competitors, would that be okay in your view? -- Anyway, on the lighter-yet-deeper side of commentary, our friend Bob Frankston only moments ago sent the following message to the Open Infrastructure Alliance board: I find this concept of backhaul strange. What's the BFD about getting an IP connection to a tower? The real problem is in the completely weird idea of licensing colors. I'm thinking of starting a NGH (Next Gen Haberdasher) by getting the government to grant me an exclusive right to blue. Imagine what I could do if I owned that color. OK, perhaps I can be more precise with the exact shade of blue. The FCC (Federal Color Commission) would be charged with policing 100% of the distribution channels for anything cloth-based and certifying all dyes used in the process to assure that the color usage confirms to standards and doesn't interfere with other uses of colors. Perhaps we should call it Ultra Royal Blue. Of course this is expensive but a $1/Shirt surcharge would cover this and with a regulated price $100/shirt (worth it because they would last 100 years) who would notice. We could have structural separation by keeping the cloth business separate from the shirt business. It would make it easier to use the colors for other purposes as long as they did not cause interference. ------

Share	RecommendKeepReply Mark as Last Read Read Replies (1)

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (41275)	8/14/2012 2:50:02 PM
From: LindyBill	of 46821

If the two top players in a space were in fact acting in collusion to exclude all other competitors, would that be okay in your view? As long as they were not using the Government to help them do it. I am completely opposed to the Sherman Anti-Trust, and all of it's supplemental laws. Our big problem today, IMO, is "Crony Capitalism," where laws are passed to help one business over another. We are riddled with regulations, tariffs, etc, to support one business over another. Just get out of the way of the rest of business dealings if they don't involve the use of force or fraud. Get people on the Right to accept that there is nothing wrong with a non-coercive monopoly is one of the hardest things I know of to do. Those of the Left? Don't bother to discuss it with them.

Share	RecommendKeepReply Mark as Last Read Read Replies (1)

To: LindyBill who wrote (41276)	8/14/2012 3:13:53 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	7 Recommendations of 46821

Please stay on point, dealing in principles, rather than proselytizing over your political perceptions. The latter are temporal, at best. Cronyism, especially, could shift from right to left, back and forth, ad nauseum, just like a pendulum with the periodicity of every four or eight years. ------

Share	RecommendKeepReply Mark as Last Read Read Replies (1)

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (41273)	8/14/2012 3:27:04 PM
From: Cautious_Optimist	of 46821

Monopoly (or oligopoly) capitalism is not a free market and does not maximize the wealth of a nation. Nor does it optimize superior technological innovation. Like a sports referee maximizing fair competition under constantly improving rules, it is a desirable role for government to ensure the level playing field and rules for business battle. As Alan Greenspan learned from the financial services industry, amoral "self-regulation" is ultimately not sustainable. Even Adam Smith abhorred monopoly. Ultimately such matters left to the players end up expensive battles between enterprises, in court, which is a massive economic cost; where deep pockets is the virtual value proposition.

Share	RecommendKeepReply Mark as Last Read

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (41277)	8/14/2012 3:52:16 PM
From: LindyBill	2 Recommendations of 46821

Please stay on point, dealing in principles, rather than proselytizing over your political perceptions. You asked me to tell you my stand on Monopoly, I told you. "Politics" is the study of how we interact with each other. I can't discuss my position on collusion between two companies without engaging in it. My "politics" are my principles.

Share	RecommendKeepReply Mark as Last Read Read Replies (1)