Hi, Ray -
I posted the Seybold link, without comment, for a number of reasons. The rumor of T's possible switch from EDGE to GSM is biggish.
In the last few months we've seen an increasing number of posts remarking on the capacity 'glut' (or lack of same), the
cost of 3G spectrum, the necessity of having first mile providers pump out bandwidth-using services to fill all that unlit
fiber, and finally, the consequences, down the whole chain, if we hit a recession.
In that context, there were also the questions about whether 3G was imminent, plausible, necessary, or realistic.
One can get an informed opinion to support just about any point of view one chooses.
I agree with that point of view that says that the average Joe, right now, doesn't give a big red rat's ass about any of
this stuff. I recently read an article that reported that hardly anyone, among British users of interactive TV, was using
the full suite of features: the internet was being neglected. Well, these surveys mean almost nothing, unless you can examine
the quality of the measurements. Still, is it likely that Mom and Dad are sitting in front of the telly, watching their
favorite shows, instead of surfing the 'net? I think so. Mom and Dad might be the norm now, but what about 10 years
from now?
Going a little deeper into the 'target demographic' of someone who would use such services, you get the same sort
of profile as those who started trading stocks on the internet, banking on the internet, and so on. You know,
better-educated, higher earnings, blah, blah, blah.
But it's now five years, roughly, since the internet went mainstream, and there's a half-generation of kids who have been
brought up, and educated, to 'get it'. Another generation is starting soon. The meaning of the term 'average' is changing.
The internet, and interaction with it, is unremarkable to the 'new' average Joe. The Luddites will never vanish, but the
proportion of them, to more sophisticated users, will change.
But if someone could magically produce an integrated wired/wireless solution, now, with messaging, sufficient to run, say, Excel in real-time, then I venture that most of the readers of this thread would want to have it. Could I live with the 'net on my laptop at 128K (using cHTML or the like, not some WAP kludge)? Certainly. Gladly. There's certainly enough buzz around Metricom and Ricochet. And if differentiated service is available, offering 256 Kbps for a price, I'm certain that first-to-market will find many takers among the 'target demographic'. The leader won't have problems, but the followers might.
My point is, as I posted before, is that there's no doubt that a downturn, a recession, can have a crippling
effect on the dreams of connectivity, wired and wireless. The consistent result of such an event is devaluation, a
shrinking of both supply and demand, and consolidation among the players. The bubble always bursts in the absence of easy
money. I believe that the anticipated buildout will be so demanding of capital that it will bring, again, the interplay
of financial forces, the engines of capitalism, in a manner reminiscent of the railroads, the airlines, and the automobile.
The winners will be the players with the deep pockets, and the ones who have not overstepped themselves in the recent
euphoria. There will be losers, the telecomm equivalents of Studebaker and American Motors.
So, yes, there could well be a short-term downturn in bandwidth demand, and in the ability of the first/last mile to light
dark fiber. But there are many factors (which have been previously discussed) that indicate, long-term, that the demand for
bandwidth, and the demand for last mile connectivity, will return, and grow.
Financial markets always revive; we want to anticipate the next wave. |
