Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Frank Coluccio Technology Forum - ASAP -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: wonk who wrote (540)	11/30/1999 7:48:00 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 1782

wonk, I found your post # 540 [directly linked upstream] interesting on several levels, but difficult to pin down to a central theme. A problem that we face when assessing the wisdom of these deals lies in attempting to forecast and predict their implications over time, without taking into account the evolutionary processes which are ongoing and which are bound to change the very context of how we would have asked the questoin if we knew better. I dare say that predictions made today, on the basis of assumptions which are founded in historical precepts, are all but worthless in this field -- and in a growing number of other situations, as well. For example, the premise in my question was: "What's to stop T from using the proceeds from the wireless tracker for capital requirements within their cable operations?" Of course, I'd be the first one to suggest that maybe T's cable and wireless platforms oughtn't remain distinct to themselves, but instead should, in fact, form a single hybridized form of service. Such a service would deliver high transmission capacity to the residence or business by whatever medium made sense (HFC MMDS LMDS)and deposit it into an HDR nodal device (a la Qcom's or BlueTooth version x), on prem. From there, wireless could take over to a majority of the the end points throughout the structure [or all enppoints including TV, if local compression and channel selection were used instead of fat pipe broadcast to TVs]. I know, I'm going off onto one of my hybrid fiber/wireless (HFW) tangents again, but it still seems entirely plausible to me. Besides, I'm only using it in this instance to make this point to demonstrate the plausibility of: If T wanted to reallocate the wireless tracking proceeds, they'd find a way to do it and keep the wireless moniker associated with it, one way, or another. And the way that I've suggested here makes a lot of sense, IMO. I believe this to be consistent with the natural outgrowths and tensions which exist between these technologies as each seeks a form of betterment to the whole through the attributes of the other. Cable's HFC (and the ILECs' FTTC/FITL/IFITL) fiber solutions bring dedicated high capacity to the structure, and wireless (either from within the structure or from a neighborhood launch point) permits the ease of mobility. If the variant in question happens to be situated directly in the home (i.e., cable running off the pole and into the living room), then perhaps one part (TV) will continue to be attached directly from the box via cable, while other applications ('net access, telephony, etc.) might be supported by BlueTooth or some other in-home wireless technology. Well, we all know what happens next. If these different components can be identified, then it stands to reason that they can also be unbundled, integrated with, or otherwise coopted onto someone else's invoices. Why is it that I think that I've seen this movie before? I know... it's because I have, and I even make reference to it in the following link. I saw it most recently agaom when I watched the endless list of companies and their subcontractors who got involved to simply get my one DSL line installed in my Broadway office (it's still not complete). Message 11947694