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 : LAST MILE TECHNOLOGIES - Let's Discuss Them Here -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: wonk who wrote (7838)	8/1/2000 4:30:03 AM
From: axial	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Gentlemen - Just some thoughts on your thoughts... The reason that electricity became an undifferentiated commodity was precisely because it was regulated. I recall reading a post, recently, from someone in California, who was receiving 'deregulated' power, and was subject to brownouts. And while the transport of bits may be likened to the transport of any commodity, it's a comparison that won't necessarily stand up, for two reasons that come quickly to mind. The first reason could be called the quality of transport; the second might be the quality of the content. The first is fairly obvious, no sense in belaboring the point. For the second, well, given two providers, all other things being equal, one would choose the provider with the most pleasing content - whether that be a mix of services, or types of entertainment, or both. If, at some point, the regulators step in, they will be able to standardize the variable called quality of transport; it is most unlikely, we hope, that they will standardize quality of content. Even now, there is a question as to whether there will be sufficient demand at the Last Mile to light up existing fiber. In the future, the life of a fiber network may well lie in its ability to successfully differentiate itself. At the point where the infrastructure is paid for, this becomes less important. However, the present need for content to fill those big fat pipes, and pay the costs of laying and lighting up the fiber, is a major concern. In the future, when the network has become paid-up legacy infrastructure, the roles of content carrier and content provider are stabilized, to interdependence. But the networks, at that point, will have become what they replaced: demographics will reassert themselves as the networks continuously, necessarily differentiate: or else, become, themselves, commoditized: as indistinguishable as boxcars. Also, FWIW. Regards, Jim

To: wonk who wrote (7838)	8/1/2000 2:49:50 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Respond to of 12823

*Re: The broadband flood is leaving the residential user high and dry.* Internettelephony Magazine** Hi ww, While your paper shuffling continues, I have something germane to the topic of broadband to the home. This may have been previously displayed here so forgive my repetition if this is the case. The article: internettelephony.com The graphs: internettelephony.com My two cents: I am really struck by the graph on "broadband adoption plans" as provided by Jupiter Communications. What jarred me is that 73% of the US Internet population has "No plans to switch to broadband". This is a huge surprise to me, and makes me realize how in the minority we are here in this small "early-adaptor" den called the SI Last Mile thread. Most of Joe Sixpack America couldn't care less about the very things that we regard as so desirable. Now in the article itself, I found the first instance ever where I've come to disagree with Milo Medin, CTO of @Home. He has gone over to the camp that AOL has so successfully pioneered. In his own words: "One reason why AOL has demolished everybody in the dial-up Internet business was because they integrated content with access. "That's really important, especially for penetrating beyond the early adopters. The people with five levels of bookmarks don't need navigation help. But when my mom gets hooked up to the Internet, if she doesn't have content integrated to that access, it's not immediately useful to her." "It's not just about content," Medin says. "With Java applets and automatic updating of client software, the difference between content and software is really blurring. You have to make the service really easy to use, and that means building a simpler client to give your mainline users a very simple experience, and you're not going to be able to do that just by shipping Internet Explorer or Netscape." "If you're happy with 2% to 3% market penetration and you don't care about challenging AOL, then this (simpler client) is pretty irrelevant to you," Medin says. "You'll pick up the power users. But cable operators that think that way are going to find their economics are not profitable." So the gist of Medin's argument, and he's someone who must make a go of this business, is that most of the potential market for broadband connectivity is simply not prepared to pay the dues that all of us here have found to be a necessary step to entering "networked heaven". This is a sobering thought for those, like me, who had envisioned huge budgets from service providers beefing up networking equipment to satisfy an insatiable demand. Maybe that demand isn't going to be quite as overwelming as I had imagined it to be.... maybe the early adopters are all already on the train. A note to Jim Kayne, your response to this same discussion is very much in keeping with Medin and Steve Case's view of things. Content and connectivity will blend for the majority of Internet users. Of this I'm quite certain. I just happen to be a tad bit disappointed in a general public that is so willing to be spoon fed their reality by their superiors. Just some randomness creeping in, Ray