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 : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (1585)	12/26/2000 10:00:08 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Hi Frank, I'm interested in reading your views, as well as Ray's and others', on this. To tell you the truth, I regard wireless comms, at least as regards cellular stock quotes and horoscopes to fall well short of any threshold of serious national interest. Therefore, I'm content to let the cacophony of vendors, fooling around with the small slices of the RF spectrum, to have their fun any way they see fit. It is only in matters of overwelming national interest that I believe we need to bring in the heavy hand of governmental regulation and control of private industry. Governor Gray Davis was just on the PBS's "Nightly Business Report". He again repeated that in large measure what is the problem with the California energy market is the blatant price gouging and rapacious rates of return of the power generators, who are demanding 7,8 and 900% profits over their costs of production. This is capitalism run amok. I just don't see this being an issue with wireless. Someone tries to hi-jack your wallet in that market and you simply find the next vendor, at the next kiosk in the mall. Ain't that easy in the energy markets. And the stakes are a heck of a lot higher. -Ray

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (1585)	12/26/2000 10:56:04 PM
From: axial	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 46821

'Would you argue that an across-the-board standardization treatment of telecommunications, right down to the vendor and apparatus levels, is equally imperative to that of power generation in France?' No, not at all, Frank, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. The 'Remember 2.4 GHz' quip was a general reference as to what can happen when there are no guidelines in areas of public interest. We started this topic, I think, because the availability of electrical power underlies every technology we've discussed on this thread. The availability of energy, and therefore power, is a matter of national interest, IMO. We got into a discussion of nuclear power as a rational alternative, and I put forward the example of France, who I thought had got the whole public interest/policy/planning/regulatory thing just right. But the application of the idea was only to nuclear power (with its special concerns), and the greater questions of the impending energy crisis. In many areas, we are finding that deregulation is failing us. At the same time, we are finding that regulation, in the form of the bone-readed indecision of Canada's National Energy Board, or in some areas of the FCC's jurisdiction, is failing us, too. We should reconsider the benefits of regulation, and attempt to find a regulatory balance better than the old ones. The ideal is to provide guidelines within which industry can do what it does best: innovate and produce. The question of what France did, WRT nuclear power, was IMO a good example of what proper planning can achieve. But it was a response peculiar to the industry, and its concerns. I used it as an example of what clear vision and good planning can do. The corollary for the US and Canada was that a nuclear power program did not have to be as expensive, as unsafe, and as technologically diverse as it is now. The imposition of a clear sense of direction, the highest possible safety standards, and uniform, almost modular specifications could result in a system in which the public has some confidence. It would also be cheaper, easier and faster to build, and easier to man (to person?). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ While I never intended the comments to be translated to telecomms, I believe that the Euro approach to regulation has some benefits. They have not entirely deregulated, and they regard telecomms as an area in which the public has a vital interest. In some repects, there is much less regulatory uncertainty about what the future will be: that seems to be the result of good planning, with input from industry, the public, and governments, on a pan-European basis. Finally, watching the commendable efforts of industry players, including the IEEE, to achieve harmonization and standards at 5 GHz, I am still struck with the differences between the structured ETSI BRAN RF solutions, complete with their attempt to address societal needs by replicating our 'wired' society, and the more piecemeal approach in North America. I do not know if the balance struck by pan-European standardization/regulatory bodies is 'harmful' to industry. My personal observation is that it does not appear to be. Best wishes, Jim