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: MikeM54321 who wrote (11390)	6/12/2001 10:26:54 AM
From: MikeM54321	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12823

Thread- As I recall we had a discussion on this thread a few months back about exactly the impact of extortion-like prices paid to governments for 3G licenses. I questioned exactly how much are really paid out....along those lines comes the following comments from Microsoft Investor writer. He also is questioning exactly how much damage the outrageous prices paid to governments for 3G licenses will ultimately be. I figured this sort of thing may happen as the governments don't want to kill the geese that laid the golden eggs for them. -MikeM(From Florida) ____________________ And I've already suggested that it is likely even those spectrum holders in Europe who are debt-laden, thanks to the extortionate 3G auction procedures, will see unexpected cash-flow relief in the form of long-term low-interest government loans as they head into the building phase of this rollout. On June 5, both France and Germany provided additional relief to license winners in a process that is rapidly forcing analysts to recast their gloomy spreadsheets. In the French case, readers will recall the collapse of the French auction, as only two of four winners were declared -- at lofty base prices -- after the rest of the field withdrew. Now comes the French government to say that it will allow a possible reduction in costs to the next two bidders, backed by a much longer (20 to 30 years vs. immediate) payback schedule. Germany stepped up a few hours later, indicating that all license winners would be allowed to share core buildout costs (including stations, towers and antennae, surprising many), thereby reducing estimates of cost per operator by huge amounts (perhaps $12 billion in savings).

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (11390)	6/12/2001 1:31:45 PM
From: geoffrey Wren	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Are there 119,000 new subscribers per week? On a straight line, that is 6.2m per year. Assuming some sort of growth rate week to week could give us 9m new subscribers for the next 12 months, which is a 100% growth rate (9m to 18m in 12 months). I cannot believe it. I wonder if this is new subscribers not offset by people quitting the service, or people signing on to a new service because of dissatisfaction with their old service or because their old DSL provider went out of business. Maybe people going from one service to another are counted as new subscribers. I am curious to know the percentage of people who enroll in some broadband program, only to drop it because: (1) the installer no shows twice, and the third time fails to get them hooked up, (2) the DSL provider goes out of business, (3) they find that the system can be off line for 3-4 days at a time, and that when working is only better than a modem about half the time, (4) they decide to economize, etc. Would be nice if my suspicion was in error, and there really was this growth.

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (11390)	6/12/2001 4:00:46 PM
From: axial	Respond to of 12823

Hi, Mike - First, on re-reading my post, it may have seemed that it was some kind of disguised America-bashing, which it emphatically was not. I could just as easily have chosen the UK - access to broadband there has been crippled for the usual sad collection of reasons. The thrust of my comment is that the lack of a coherent vision on the implementation of broadband access - to leave it to "market forces" and market forces alone, is a disservice to the populace (if you believe that broadband access is good, not only for SI posts, but education, entertainment, enabling business, etc). There is no doubt that the service is getting out to people in North America, slowly, with some difficulty and squabbling. But the establishment of good policy on the matter has sped, and eased the provision of broadband access in Sweden, for example. Looking at Ray's recent stat on the number of users who access the 'net with POTS, and the complaints of consumers from rural areas (not to mention recent price increases for BB access) it seems clear that the digital divide is growing. If one believes that BB access is an not an infrastructure requirement requiring guidance, that it should be available only to those who can afford it, and only where a provider elects to supply it, then I suppose there is no problem. But I think the outcome of simply abandoning the telecosm (and BB access) to competitive interests, without guidance or direction, will have predictable consequences, and is the less attractive option. JMO. Regards, Jim