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: Raymond Duray who wrote (11469)	6/19/2001 8:04:00 AM
From: Crossy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

ot: electricity, California Ray, first of all if I compared my utility bills with yours in the US then you will be better off in ANY regard, even AFTER the contemplated price hikes.. The cause of the malaise in So. California is undisputably rooted in Californias failed deregulation law: to insulate all consumers from the market price mechanism is more than dangerous. Just think of what will be lurking around in 2002 when the mandated caps on retail electricity will finally go ? What your governor wants, i.e. to turn back the clock to regulation, this time to the generation sector is no solution to the underlying problems of supply and demand. Even the Washington Post asserted this in a special days ago (and this paper is by no means a rag of the right) and my view is this: conservation alone might work in a situation where the underlying population is not growing. However in Califronia you got growth rates in 10 years in excess of 40% if I read it correctly. To even think that conservation alone might do it longterm seems to be a bit odd to me. IMHO shortterm there is no other solution as biting the bullet : either lifting the cap of retail energy prices or living with the "roving" blackouts. Midterm to longterm the solution would require new supply (generation facilities) to be brought on line, imports of power from Mexico and Canada and more importantly new high-voltage distribution grids that have to be built. This is a national agenda IMHO (because the benefits arise on a national level too) and if you look at the differential of power prices (electricity and gas) in California and in areas of abundance (Midwest) then you might view such a grid buildup as a way to even out those differentials. It's funny - in Europe the grids are way more stable and better built than in the US, one of the few areas where Europe has an edge There is also a move underway to decentralized power generation but I am somehow tempted to question the degree of efficiency underlying such concepts. Usually (you learn that in basic economics) "bigger" facilities convey a higher degree of efficiency and you can also have a "cleaner" output vs. decentralized smaller facilities of equal total capacity because all countermeasures could be enacted on a single site. I know - the NIMBY propblem in action. If a state or country like California opted for a "standstill" on everything that requires trade-offs on the environmental front like power plants, generation facilities and distribution gear then it got to live with the consequences. Blaming others for the fruits of the own orthodoxy wouldn't do it. In the 70ies environmental concerns were virtually non-existant and were totally dominated by productivity motives. No question that a change was about time back then. But now, IMHO it's the other way round and if you look at odd cases like the situation in the US where "concerned" plaintiffs can add to the Endangered Species list thru the legal system literally at will, were hydro power plants were not built or torn down because of the salmon you end up (like me) shaking your head. Having Libertarian leanings I am not a real fan of Dubya but somehow I can related to his stance on the power crisis. all the best CROSSY

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (11469)	6/19/2001 8:04:07 AM
From: Crossy	Respond to of 12823

ot: electricity, California Ray, first of all if I compared my utility bills with yours in the US then you will be better off in ANY regard, even AFTER the contemplated price hikes.. The cause of the malaise in So. California is undisputably rooted in Californias failed deregulation law: to insulate all consumers from the market price mechanism is more than dangerous. Just think of what will be lurking around in 2002 when the mandated caps on retail electricity will finally go ? What your governor wants, i.e. to turn back the clock to regulation, this time to the generation sector is no solution to the underlying problems of supply and demand. Even the Washington Post asserted this in a special days ago (and this paper is by no means a rag of the right) and my view is this: conservation alone might work in a situation where the underlying population is not growing. However in Califronia you got growth rates in 10 years in excess of 40% if I read it correctly. To even think that conservation alone might do it longterm seems to be a bit odd to me. IMHO shortterm there is no other solution as biting the bullet : either lifting the cap of retail energy prices or living with the "roving" blackouts. Midterm to longterm the solution would require new supply (generation facilities) to be brought on line, imports of power from Mexico and Canada and more importantly new high-voltage distribution grids that have to be built. This is a national agenda IMHO (because the benefits arise on a national level too) and if you look at the differential of power prices (electricity and gas) in California and in areas of abundance (Midwest) then you might view such a grid buildup as a way to even out those differentials. It's funny - in Europe the grids are way more stable and better built than in the US, one of the few areas where Europe has an edge There is also a move underway to decentralized power generation but I am somehow tempted to question the degree of efficiency underlying such concepts. Usually (you learn that in basic economics) "bigger" facilities convey a higher degree of efficiency and you can also have a "cleaner" output vs. decentralized smaller facilities of equal total capacity because all countermeasures could be enacted on a single site. I know - the NIMBY propblem in action. If a state or country like California opted for a "standstill" on everything that requires trade-offs on the environmental front like power plants, generation facilities and distribution gear then it got to live with the consequences. Blaming others for the fruits of the own orthodoxy wouldn't do it. In the 70ies environmental concerns were virtually non-existant and were totally dominated by productivity motives. No question that a change was about time back then. But now, IMHO it's the other way round and if you look at odd cases like the situation in the US where "concerned" plaintiffs can add to the Endangered Species list thru the legal system literally at will, were hydro power plants were not built or torn down because of the salmon you end up (like me) shaking your head. Having Libertarian leanings I am not a real fan of Dubya but somehow I can related to his stance on the power crisis. all the best CROSSY

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (11469)	6/19/2001 8:49:03 AM
From: Crossy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Ray, even if you called them just "freeloaders" instead of parasites, my argument is just that there should be no "ethical" problem contemplated in it. My point was that infrastructure costs are SUNK COSTS primarily. So a flat sum payment is more than adequate to compensate for this , even a healthy profit margin. Imagine if you could hook up to the Internet backbone directly (suppose you connect at a university or such). Would bandwidth be a "scarce" commodity ? I doubt it. I think it is ok to charge more for more bandwidth but in a bellhead world there is just no unmetered plan available. I'm an IT consultant here in Austria. One of my clients needed a faster hook up to the web - to connect a LAN. Did some analysis and we settled on an ADSL unlimited plan, funnily it is the ONLY unlimited plan available here, cost around $220 per month, 768 downstream, 64 upstream. Meager compared with offerings in your area but still quite speedy. Web surfing and email are the top applications so it is working quite well. Your engineer on BART was right on and if you have people checking up tickets then his argument is even more valid. No problem. Goralski's book was very impressive and I am now able to understand the background of xDSL technology way better. My eye opener from reading it was the rising economic incentive for even the bellheads to embrace xDSL as a means to avoid switch congestion. I'll try to add my 2 cents if questions arise.. The hikes for broadband rates are normal in the current environment, I would call an industrial shakeout. Longterm I would give MMDS (and LMDS too) a bright future as well as line of sight optics. Seems to me that a good deal of this last mile coverage needs to be obtained by companies conquering market by market on a LOCAL basis. We had a very succesful US company doing this in another industry: retailing. Ever heard of Wal Mart ?? <g> WMT was able to be profitable thruoughout all the rollout. Sprint and Worldcoms Broadband-WLL rollouts seem to unfold in a similar fashion. I'll keep my fingers crossed for them.. best wishes CROSSY