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: axial who wrote (3490)	7/28/2001 5:32:07 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Hi Jim, With regards to the incumbents vulnerability: " ... it seems to me that their success would level the competitive playing field tremendously, to the disadvantage of the incumbents." I'd be careful here. The same thinking prevailed about three years ago in the voice over IP realm. As it unfolded, however, the larger incumbents (VZ, SBC, T) were among the first to deploy carrier class voip gateways and relationships - "just in case" - albeit secretively in some cases (but in other instances not so secretively, as in the case of establishing gateways with Tom Evslin's ITXC). Another example is their late arrival to market with DSL, just in time so to speak, in order to thwart any initiatives from fledgling DLECs who were given a short window under Act of '96 guidelines, which they quickly eploited, only to see (force?) the DLECs into doing themselves in. I'd be a bit hesitant to suggest that the incumbents might let 3G or 4G get ahead of them in a meaningful way, when considering the massive market share and inertia that they presently enjoy, and their ability to pull tricks out of a hat in a flash if and when they see fit. Just some thoughts... FAC

To: axial who wrote (3490)	7/29/2001 4:26:48 AM
From: elmatador	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Thanks for your comments Jim. I will dare have a go at your questions. 1 - Given the substantial delay that will be introduced in 3G buildout, what is there to stop a jump directly to 4G? There will be no such thing as 3 or 4G as envisaged by the PR machine of the players that dominate the wireless industry today. The industry will branch into two, three or four subdivisions and will create new businesses in each of them. Each of these subdivisions, or branches, will consist of what we call today 3G, 4G and possibly 5G. For investors it is important to analyse today's industry and make projections that allows us to recognize which branch is the winner so that we profit from it. The reason why there will be no 3G, 4G: When IBM, ICL, Fujitsu and the mini computer makers Wang, Nixdorf, DEC ruled, the computer industry started talking about 5th Generation (5G) computer. It would have been be a machine that you could program in English, had voice recognition capability, supped up processing power, artificial intelligence, etc. Universities were invested millions seeking this 5G computer. The military kept eye on it -it was Cold War years. There was the MCC, America's 5th generation computer consortium, Japan's 5th generation computer project sponsored by MITI and UK's project was named Alvin but I am not very sure. But we never had this 5G computer. What really happened was the branching of the computer industry into several segments. From today's perspective, this segmentation is not clear cut into types of machines that allow you to recognize what G it was supposed to be by the companies that dominated this business 20 years ago. Take a point of sales machine (POS) for illustration's sake. Is it a cash register, an ATM, a telecoms terminal, a computer and a device that allows inventory control? It is all that combined. NCR is no where to be seen, nor is Wang and DEC but we have those POS machine doing e-commerce only that we don't apply the term e-commerce to it. The computer industry segmented into several businesses using a basic platform what we call a computer. All these new businesses eating up into existing ones. Wireless will follow the same path. Existing wireless businesses, networks and its machines, a.k.a 2G and 2.5G will be superseded by the splitting of the wireless industry into several segments along the same lines. Suppersed as were WANG, DEC, NCR, Hell Graphics, Olivetti, Underwood by the PC/MAC platforms its applications. ILECs lost in the process their Telex networks replaced by fax and -more recently- by email. This is not the consultants are telling ERICY Torbjorn Nilsson or Jorma Ollila from NOK. These firms have to much interest in the status quo. Hence the consultants playing the song of an extension of their today's businesses into the future in G steps. The no-visibility thing is because what they see through the windscreen is not what their customers want to hear. Then just say to them there is no visibility and everyone is satisfied. How the segmentation will happen: Today's voice terminal do only voice and SMS. The dominant parts of this industry NOK, ERICY want to create a single new device that extend the capability of the existing cash cow. But that is not going to happen. We never bought a FM radio tuned to only one radio station. Why should we buy a terminal to be locked in a particular network? Because they would create some sort of subsidy to the 3G terminal but would like to lock you into their own network. This works against segmentation/branching. What is going to happen: There will be a proliferation of terminal types made possible by the application of a transceiver to any kind of today's wired terminals. Operators who own the spectrum will build networs, then the would re-sell its wireless networks capability to Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNO) -Virgin of UK is a case in point. Like today a firm will buy Airbuses and Boeings -but knows nothing about air travel- and lease then to airlines. MVNO will buy airtime on the bulk and will sell retail it. I find a MVNO such as Virgin much more creadible -to buy content from media companiens to distribute to wireless customers- than Vodafone or Verizon. Mobile vendors will put a wireless head into whatever terminal could help fill in the airwaves. I am very sure about it because the spectrum bought at the cost of billions have to be filled in by whatever traffic one could squeeze into it. Operators will not be seating idly on top of this spectrum. Just look -in the US- the fight for spectrum hogged by the Defense establishment. Doesn't this contrast with the opinions that the spectrum that cost biilions here in Europe was bad business? Time Wasters wireless machines with voice on top. Game machines with voice capability. Hand held POS machines hand held with voice capability. . Hand held code reader with voice capability Lap Tops with voice capability Earth to ground/ground to earth terminal sat based Wireless LAN (but the WAN will be wired) to be continued...

To: axial who wrote (3490)	7/29/2001 5:52:53 AM
From: elmatador	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

On the case of voice as part of WISP package. How "real" do you think this is? Let me try. Voice -in the business environment is PABX-based- has a strong position as it is today: There is a lot of investment on PABX. PABX voice is very reliable. PABX's have nice features that any new platform have to include, call waiting call forward, detailed billing per extension, call logger etc. There are costs beyond the technology aspects. If you need to port voice anywhere, and you need to change the phone numbers it is costly. You would have to print business cards to everybody, you have to inform all business partners, you would have to print all stationery. There must be a very very compelling reason to port voice to WLANs. The ILECs and the telecoms vendors "The unholy alliance", have two cards up their sleeves to play against voice ported to WLANs: Wireless PABX a.ka. Wireless Office Systems (WOS). Fixed Wireless Convergence I write 'up the sleeve' because they are dormant and just ready to be put into place: See please: totaltele.com Message 16136531 Fixed mobile convergence. The wireless operators are being no rewarded by investors if they offer profitability. Measured as ARPU (Average return Per User). They are doing and will do whatever is possible to increase ARPU. Since businesses are very attractive for wireless, msi-world.com they will not let voice run away to WLAN's. So the case for WLANs as voice conduit is not very real, Jim.