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: George Gilder who wrote (6981)	4/2/2004 10:14:08 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 46821

Hi George [and All], This morning Sandy, your most invaluable front-liner, posted the following article from EETimes in the Lounge Section of your board. It concerns the delivery of movies over the Internet: eet.com What follows, below, is a slightly edited set of my own observations and comments that I posted in a reply message to her, as they relate to one of the oft-unwritten constraints to such deliveries that may, and probably will, ensue. Here I'm talking about the last mile service providers' bandwidth burden looking the "other" way. That is, towards the Internet, as opposed to the area that receives most of the focus in these types of discussions, which is, of course, the local loop looking towards the end user. I'd appreciate your views on this, along with the views of others here. ----------------- Hi Sandy, An interesting article, thanks. It elicits thoughts beyond the obvious obstacles cited. Yes, bandwidth is an issue, and a major one, at that. Also, server farms need to be capitalized and built, and program providers need to bolster the list of titles they offer. In discussions such as this one it's often the reader's first thought to consider the term "bandwidth" as it relates to access line speeds available to end users. The author makes this clear in his comparisons of download times required across the spectrum of popular access platforms (he cites DSL and those of slower-speed alternatives, for example), although he doesn't get into the very-high speed variants such as the latest VDSL speeds and FTTH capabilities, capable of tens, if not hundreds of mb/s, and in some cases gigabit speeds. But even with the very-high-speed alternatives that are now finding their way to the market place, there are other potential gotchas to consider. Consider the local service provider. In its infancy movie delivery is merely a nuisance drain on upstream bandwidth costs (to and from the public Internet), because downloads are still few and far between. As the art form takes shape, however, and end users become more inclined to make Internet movie delivery their preferred means of title acquisition, the bottle neck will then shift away from access and appear in the transport and uplink spaces, between the local service provider and the Internet proper. What incentives do local service providers have to ensure that their upstream pipes will handle the onslaught of new demand? In order to make a profit it almost suggests that they will have to be included in the distribution of profits that follow. But this is not their purview, especially if they do not actually provide the servers, or the content or other programming constructs necessary, while providing only local residential access as a horizontal player. The above speaks to the need for infrastructure stakeholders in the home delivery space to take measures to either partake in a vertical model as opposed to one that is merely access related, or modify the means by which they charge for their services. As speeds to the home increase, followed by increased traffic loads from upper-layer service providers, the local provider can do one of several things. 1.They can do nothing at all, or only marginally increase their bandwidth to the larger cloud, and allow best-effort to resolve itself, no matter what level of user satisfaction is achieved. 2. Increase bandwidth in the upstream and charge users by traffic type and volumes of traffic consumed. 3. Partner with / or create their own infrastructures and business models to do the home delivery from their own servers or those of their partners. Does anyone see another alternative that will allow the local service provider the ability to recover their increased costs for bandwidth in support of a mass market Internet-based video delivery model? FAC frank@fttx.org

To: George Gilder who wrote (6981)	5/12/2004 11:11:32 AM
From: KeepItSimple	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Wow Mr. Gilder, I actually can't believe you're posting here again. Either someone has taken over your account, or you have absolutely no shred of decency or shame. We all know the frontrunning you did with your previous sheep following, how did you ever avoid prosecution btw? I'm just curious if you think that 3 years is long enough for everyone burned by your ridiculuous bubble-mania predictions to have long gone broke and exited the market, thus leaving only a new crop of suckers to be fleeced that have never heard your name before and might think your bullshit is fresh and new? Maybe you should change your name to Altria so the few remaining clueless suckers won't have any chance of connecting your current loquacious bullshit to your previous stock advice that would have bankrupted anyone following even a PART of it. Wow. You MUST have a pair of brass balls the size of watermelons. About the only thing more brazen would be Henry Blodgett coming on CNBC tomorrow afternoon and announcing that he thinks Google.com will hit 800 dollars a share within a month.

To: George Gilder who wrote (6981)	10/13/2005 8:55:17 PM
From: r.edwards	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

auditors for AVNX have given the company a "going concern" opinion. Avanex Announces Filing of Annual Report on Form 10-K and Related Auditor Opinions Friday September 30, 4:01 pm ET FREMONT, Calif., Sept. 30 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Avanex Corporation (Nasdaq: AVNX - News) today announced that it had filed its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005. The Form 10-K includes the report of Deloitte & Touche LLP, its independent registered public accounting firm, with respect to the company's financial statements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005. The report of Deloitte & Touche LLP included an explanatory paragraph regarding the company's ability to continue as a going concern. This press release is in compliance with NASDAQ Marketplace Rule 4350(b), which requires that a public announcement be made regarding the receipt of an audit opinion that contains a going concern qualification. <snip> biz.yahoo.com

To: George Gilder who wrote (6981)	10/15/2005 2:17:49 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

George Gilder et al on the subject of WiMAX vs. 3G [FAC: Maybe I should have titled this post "Friends of George, et al .." Anyway, George, I believe it's time for you to make up your mind, or at least become more consistent in the views you put forth. If there are benefits to be found in disruptive technologies that employ cheap, reusable technologies at the edge, especially those that are open, wide and weak, then why promote the more expensive technology that is narrow, proprietary and strong? For starters, I believe that open networking proponents see an opportunity for the many of forms of WiFi (802.11), not WiMAX (802.16)exclusively, to take some share of the cellular and pcs markets, and I believe that at some point they will have been proved to be correct. So. some of the argument presented isn't a dead-on hit to where the IEEE pros were going. This topic always makes for good discussion, similar to the QoS-best effort one, which you seem also to be confused about. I say this because, while you are openly hostile to the efforts of Cisco and others to introduce QoS standards in their routers and switches, at the same time you highlight the superior quality of Verizon's EV-DO based on CDMA technology from QCOM, and the capabilities of the semis on your ascendant technologies list that can perform far more than QoS was ever intended to do, and they do it at virtually every layer of the networking stack. I can offer more examples fo what appears to be double-talk, at times, but I think I've made my case. The passage below is from the Gilder Friday Letter, which is delivered free each week via email. See: gilder.com to subscribe.] ------ The Week / Why Max? A Wireless Primer and Discussion on Wireless Reality ---------------- Excerpted from a white paper by Qualcomm Senior VP, Jeff Belk: They say history repeats itself. Whoever they happen to be, when it comes to wireless technology evolution, they are right too often. Three years ago, we had to deal with a broad swath of the technology world telling us that Wi-Fi is going to crush 3G Wireless and dominate the future of Internet connectivity. Not so fast, we said, and I personally spent the greater part of 18 months telling folks that Wi-Fi is greatIve got it at home and QUALCOMM has hundreds of access points across its campusesbut not so fast with the Wi-Fi will crush 3G thing. Wi-Fi will work with, complement, augmentall that stuff makes sensebut replace? That was silly. Fast forward. Were now in fall 2005. Theres this thing called WiMAX out there. For a bunch of folks in the technology community, its been a great opportunity to recycle some of their opinions and sometimes writings on Wi-Fi by just doing a search and replace, removing the Wi-Fi and replacing with WiMAX. Just like with Wi-Fi a few years ago, for some unfathomable reason, audiences usually critical of overhyping are remaining silent, and are continuing to give the WiMAX folks a free pass. The problem with this approach is the same problem as with the Wi-Fi hubbub of a few years ago. Every part of a story that sounds great in sound bite form gets more complex when you examine the details. And the truth is often in the details. The real world is not that easy, and the answers are not simplistic. Wish it was, but its not. And what really makes me nuts is that the primary proponents of WiMAX keep on purporting claims on the technology that are unsupportable. Right now, go to Google. Put in the search term WiMAX 75Mbps 30 Miles or WiMAX 75Mbps 50 Kilometers. Or WiMAX Mobile 2005. You will get thousands of hits, with new citations daily, and they will mostly be wrong. Like the Wi-Fi hype of a few years ago, one of the major issues is that many of the folks reading/writing/analyzing this stuff are looking at these issues from an IT perspective. These folks have a long history, expertise and comfort level with things connected to a PC. That side of the tech industry is being guided by a vendor set who produce products connected to a PC. But there are these nasty things called radios that dont play well in this environment. Long ago at QUALCOMM, as a non-engineer I came to the realization that radio is akin to voodoo, and the engineers that can tame a wireless technology and work with a value chain to make a wireless standard operate in the real world should be considered the high priests of the technology world. Every time you push the green button on your cell phone, you are tapping into what is arguably the largest and most complex network on the planet. So lets dissect some of the things about WiMAX that are just off base. Part of this will be Wireless for the Non-Technical, but as I just said, Im a non-engineer, so I can do this. And if you dont like it, guess what, you dont need to read it. And like with my other writings, I welcome a challenge, but you better have your facts straight. Hyperbole need not apply. Read Belks Complete Paper: qualcomm.com Related Reading: Jeff Belk: Adventures in the Public Hotspot Wi-Fi World qualcomm.com Bret Swanson: Listen To the Technology disco-tech.org Andy Seybold: The Wi-Fi City by the Bay outlook4mobility.com ------ FAC