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: Peter Ecclesine who wrote (7529)	7/9/2004 10:31:41 AM
From: ftth	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 46821

Hi Peter, referring back to my original comment: unlicensed spectrum re: If 'open airwaves' are license-exempt (Part 15) bands, then the services are not regulated, nor protected, nor closed, nor opened. Not sure I entirely follow your if-then logic. The main purpose of open access is to prevent discrimination/degradation of 3rd party services/applications by a vertically-integrated transport+service entity (one who owns/operates the physical equipment where the 3rd party app/service entity gains access to the transport infrastructure, and who also provides services which it has incentive to preferentially favor over the 3rd parties). So apps and services are distinct from the transport infrastructure, with open access, and that means regulation and/or protection rules can be applied independently, in the future, if needed. If the transport infrastructure owner/operator does not have any financial interest in the sale of content/apps/services, then less regulation/protection is necessary because the reason for creating the protection does not exist. In fact, contrary to the incentives of a vertically-integrated entity, it is in the transport-only entity's best interest to promote and encourage as much scale and scope in content/apps/services as possible since the only way they make money is if the participation value of/in the network as a connectivity resource is maximized. So with these points in mind, and realizing I'm not claiming it's quite as simple, clear-cut, and absolute as I've described, does it not make sense that unlicensed wireless--which allows content-to-connectivity interconnect facilities to come into existence with much greater freedom than in the wired world--has an inherently easier path to achieving open access, and genuinely lets market forces of users, app providers, and equipment providers (rather than being completely in the hands of vertically-integrated quasi-monopoly wired choke points with vested financial interests in preserving legacy one-size-fits-all service offerings) determine the outcome?