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: ftth who wrote (7532)	7/9/2004 11:58:30 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 46821

ftth the person, Please rephrase your last paragraph, breaking it up into at least four sentences. I got dizzy reading it, and while I think I've got what you stated down pat, I'm not quite sure...

To: ftth who wrote (7532)	7/11/2004 9:42:43 AM
From: Peter Ecclesine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Hi ftth, >>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<< Unlicensed wireless has 'much greater freedom' because Part 15 requires it to cause interference to none and accept interference from all. As 'cognitive radios' improve, then many more times spectrum reuse will become common, and in local use, valuable. The 'open access' you speak of includes connection to the Internet, and that is the real problem, not the link into homes. cookreport.com >> (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?<< The outcome is local, like the value of real estate - how much is an acre worth in Santa Clara county vs Stanislaus county? A recent example was 44 acres of Santa Clara county land for $22000, and the adjacent 110 acres in Stanislaus county land was thrown in for 'free' [and pay back taxes]. 'The Outcome' is local, and we don't see the cable companies investing in rural areas, nor the phone companies 'investing' where returns are poor. petere