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: aladin who wrote (18255)	12/7/2006 3:35:56 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

John, agreed, she ain't what she used to be. And I think I can accurately assess the position you're taking. To your point, however, I could say that Ma is trying to reconstitute herself to become whole, once again, but despite that being true, it would only be a bromide that ignores other, more salient issues. I'm not as concerned with the tagging of these companies as monopolies as much as I am about their market powers. In addition to the set of three you've mentioned, most territorially defined markets have their own mix comprised of two wireline operators, possibly up to three or four cellular operators, some more when MVNOs are taken into account, and a number of renegade wireline and wireless operators on the periphery attempting to edge their way in. I sometimes think the presence of the latter entities are merely tolerated and in some ways permitted by the larger incumbents in order to foster the validation of the perceptions you cited. The more salient issues I alluded to above are situations that have taking hold at the upper layers of the stack, where the new playing fields of Layers 2-and-up defy or make it easier to evade the earlier forms of analysis and classification that Ma enjoyed prior to giving birth to the brats. FAC ------

To: aladin who wrote (18255)	12/7/2006 11:09:15 PM
From: axial	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Frank, John, I'm a little concerned about the terminology we're using here. "Top down" and "bottom up", for instance. I can easily cite cases from either category that have been miserable, abject failures. I'll make an absurd case, just to demonstrate a point: how well would a "bottom up" approach have worked in the former Soviet Russia? Of course, it would never have happened, but the point is clear. And, is a successful policy outcome "top down"? Is the growth of Chinese capitalism "top down"? Or does a healthy economic environment, driven by good policy permit (but not guarantee) the success of "bottom up" ventures? Surely, either category is absolutely interdependent with the environment in which it exists. "Incumbent": I'm not aware of any incumbency that's been completely dismantled, anywhere. To different degrees, they have all retained some of their former status. Many (in South America, for instance) are substantially unaltered. Aside from these terminological traps, John's immediate question seemed to be whether there was profit in these Asian "top down" initiatives. On specific dollar amounts, I'd guess we need further research. But after studying similar "top down" (ie., policy-driven) initiatives in Sweden, the Netherlands, Iceland, and more recently the UK, I can state with confidence that all players are enjoying various degrees of profitability. To be sure, they're not being allowed the rake-off that was enjoyed by former incumbents. They're not being allowed into the content game. Some players are simple bit-carriers. But as they say, "It's a living". The final question being evaded is Intangible Benefit. By that I mean societal gains. The general proposition being advanced by people like me is that there IS a benefit in improved communication within national entities, specifically, increased throughput at reasonable cost. This is aside from, but related to the question of profit. If you like, it's a different kind of "profit". The premise is that increased throughput can or will benefit the education, governmental administration, the arts, cultural and national homogeneity, commerce, and so on. That premise is the justification for subsidization: simply put, it's the Infrastructure Premise. Proponents of "bottom up" should be asked to what extent the companies they support are engaging in that kind of public-spirited expansion of communication. We already know the answer. And we already know, from history and experience, that every advance in human communication has had benefits. On what basis is that decided? Simple: communication is fundamental to human coexistence. Trivially or consequentially, humans communicate. The easier you make it, the more they do it. The more they do it, the more they share, know, understand, learn, interact. Well. Where's the "profit" in that ? Jim