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 (25623)	2/28/2008 3:50:37 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Hi Jim. HSI was once considered a competitive advantage. Soon it became merely a must carry in order to stay abreast. However, because HSI is a relative term, and due to its being rolled out in only the most meager way at first, the goal has now shifted to achieving ever increasing speeds through upgrades where it already exists, and of course, also to fill in the gaps in (under-, un- served) areas where it has not yet been deployed. As to the cost of implementing "broadband" (I realize that you used the term HSI, which I prefer to use, too, mainly when referring to the best-effort component in order to distinguish it from the other "plays" in the bundle), I feel this is an area that is replete with overgeneralizations and misrepresentations. Here in SI we tend to view "broadband" in a highly insular manner, which is okay to do when a network happens to be owned by an MDU building owner, or a small municipality, or a private overlay operator whose geographic reach and mix of offerings are both limited. However, when it is the work of a larger incumbent, there are other economic factors that affect the cost of "broadband"/HSI that are related to the operator's larger operations --which include services being rolled out to other sectors that are being satisfied in a synergistic manner by the same deployment effort, e.g., enterprises, industrial parks, government circuits, etc., as well as meeting the operators' own inter-office trunking needs-- which generally go ignored or unspoken. Hence, we wind up discussing numbers that are only marginally meaningful when the larger picture is brought into focus. I realize that the foregoing may be a sideways view of the situation, but I figured I would throw it in for good measure, since it's rarely mentioned here. The Connected Nation report is suspect, to me at least, on its face. Maybe I've been jaundiced by some of the things I've read about its parent org, Connected Kentucky, or maybe it's because this "stimulus" angle is getting a little played out in my eyes for the reasons I cited above. Yes, HSI is crucial for improving and then sustaining high levels of economic development, but it is no longer the differentiator that it once was, once it approaches ubiquity. Last month I read the article below concerning Connected Nation and thought it appropriate to post here: -- Connect Kentucky Article Raises Bell Lobby Specter January 17th, 2008 By Drew Clark Art Brodsky’s 4,789-word article about Connect Kentucky and its offspring Connected Nation has been the talk of telecom circles over the past week. Connected Nation is a non-profit entity that has become one of biggest players in the currently topical field of broadband data. Using their work in Kentucky as a model for mapping out broadband availability nation-wide, the group has become a driving force behind legislation that would provide grants for other states to duplicate these efforts. Cont.: drewclark.com ------

To: axial who wrote (25623)	2/28/2008 3:38:39 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 46821

Musing a bit further about the Connected Nation hypothesis, I found myself dwelling on the following sentence and coming up with a few questions: "The report’s findings suggest that the U.S. could realize an economic impact of $134 billion annually by accelerating broadband availability and use across all states." How much would it cost to provide an adequate level of HSI to the entire nation? Does this include replacing faux-broadband of the type that meets FCC guidelines but ain't worth a crap? Also, does the cited stimulus amount of $134 Billion "annually" include the revenues realized by network operators and builders as they deploy additions to the network and go on to collect subscription fees year after year? If not, then where are the latter buildout-related and ongoing revenue gains by network purveyors listed and accounted for? If so, then is building out the network in some way self-serving, or merely an end reached through self-fulfilling means? I'm not suggesting above that it would ordinarily be entirely self-serving, although, in the case of some promotions, one could, IMO, justifiably spend time wondering about the possibility. But rather, I am merely raising a few simple questions with the hope of exposing the convoluted nature of the justifications for deployments, while trying to make sense of the organization of the issues surrounding the problem. Thoughts? ------