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: Rob S. who wrote (25741)	3/7/2008 2:31:14 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Thanks, Rob S. I just came across another blog entry by Lee Dryburgh that I thought was interesting. It concerns the open network claims being made by AT&T and VZ, and compares the latter two to the other majors: AT&T and Verizon - Open? If so, for What? By Lee S Dryburgh February 27, 2008 I never did understand the media fanfare surrounding the open network claims by Verizon and AT&T recently because I could not see what the news item was. Cont.: ecommmedia.com ------

To: Rob S. who wrote (25741)	4/13/2008 7:35:04 AM
From: axial	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

"A basic premise is that a flat, all IP multi-service network can provide service plans that allow users to connect via multiple devices at a price that is competitive with the combination of mobile phone and wired or wireless broadband access." As you pointed out in an upstream post, roaming will be problematical. Message 24325544 In the long run, carriers/operators in shared geography must competing on price for their data packages (or so it seems - maybe I'm missing it...). Early results fron Vodafone demonstrate what's coming. Message 24076325 Part of the equation is spectrum allocation; the UK is demonstrating a more flexible approach. What's difficult to understand is how carriers/operators can embrace "openness" and "competition" that would place pricing and revenues under continuous pressure. They can't. [What's the justification for everybody's data plans hovering around the same price point? A "natural" price? What are the chances that these "competitors" will keep dropping prices for data plans?] It's true that the North American market still isn't competitive but there is churn; Sprint has shown a marked decline in end-users since acquiring Nextel. But the loss reflected poor QOS from internal decision-making and management (plus technical difficulty) - not improved alternatives. So just like "competition" in North America, "openness" has to be a sham. If openness and competition are truly effected, it'll be the death of status quo players. Mostly, theatrics and spin - with a smattering of substance - until the next round of spectrum allocation. IMO, anyway. Jim