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 (27536)	7/25/2008 10:07:21 PM
From: axial	Respond to of 46821

Hi ftth - "I'm thinking several steps into the future here, and it's quite possible I'm missing something. But it also seems possible that the soup-to-nuts business case for acquiring, deploying, and operating these very large spectrum blocks just might not compute, if you use recent historic spectrum costs." --- You've touched on some problems that may have solutions, but they won't be easy. My own belief is that harmonization is an ardent wish, technically achievable but very difficult to reconcile with the business realities. Yes, inroads are being made in less mature markets, and will continue to be made. In mature markets, there will be concessions and adaptations by operators. Harmonization isn't just technological: it implies completely different economic models - and one party to proposed harmonization loses big-time. As it happens, that party is securely established, in a compact with governments to whom it has paid handsomely. Barring legislative change, the only way I can see harmonization succeeding is by takeover of the corporate entities now called "operators" - and then taking them down a less-profitable path. The question is, "Why would anyone do that?" For altruistic reasons, LOL? The only logical answer would be: if greater profits were being achieved outside the framework, i.e., supplying the model. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all. Like you, I wonder if I'm missing something. It seems to me that the decisive factor is "skin in the game". The Silicon Valley players and their vision will augment, not replace existing RF usage and economic models, unless and until they become active players in the markets they propose to change. 700 MHz demonstrated that (at this point anyway) nobody from Silicon Valley was prepared to ante in. In parallel, there's a "skin in the game" indicator here; the true cost of Intel's commitment to Sprint isn't known exactly. While it's non-trivial, it doesn't even approach the cost of Sprint's spectrum. Judged this way, Intel can hardly consider itself a "player". Your comments are spot-on; as you indicate, spectrum acquisition on the scale contemplated is difficult to imagine. Berra said, "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." Harmonization and efficient use of spectrum makes too much sense: ultimately it will happen. But evolution will take decades, and the underlying economics must change in sync. JMO, Jim

To: ftth who wrote (27536)	7/26/2008 1:54:12 AM
From: axial	Respond to of 46821

AT&T files objection to Sprint-Clearwire deal "What will the infrastructure for the national network be, and what's the financing?" Redman asked in an interview. "They don't have the money to roll out a national network." Redman anticipated it might take $12 billion to roll out a national network. The proposed joint venture of Sprint and Clearwire is expected to raise $3.2 billion from Intel Corp, Google Inc. and three cable companies, but that is not nearly what a national network would require, Redman said." More: computerworld.com Jim