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: Sam Citron who wrote (29668)	4/3/2009 10:39:26 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

One of the problems that I have with a standards-locked modality is that it leads to what are often euphemistically referred to as best practices, which are usually employed Über Alles, irrespective of the changing demands that fall out of the continuing evolutionary nature of adoption by actual users at the edges of any given service or product -- where the standards weren't developed, but for whom, as supplicants, they were intended. And once a best practice becomes ensconced, it's virtually impossible to dislodge it for cause. It usually just lingers on and dies a very slow death, sometimes many years beyond its usefulness. If standards, and hence best practices, could be made to adapt with changing demands, then there'd be no argument from this consultant. But that is hardly ever the case. Best practices comprise libraries of temporal notions whose one-time perceived efficacy tend to become anachronisms even before they're finally ratified -- a process that sometimes takes years, no unlike the regulatory lag that also trails technologyical innovations. When Google innovates, the world stops and ogles. When an enterprise practitioner innovates, it could easily become grounds for censure, if not dismissal. This is great for the vendors who sat on the standards committees, but not so great for the enterprise's bottom line. In the ten years that you have suggested be allowed to transpire, untold fortunes in time and money could be going down the tubes. Standards, in my opinion, are most important at the least-common denominator level. Innovation should be supported above it. The actual LCD may vary, depending on the domain/object/sphere in question, but that's a general rule that I subscribe to. In telecoms the LCD would equate to the physical medium layer. Immediately atop the physical medium, purveyors should be free to innovate and complete in accordance with what the market will support. And if this leads to a universe that is mainly static and self-similar, then fine, but only after innovations on an iterative basis have been allowed to be tested and either accepted or rejected. In some ways markets actually do know best, despite some of the misapplications of economic theories we've witnessed over the past couple of decades. ------

To: Sam Citron who wrote (29668)	4/3/2009 2:59:24 PM
From: Peter Ecclesine	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 46821

Hi Sam, >>I say telecom roadbuilding is an essential government function.<< How do you define success? I say optical technology and wireless technology are changing faster than government can track, much less pick winners and losers. Look to Telcordia for innovation? No thanks. ftth said it well upthread, telecom roadbuilding ranks up there with military intelligence. Don't let a government do your thinking for you. petere