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: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (34396)	7/12/2010 2:58:01 PM
From: ftth	Respond to of 46821

re: "The paper makes clear that the government is not only shaping the market, but also the types of technology and the specifications that are being recommended for interfacing on system software and hardware as well. This stopped being a slippery slope and entered the realm of bad news when the government intended supplying the types of gear that would be used for FTTH connectivity in the first place, never mind specifying the interfaces on interface devices,..." Yikes! No doubt, the vendor lobbyists are hard at work in shaping those outcomes. All the while, claiming they are strong proponents of technology neutrality and keeping regulators and legislators out of market decisions--until such decisions benefit them. Then the monopolist tendencies shine through. Using your "word of the day" from Scott Bradner, I guess that would be called "pecuniary pellucidity" haha.

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (34396)	7/12/2010 7:11:55 PM
From: axial	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

"The paper makes clear that the government is not only shaping the market, but also the types of technology and the specifications that are being recommended for interfacing on system software and hardware as well. This stopped being a slippery slope and entered the realm of bad news when the government intended supplying the types of gear that would be used for FTTH connectivity in the first place, never mind specifying the interfaces on interface devices, which are universally defined as PON optical network terminals, or ONTs, making only passing mention of the use of wireless for the boondocks." --- As in other jurisdictions, eventually the choices will be made: sometimes by commercial interests, sometimes in combination with policy. Japan is different from Korea, which is different from the Netherlands, which is different from Sweden. After the network is built, regulation can define ways in which various players may operate. Isn't the goal throughput and capacity? Without government involvement, Australia would never be taking this step, far beyond anything we've contemplated here. Is the objection that government cannot speak for the public interest, when in fact that is government's responsibility? Or is it that imperfections and differences enable possible weaknesses? What perfection, satisfactory to all, should the Australians adopt? Or is it simply that only "the market" - or the disgrace that we call the telecomms "market" - can and should determine network architecture, hardware and services? Jim