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 (35337)	8/31/2010 12:11:28 AM
From: Peter Ecclesine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

FCC Adjusts Final Rules On Use of Vacant TV Band By AMY SCHATZ WSJ, August 31, 2010 WASHINGTON — Technology and telecommunications companies could soon get access to unused TV airwaves, allowing them to introduce new wireless gadgets and services, under rules that Federal Communications Commission officials are close to putting into final form. Some of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's top aides have met with broadcasters and other interested parties in recent weeks to discuss the remaining obstacles to freeing up the vacant spectrum between television channels, known in the industry as "white spaces." The issue could come to a vote as soon as the agency's September meeting. Mr. Genachowski said earlier this year that he wanted the matter resolved by the end of September. An FCC spokeswoman declined to comment. The proposal to use "white spaces" to expand wireless Internet and other services has the support of some big tech-industry players, including Microsoft Corp. and Google Inc. Dell Inc. Chief Executive Michael Dell personally appealed to FCC Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker during a recent trip to Austin, while Microsoft executives showed Mr. Genachowski how they use the TV airwaves for wireless Internet at the company's Redmond, Wash., campus during an Aug. 14 visit. Microsoft and other high-tech companies want to use the vacant TV airwaves because signals sent on that band of spectrum can travel long distances and move through buildings, which would allow companies to build wireless Internet networks that are stronger than current Wi-Fi hot spots. The vacant TV airwaves "represent a unique opportunity to spark next-generation broadband networks across the country," said Rick Whitt, Google's telecom and media counsel. "We're very eager for the commission to give the green light to start innovating and building new services on these airwaves." The FCC agreed almost two years ago to allow these "white space" airwaves to be used for wireless communication services. But the effort stalled as companies waited for regulators to clear up some technical issues and broadcasters sued. The government leaves a few channels open around existing TV stations to prevent signals from bleeding into each other. Broadcasters and wireless-microphone users worry that use of the vacant TV airwaves will cause interference. "We're working with the commission to create a viable geo-location database that will protect millions of people relying on over-the-air television as well as our news crews that provide live coverage during emergencies and sporting events," said David Donovan, president of the Association for Maximum Service Television, which represents local TV stations on technical issues. The FCC's efforts to move forward on vacant TV airwaves comes as some of Mr. Genachowski's allies have begun questioning why the agency is moving slowly on a variety of proposals that have been teed up for action. The agency's reviews of early termination fees charged by wireless companies, exclusive handset agreements like AT&T Inc.'s deal with Apple Inc. for the iPhone, and possible changes to require telecommunications companies to provide more information on phone-bill charges still aren't completed. "To the extent that they want to be known as the spectrum FCC, they have a lot of suggestions and proposals out there with very little concrete action," said Harold Feld, legal director at Public Knowledge, a digital-rights interest group. <>

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (35337)	8/31/2010 6:41:25 AM
From: axial	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Kinda fluffy, Frank. Negativity can be overdone. On the other hand, when you're behind by three touchdowns in the fourth quarter, it's time to get focused. I think everyone who follows this thread has grasped the idea that the infrastructure urgently needs improvement, and that generation is barely meeting needs, only because recession has reduced demand. Regardless of GHG (greenhouse gas) constraints, we've got problems. Yes, they're updating reactors and increasing generation - but they're still not building. Yes, we're tapping new sources of natural gas obtained by fracking, and we should enjoy a ~10-year breathing space, a window of opportunity granted by this relatively benign source of energy. But the 2010 end-of-year prediction for crude is in the $80-$90 range. With predicted USD devaluation, it will likely top $100 in 2011. Meanwhile the economy that not only produced significant innovation in the 50s, 60s, and 70s - and financed it with risk capital - is in decline, allocating increasing fractions of capital to easier and safer short-term returns from the financial sector. The economic virtuous circle has been broken; now, the primary source of infrastructure capital is government money. Yes, we should expect technology to improve the energy sector. But what kinds of improvements should we expect? Those who work in the sector tell us there'll be incremental gains. Nothing earth-shattering like cold fusion; instead, thousands of small improvements. Certainly they'll have a cumulative impact. They'll help. However in 10 years, we will need to see massive infrastructure upgrades completed, with new generation installed and running over an improved and optimized grid. Lead-time requirements, capital requirements and anticipated energy constraints strongly suggest we're not going to make it. Jim

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (35337)	9/5/2010 6:20:14 PM
From: axial	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 46821

Cash for Infrastructure [An important (but little-discussed) fact about stimulus is revealed here. Despite all the noise, much funding is only beginning to take effect, and some is still unspent.] A year and a half after the federal stimulus bill budgeted $80 billion for new energy technologies, the investment is providing much-needed momentum for clean tech. But what will happen when the money runs out? "But by far the largest energy expenditures in the stimulus bill support the demonstration and commercialization of new technologies. Loan guarantees, tax credits, and cash grants will supply tens of billions of dollars to advanced battery factories, solar power plants, and biofuel refineries (see "Taking Stock of the Stimulus")--large speculative projects for which tight credit and depressed financial markets would have made private funding nearly impossible... [Many tend to view this issue through the lens of a vanished economy, when long-term risk capital was readily available at predictable cost. That no longer pertains. The economic environment will color everything we do, for years to come.] ... Meanwhile, any comprehensive plan for energy innovation will need to deal with a simple technology fact: most existing alternatives to fossil fuels are currently too expensive to replace them to any significant degree. And yet the transition to lower-carbon fuels must begin immediately if the direst effects of global warming are to be avoided. Many economists favor carbon pricing, in the form of a direct carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system; either would effectively force companies to pay for carbon pollution, raising the cost of fossil fuels and making alternatives more competitive. But even some of the strongest advocates of carbon pricing acknowledge that, as Harvard economist Robert Stavins said in a recent interview, it is "essential but not sufficient." In other words, we'll still need energy innovation. Of course, an "energy miracle" is always possible (see Q&A), but to count on a radical breakthrough is to ignore the immediacy of global warming--and the amount of time it takes to fully commercialize energy technologies. A technology that's still in a researcher's lab or on a venture capitalist's whiteboard is at least a few decades from making a major impact on climate change. If the climate scientists are right, any such solution will be too little, too late." technologyreview.com Jim