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 : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (21284)	1/14/1999 10:10:00 AM
From: straight life	Respond to of 152472

What if You took a vacation and Ramses started making predictions? Generalized chicken-little-running-around-the-barnyard don't count.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (21284)	1/14/1999 11:01:00 AM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Maurice - To avoid sudden shouting and abuse of the spectrum, there would be some device compliance requirements by governments who would maintain a spectrum policing role as with other common property. The problem with that is that that also involves some form of government arbitrariness, just as does the spectrum sales that the FCC makes. (e.g. Someone who wants to broadcast air cable of 500 HDTV channels to 10,000 homes is using the spectrum much more reasonably than someone who is just a lazy bum and puts up the same transmitter to broadcast to 10 remote users, but they pollute the airwaves equally. It might be answered that the economics of equipment cost prevent that, but that is far from obvious. However, even if it is so nominally, what about someone who gets bankruptcy surplus.) I was thinking of something more along the lines that you talk about elsewhere: Presumably Clark, since you asked me, the service provider would bill people for connection time and if they were having trouble finding spectrum they'd just put the price up a bit until things quietened down. The problem with that is, as Chaz points out, that in the Gilder world no one owns the frequency. Who is charging who? Maybe the government charges a usage rate? I tentatively tend to lean in this direction with the charges being based, as you suggest, on how crowded the spectrum is (either instantaneously or on average). It has the advantage of allowing continual adjustment, but at the same time encouraging thriftiness. But now the government is involved again. Although there could almost certainly be more efficient schemes used to regulate spectrum than are currently in use, ultimately I cannot see any way to entirely remove the government from the process. Clark

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (21284)	1/14/1999 9:39:00 PM
From: Asterisk	Respond to of 152472

There is something that noone is talking about, that is enforcement of the no screaming rule. I am sure that you guys/gals have thought about the fact that someway, somehow there would have to be some rules. Once you make that statement the question of who will enforce them follows quickly. After that you get into things like mega burocracies and questions of local, national, or worldwide enforcement. Once you go there you need to start asking about places like China, and many of the other countries of the world where bribery rules. Or worse yet in Russia and some of the other former Soviet Union where thuggery and the underworld rule. I guess my point is this: In the current world even with advanced technology you are opening a pandoras box that you may not want to open.