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 : AUTOHOME, Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ahhaha who wrote (5012)	2/2/1999 8:26:00 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

OT AHhaha, I may have it wrong, like you say, but only because of factors derived out of fickleness on the gov's part, under the false banner of enlightenment, which is actually a reflection of their inability to address emerging technological issues in a timely way. I'm not knocking them for this, since I don't think that it's possible, any longer, to have a human-based machine in place that can act that fast, i.e., to monitor and keep pace with changes in technology on a universal scale, while at the same time regulating it. And despite their sometimes admissions that they cannot always do that ( I give them credit for that on those few occasions) they continue to promote the appearance of being able, at some elusive point in time, to pull it all together. The reason, for example, that they have taken a back seat to VoIP regulation doesn't have anything to do with egalitarian, or pro competitive stance. Rather (and they have admitted this), it's because communications technology is evolving so rapidly that they cannot implement regs fast enough to make them relevant. Instead, the FCC has this false sense that things at some point are going to "settle down" long enough for them to take a breather and regroup. This would only be possible today if there were a calamitous event of some kind which caused a meltdown of the infrastructure, necessitating going back to Square One. The Internet has proved to be a very startling wake up call for the FCC. The 'net represents the first time in their history when a technology was unleashed that was outside of their absolute ability to control. They have been making some very uncharacteristic concessions lately. Some of these stem from ideological reasons, but not all of them. I'm convinced that some of these, at least, are not because they want to see competition increase for the betterment of all, as is the implied message in their pat delivery. Rather, they fear that if they don't give in to the new order they will elicit the kinds of responses from the populace which would be on the order, metaphorically or otherwise, of those which were staged during the DNC of '68. The regulators have come to recognize, and learn in the process, that if they begin to define a set of rules from a purely apparent standpoint - as per their usual way of cataloging service attributes and cost elements in the common carrier sense - those services will invariably and swiftly change in nature, and further evolve in an integrated manner with the uncontrollable beast which we call the 'net. Even if the service is not on the 'net in the now-traditional sense. The changes I'm referring to here need not be major or obvious ones. Instead, they could be as subtle as a change of instructions in a chip set for them to represent significant problems, at the semantic level, for regulation. The pace of these changes is too rapid, by far, for the government to constantly re-define the landscape, depriving them of the crucial time needed to implement against them. If you ask me, they've already lost control. But they have sufficient funding in their PR expense line to erect a formidable frontage, one which has been very effective in presenting a business-as-usual appearance thus far, in a way that represents some kind of credibility. Underneath, however, I think that Kennard and Co. are trying to both impart some new ideas, giving them the benefit here of some doubt, and of equal or greater importance, they are trying to hold on to their posts. It's got to do with fear, aspirations and tenure in a world they could only understand fully if they have been assisted in some direct way by The Divine. And that's not likely.