[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: You are all being taken for a ride
Widespread *broadband* (multi-meagbit) access and two-way cable TV is
decades off - agreed.
BUT we could see wireless ISDN available in most major metro markets within
5 years, maybe less depending on how long it takes the industry to wake up
and realize that CDMA will not work for mobile users because of the dynamic
power control problem (but works fine for fixed radio access). Wireless
local loop technologies are the ONLY way we are going to get facitilies
based competition anywhere outside the high density downtown areas that the
CAPS are already wiring with fiber. ISDN comes along with this as a gimme.
The third world will drive huge volumes on infrastructure, dropping the
cost of wireless local access (at mid-band speeds - ie., ISDN) through the
floor. This stuff is going to be cheap and plentiful, and there is spectrum
to burn to put it in, without even counting on freeing up the UHF channels
that the broadcasters are sitting on. Moreover IT IS ALREADY HAPPENING.
Take a look at how the local telecom market is changing in the UK. Take a
look at the development plans of all the major cellular and wireless
infrastructure vendors, even the weasels at Qualcomm. It's all right there,
plain as day. The lightbulb has finally gone off, and it is saying wireless
I'm happy to wait five years for lower ISDN rates in return for ridding
ourselves of Public Utility Commissions. If the PUCs get massively involved
in setting outrageaously low ISDN prices and the FCC passes broad Universal
Service rules that penalize entrepreneurs by taxing them to support the
provision of services to people that are not even their customers, this
will stretch to 20 years (or maybe never) because enterpreneurs will not
bother entering this market. They will take their risk capital and go
elsewhere. Meanwhile, the RBOCs will slow down ISDN deployment even
further because all the potential profits will have been sucked out of it
and there will be absolutely no motivation to deploy. You call this
Mark, you are so blinded by your British conspiracy theories that you just
can't seem to think this one through. Declaring telecommunications a
"natural monopoly" shows a ludicrous disregard for history before Theodore
Vail sold us down the river. Just because Gilder, Huber (and Grove) are
wrong about the technology doesn't mean we can't build a vibrant
competitive market in local telecommunications. But we never will if we let
Jamie and his boys rig the game.
What attracted MCI to the long distance business? If twenty years ago the
FCC had set AT&T's long distance prices as low as they are today, do you
think we would have an MCI or a Sprint?
I'm really saddened to see you become such an enemy of the free market.
I've tried real hard to keep an open mind and follow the thread of your
arguments, as complex as these get, but I think I'm about ready to get off
Sorry to vent in public here, this has been building up for a while.
>No, you are taking yourself on a ride by allowing your ideology to mess with
>what should be your better judgement. After championing enterprenuers and
>attacking those who falsely trumpet hyped up techno-fantasies for years
>(where we have been shoulder to shoulder), you are now digging yourself into
>a very deep hole.
>You are being a utopian -- proceeding from "first principles" -- when you
>should be a realist -- proceeding from your knowledge of technology *and*
>political process. You disqualify yourself by taking reality itself and
>calling it an abomination. You remove yourself from the discussion by
>violating the reality principle.
>Reality in telecom is regulations and monopolies. Reality is not now and
>never will be a "Free Market." Free markets, however they might conform to
>your "principles" are a trick. This free market stuff is derived from a
>philosophy of the mighty -- British Imperial Radical Liberalism.
> De-regulation of telecom markets will *not* help anyone but those who are
>already mighty. It will *not* help entreprenuers, most importantly.
>As you know very well, there will be no competition for ISDN (on a generally
>deployed basis) for a decade. Period. No wireless or broadband technology
>can possibly be deployed widely before then. Period. At least the Peter
>Hubers (lawyers) and George Gilders (journalists) of the world don't know
>the technology. They have some excuse. You are a damn good technologist --
>so you have no where to hide.
>Therefore, because you want enterprenuers to be able to provide imaginative
>new services on circuits as fast as possible, you should be fully in favor of
>forcing the monopoly providers to offer ISDN at marginal cost -- just what
>Jamie et.al. are up to. But, instead, you are willing to screw with all of
>this for your "principles." Phooey.
>Moreover, you are stupid to call regulation of monopoly telecom providers
>"socialism." Come on now. Get a grip -- preferably on reality.
>New Media Associates
>New York City