view release on metacpan or  search on metacpan

share/SpamAssassin/easy_ham/00942.727cb1619115cdee240fa418da19dd1f  view on Meta::CPAN

    Thu, 10 Oct 2002 02:50:52 +0100
Received: from lair.xent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xent.com (Postfix)
    with ESMTP id 3352B2940A0; Wed,  9 Oct 2002 18:50:04 -0700 (PDT)
Delivered-To: fork@spamassassin.taint.org
Received: from mail.endeavors.com (unknown [66.161.8.83]) by xent.com
    (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2409F29409A for <Fork@xent.com>; Wed,
    9 Oct 2002 18:49:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from endeavors.com ([66.161.8.83] RDNS failed) by
    mail.endeavors.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Wed,
    9 Oct 2002 18:50:05 -0700
Message-Id: <3DA4DCC7.6060601@endeavors.com>
From: Gregory Alan Bolcer <gbolcer@endeavors.com>
Organization: Endeavors Technology, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1)
    Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rohit Khare <khare@alumni.caltech.edu>
Cc: Fork@xent.com
Subject: Re: Lord of the Ringtones: Arbocks vs. Seelecks
References: <F80BF485-DB2E-11D6-B1B1-000393A46DEA@alumni.caltech.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Originalarrivaltime: 10 Oct 2002 01:50:05.0878 (UTC) FILETIME=[5B4AFD60:01C26FFF]
Sender: fork-admin@xent.com
Errors-To: fork-admin@xent.com
X-Beenthere: fork@spamassassin.taint.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:fork@spamassassin.taint.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork>, <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Friends of Rohit Khare <fork.xent.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork>,
    <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://xent.com/pipermail/fork/>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 18:49:59 -0700

I got to see Powell talk in March 2001 at the beginning of his
reign at the FCC.  He said they were going to take a real
hands off approach, so it's funny that they would blame
the regulators for causing the collapse.  One thing he did
get right, is that he wasn't worried that the US was behind
Europe in the wireless licensing spectrum.  This is something
very prescient in that most of those licensors have had to
eat their lunch over the huge licensing costs they paid for
very little benefit.  His legacy was/is supposed to be
rethinking the FCC's role to stay out of the way in this
period of business innovation in the wireless space as he
didn't want the government forcing business models onto
the private sector.

His full transcript is here [1].  Interestingly enough I
got to see his speech in person as he was part of the whole
CTIA'2001 Las Vegas keynote series of speakers.  Clay and
I hoped a flight out of Ontario to Las Vegas to do demo support
for Craig Barrett [2].  His message was that there's no difference
between wired and wireless Internet--it's all the same thing.
Instead of scalable networks, we should be thinking about scalable
content (& using Magi he showed sending a blue man tv commercial
from a desktop to a laptop to an ipaq to a color smartphone with
the content scaling back for each target platform).

The best part of the whole trip wasn't hobnobbing at all,
but really the fact that the Venetian had ran out of rooms.
They decided to put us up in one of their $10,000/night high
roller rooms.  They put Clay in one and me in another.
The Venetian is known for having the largest hotel rooms
anywhere, but these ones were bigger than my whole house. 8-)

Greg


[1] http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Powell/2001/spmkp101.html
[2] http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/speeches/cb20010320.htm

Rohit Khare wrote:
> I can't believe I actually read a laugh-out-loud funny profile of the 
> *FCC Commissioner* fer crissakes! So the following article comes 
> recommended, a fine explanation of Michael Powell's extraordinary 
> equivocation.
> 
> On the other hand, I can also agree with Werbach's Werblog entry... Rohit
> 
>> A Trip to F.C.C. World
>>
>> Nicholas Lemann has a piece in the New Yorker this week about FCC 
>> Chairman Michael Powell.  It's one of the first articles I've seen 
>> that captures some of Powell's real personality, and the way he's 
>> viewed in Washington.  Unfortunately, Lemann ends by endorsing 
>> conventional political wisdom.  After describing how Powell isn't 
>> really a fire-breathing ideological conservative, he concludes that, 
>> in essence, Powell favors the inumbent local Bell telephone companies, 
>> while a Democratic FCC would favor new entrants.  I know that's not 
>> how Powell sees the world, and though I disagree with him on many 
>> issues, I think he's right to resist the old dichotomy.
>>
>> The telecom collapse should be a humbling experience for anyone who 
>> went through it.  The disaster wasn't the regulators' fault, as some 
>> conservatives argue.  But something clearly went horribly wrong, and 
>> policy-makers should learn from that experience.  Contrary to Lemann's 
>> speculation, the upstart carriers won't be successful in a Gore 
>> administration, because it's too late.  Virtually all of them are 
>> dead, and Wall Street has turned off the capital tap for the 
>> foreseeable future.  Some may survive, but as small players rather 
>> than world-dominators. 
>>
>> The battle between CLECs and RBOCs that Lemann so astutely parodies is 
>> old news.  The next important battle in telecom will be between those 
>> who want to stay within the traditional boxes, and those who use 
>> different models entirely.  That's why open broadband networks and 
>> open spectrum are so important.  Whatever the regulatory environment, 
>> there is going to be consolidation in telecom.  Those left out in that 
>> consolidation will face increasing pressure to create new pipes into 
>> the home, or slowly die. The victors in the consolidation game will 
>> cut back on innovation and raise prices, which will create further 
>> pressure for alternatives. 
>>
>> Lemann is right that policy-making looks much drier and more ambiguous 
>> on the ground than through the lens of history.  But he's wrong in 
>> thinking that telecom's future will be something like its past.