If you can understand the story, losses were high on purpose, because of capital investment, and now capital investment will be slower and production will result in profits. Production done using the equipment represented by said capital investments. Simple.
Don't know if you have been in the business world, but capital is depreciated over the usable life of the investment. Wheeling out a ton of cash now in the build up for something in the future would be a footnote on current earnings. Now the accountants can be playing games with writedowns and accelerated depreciation, but I think you are missing the point - a loss is a loss in Wall Street reported earnings. Special one time stuff is often very well called out.
I truly admire this (or any other EM) company's ability to say "look over here, don't look at reality".
Isn't that a synonym for suspected but without evidence?
Just so we're on this front, I think that aliens have shadowy ties to the Egyption pyramids. I heard one of those pyramids has a weapon that can destroy planets. Maybe I'm thinking of the death star and its shadowy connections to the Empire.
Think about the risk that has transferred over to your personal devices. You take ownership of a BYOD as your own, even if you receive a stipend for its purchase. So now a BYOD affects you personally, and not only the company. For example, if you work in an environment where your BYODs could be damaged. This could range from the basic (spilled coffee) to the extreme (working outside in a harsh environment). What if its cosmetic damage?
Obviously I have some personal experience in this. I took a BYOD (Macbook Retina) on a business trip, and we were making coax cables. My colleague dropped his end and the center conductor whipsawed onto my brand new screen, leaving a scratch. So now my supposedly best in class screen has a smiley face scratch on it. You could argue it is cosmetic. So how you handle this? I talked with my boss and it became clear that having a BYOD means accepting some liability. To be clear, my job is fairly office environment-esque, just general IT tasks for the most part. I use my laptop for email, programming, office suite etc. But I could see days where I need to bring it on a man-lift or in a harsh environment. Not a great prospect.
There are certainly extremes where you can expect some company liability, but it opens many questions about how determine if/when risk of BYOD damage is a customer issue.
I'm not going to spend this much money, stipend or not, and have it get all jacked up. I'm leaning towards letting the company carry the risk going forward...
The only measuring stick I have is if a successful terrorist attack has taken place inside the United States. Ultimately, that was our goal following 9/11 - not let it happen again.
WTC 1993, Oklahoma City 1995, WTC 2001 - all of these are examples of what I don't want to see happen here again. In my estimation, I can find no example where attacks of this magnitude have taken place inside the US. The cliche goes: you can't argue with results.
I'm sorry, but the only fearmongering I see here is that the left throws out ambiguous statements about how their civil liberties have been violated. Never has anyone substantiated that with any facts. The fact is that the government has done a good job of preventing terrorism over the last 6+ years. Whether this is by luck or by a concerted effort, history will tell. But, I wait for facts rather than innuendo.
So how many billion do you think the US. Treasury netted from selling this spectrum to the highest bidder? If the government were to make Wimax public, it would lost all of this revenue, plus having the expense of building the network themselves.
Face it, these things cost _money_. If you had the money, you could do it yourself. It just happens that big telecom is the only private entity with the money/wherewithall to do it. Otherwise, get ready for the good ol' taxpayer to foot 3x the bill for a supposedly "free" network. And then what do we have, another fiscal boat anchor on the federal government for the next 20 years.
Ironbridge went out of business last year. There is one less router for them to deal with. They were backed by VC money from Newbridge, but when Alcatel bought Newbridge it all dried up.
While I think the T1 is the best method, its probably a little harder if there is more than one Telco in between. Rather than having a decent point to point bundled price, you'll end up with two telcos wanting to get big bucks out of their local loops. The long haul piece is not hard... its getting copper pairs to support it locally. Only one or so T1s can fit in a binder group, which would mean more construction.
I just don't see Microwave working here...45 miles is a heck of alot of line of sight.
Its not fair to compare the cost to a 3com Audrey however. Its been discontinued by 3com, and the price of 89.99 reflects that.
When the Audrey was new and under production, it was like $499. That doesn't quite compare. I guess if you consider the one time value of the Audrey, then I can definently understand.
Uhmm...are you saying you can't use GSM in Canada? Canada is probably the easiest place to roam for US GSM users. The carrier there, Microcell, is heavily invested in by Voicestream.
Also, they use the 1.9 ghz band like the rest of North America, so you don't even need a world phone.
I think its the point that you don't have to take the time of booting into the other OS. If you need to go to the other OS for 5 minutes of work, and it takes 2 minutes to reboot, you are wasting alot of time.
Then if you prefer to use linux again you'll have to spend the time booting back.
Of course this doesn't help if M-O-L doesn't help for games... then you really have to boot into OS-9 anyway.
I wouldn't rest easy just yet. I would assume that these resources would now become part of AT&T broadband. AT&T Broadband has been on the block for months now with AOL and Comcast(and others) as suitors.
Scary to think this, but it could still end up in the hands of AOL Time Warner through its acqusition of the rest of its cable customers.
Its actually more likely that comcast would be more successful as AOL is under heavy scrutiny for the moment. Not that AOL couldn't do it...the new regime at the FCC is more open to industry consolidation.
I agree 100%. I love how this thing can either natively, or learn, just about any device that you could have in your entertainment center.
The only few complaints I have with it are:
The backlight is not sensitive to you using it. Its on a timer..so after a while it just turns off, whether you like it or not.
Just seems to be a bit too big and intimidating for the casual user.
Eats batteries like no other... gotta keep the enegizer bunny going.
Lack of more macros.
One thing that is really awesome about it is its 4 full power infared transmitters. I wouldn't doubt this thing will be linked to skin damage or something. After trying to use Omniremote on a Palm V, you can't underestimate having a powerful transmitter to hit your equipment at any angle.
How can you blame someone for inventing the tool? How can you prevent your tool from being misused? Perhaps we should all head to Redmond with torches in hand proclaiming that Microsoft enabled these terrorists to attack America?
Sooner or later, we have to realize that we can not paralize society by protecting it against what either the malicious or stupid might do.
I wish it was as simple as "like another government service". You know, it wouldn't be described that way if the local government decided to get in the same field as you.
For example, you run the local automobile dealership. The city doesn't think you are giving the "value" to the users. What do you do? Take tax dollars from everybody in town and subsidize the industry for lower rates. All of a sudden the government is in your pocket taking your money twice. Once for the taxes, the second for stealing your business.
The second issue is that people seem to think high speed Internet is a right that should be nearly free. Does anyone realize what it costs to build these networks? Thats why in rural areas it takes longer as the investment and following ROI are a slow process. All the time people want 768k for 20 dollars a month. Hows that going to pay? Enter the mighty local government - we can take tax payer dollars and build this network to give all these services at that low rate. Once agian, tax dollars are floating this overall losing proposition. And if you don't use it, again you are paying twice...once in taxes, once the the other service provider.
Lastly, once these networks are in, they become the giant beasts that can not be stopped. Since they are losing money, every legislator with a noble idea will try to get the muni-network into more lines of business. Constantly trying to self justify itself.
Lastly again.... is cable TV really an essential service enough that the government has to step in? Get a freaking Satellite dish people...
The only downside is with many phones, including Motorola, other features require the user and phone number to be stored in local memory.
For example, on my v3682 it has to be in local memory for you to be able to use voice dialing. Of course this allows for lots more storage by using the SIM + local flash memory combo.
I'm using an instant internet from Nortel. I think this is an excellent box if you are looking for some branch office user management etc. It allows you to do more filtering and meetering of the users on the LAN. It can route as well as do NAT.
Being a person that has worked in the telecom industry since 1996, I have a hard time thinking this person could have done any true research.
While I admit my conservative slants agree with much he has to say, there has to be reality that steps in when dealing with the business aspects of the telecom industry.
1st: Yes the Bell System was/is a monopoly. It was government supported for most of the 20th century. Thus, regulation is used to combat this.
2nd: Does he know what it costs to be a facilities based provider of services? These local loops have cost the Bell System/other telcos Billions to install. In today's world, it is so expensive to gain easement to build a metro/ city network. The Bell system did it when it was acceptable and relatively inexpensive to build. This is where unbundling facilties comes in. Hopefully, the playing field comes level when the Bells must share their access.
3rd: While capitalism is a wonderful thing, it has its downsides. The rural market is underserved by the Bells (and will continue to be underserved) because of the return of investment. Metro markets are the low hanging fruit: very dense, high take rates etc. The rural is very costly to build, and often has lower take rates. I believe that the rural markets will be built by independent companies, or if the Bells sell off their less favorable assets.
Of course, selling assets has become passee as of late, look at the now failed sale of local telephone from Qwest(USWest) to Citizens Communications.
I don't like regulation as much as the next guy, when these companies are able to leverage their assets to such a high degree, there has to be some involvement. These Bells are able to slow down every competitor by simply holding them in court. It costs them millions in court fees before getting a single customer.
Two last things:
First, I agree wholeheartedly that the government should stay out of operating telephone networks. If this is through federal state governments, or through municipalities. This crushes the only true competition that might occur. Especially in the form of municipalities. The consumer faces the consequences of higher taxes to subsidize the city's local telephone. So if they do not take it, they end up paying for service twice. Second, muni's are beasts, that once created can never be killed, and often get their hands into other seemingly "common good" items. When it comes to this, ask yourself a simple question, do you want the government starting a business that competes with your job? Hits a little closer to home then....your tax dollars are used to run you out of business.
Lastly, its not the cable providers that are making tons of money. Its the content providers...they essentially can charge whatever they want. Think about ESPN...how can you compete with anyone if you don't provide it? That allows Disney to set whatever rate they want for it...
Back in the good ol' days, when competition was light, you could gain a decent user base. However, you never made a dime at it, and your only hope was someone bigger would buy you out to help cash int he chips.
These days, most ISPs are the ILEC or a subset of the telecommunications industry. They can use telecom to subsidize their ISP business. Basically, their cost of operation will always be less than yours. So, unless you are in a very underserved market, its not worth it.
Only two of the list of vendors, Cisco and Juniper, have bulletproof and fast enough BGP implementations to survive the net. In fact, Foundry admits that their bigiron products aren't up to the challenge of the Internet core.
Slashdot Mirror
If you can understand the story, losses were high on purpose, because of capital investment, and now capital investment will be slower and production will result in profits. Production done using the equipment represented by said capital investments. Simple.
Don't know if you have been in the business world, but capital is depreciated over the usable life of the investment. Wheeling out a ton of cash now in the build up for something in the future would be a footnote on current earnings. Now the accountants can be playing games with writedowns and accelerated depreciation, but I think you are missing the point - a loss is a loss in Wall Street reported earnings. Special one time stuff is often very well called out.
I truly admire this (or any other EM) company's ability to say "look over here, don't look at reality".
Isn't that a synonym for suspected but without evidence?
Just so we're on this front, I think that aliens have shadowy ties to the Egyption pyramids. I heard one of those pyramids has a weapon that can destroy planets. Maybe I'm thinking of the death star and its shadowy connections to the Empire.
Think about the risk that has transferred over to your personal devices. You take ownership of a BYOD as your own, even if you receive a stipend for its purchase. So now a BYOD affects you personally, and not only the company. For example, if you work in an environment where your BYODs could be damaged. This could range from the basic (spilled coffee) to the extreme (working outside in a harsh environment). What if its cosmetic damage?
Obviously I have some personal experience in this. I took a BYOD (Macbook Retina) on a business trip, and we were making coax cables. My colleague dropped his end and the center conductor whipsawed onto my brand new screen, leaving a scratch. So now my supposedly best in class screen has a smiley face scratch on it. You could argue it is cosmetic. So how you handle this? I talked with my boss and it became clear that having a BYOD means accepting some liability. To be clear, my job is fairly office environment-esque, just general IT tasks for the most part. I use my laptop for email, programming, office suite etc. But I could see days where I need to bring it on a man-lift or in a harsh environment. Not a great prospect.
There are certainly extremes where you can expect some company liability, but it opens many questions about how determine if/when risk of BYOD damage is a customer issue.
I'm not going to spend this much money, stipend or not, and have it get all jacked up. I'm leaning towards letting the company carry the risk going forward...
The only measuring stick I have is if a successful terrorist attack has taken place inside the United States. Ultimately, that was our goal following 9/11 - not let it happen again.
WTC 1993, Oklahoma City 1995, WTC 2001 - all of these are examples of what I don't want to see happen here again. In my estimation, I can find no example where attacks of this magnitude have taken place inside the US. The cliche goes: you can't argue with results.
I'm sorry, but the only fearmongering I see here is that the left throws out ambiguous statements about how their civil liberties have been violated. Never has anyone substantiated that with any facts. The fact is that the government has done a good job of preventing terrorism over the last 6+ years. Whether this is by luck or by a concerted effort, history will tell. But, I wait for facts rather than innuendo.
So how many billion do you think the US. Treasury netted from selling this spectrum to the highest bidder? If the government were to make Wimax public, it would lost all of this revenue, plus having the expense of building the network themselves.
Face it, these things cost _money_. If you had the money, you could do it yourself. It just happens that big telecom is the only private entity with the money/wherewithall to do it. Otherwise, get ready for the good ol' taxpayer to foot 3x the bill for a supposedly "free" network. And then what do we have, another fiscal boat anchor on the federal government for the next 20 years.
Ironbridge went out of business last year. There is one less router for them to deal with. They were backed by VC money from Newbridge, but when Alcatel bought Newbridge it all dried up.
I just don't see Microwave working here...45 miles is a heck of alot of line of sight.
When the Audrey was new and under production, it was like $499. That doesn't quite compare. I guess if you consider the one time value of the Audrey, then I can definently understand.
Smallpox for example, would spread like crazy since we don't have a vaccine for it anymore.
A single spec of Anthrax will kill you... I don't think you can get much more deadly.
Also, they use the 1.9 ghz band like the rest of North America, so you don't even need a world phone.
I roamed in Canada quite a bit... works great.
Then if you prefer to use linux again you'll have to spend the time booting back.
Of course this doesn't help if M-O-L doesn't help for games... then you really have to boot into OS-9 anyway.
Scary to think this, but it could still end up in the hands of AOL Time Warner through its acqusition of the rest of its cable customers.
Its actually more likely that comcast would be more successful as AOL is under heavy scrutiny for the moment. Not that AOL couldn't do it...the new regime at the FCC is more open to industry consolidation.
The only few complaints I have with it are:
The backlight is not sensitive to you using it. Its on a timer..so after a while it just turns off, whether you like it or not.
Just seems to be a bit too big and intimidating for the casual user.
Eats batteries like no other... gotta keep the enegizer bunny going.
Lack of more macros.
One thing that is really awesome about it is its 4 full power infared transmitters. I wouldn't doubt this thing will be linked to skin damage or something. After trying to use Omniremote on a Palm V, you can't underestimate having a powerful transmitter to hit your equipment at any angle.
Sooner or later, we have to realize that we can not paralize society by protecting it against what either the malicious or stupid might do.
The codecs at each end of the call often add between 5 and 40 ms of latency. This doesn't leave much room for a packet to travel long distance.
Course this is talking toll quality voice too...
For example, you run the local automobile dealership. The city doesn't think you are giving the "value" to the users. What do you do? Take tax dollars from everybody in town and subsidize the industry for lower rates. All of a sudden the government is in your pocket taking your money twice. Once for the taxes, the second for stealing your business.
The second issue is that people seem to think high speed Internet is a right that should be nearly free. Does anyone realize what it costs to build these networks? Thats why in rural areas it takes longer as the investment and following ROI are a slow process. All the time people want 768k for 20 dollars a month. Hows that going to pay? Enter the mighty local government - we can take tax payer dollars and build this network to give all these services at that low rate. Once agian, tax dollars are floating this overall losing proposition. And if you don't use it, again you are paying twice..
Lastly, once these networks are in, they become the giant beasts that can not be stopped. Since they are losing money, every legislator with a noble idea will try to get the muni-network into more lines of business. Constantly trying to self justify itself.
Lastly again.... is cable TV really an essential service enough that the government has to step in? Get a freaking Satellite dish people...
For example, on my v3682 it has to be in local memory for you to be able to use voice dialing. Of course this allows for lots more storage by using the SIM + local flash memory combo.
The downside: Its a bit more pricey.
I just think its a function of your language in the region, rather than one way is right or wrong.
Example 2: processor: "praw-cessor"... up there is "pro-cessor" Probably more true to how its spelled.
I think we'd want that...then we'd have time travel, and interstellar rockets and..and...Borg..
While I admit my conservative slants agree with much he has to say, there has to be reality that steps in when dealing with the business aspects of the telecom industry.
1st: Yes the Bell System was/is a monopoly. It was government supported for most of the 20th century. Thus, regulation is used to combat this.
2nd: Does he know what it costs to be a facilities based provider of services? These local loops have cost the Bell System/other telcos Billions to install. In today's world, it is so expensive to gain easement to build a metro/ city network. The Bell system did it when it was acceptable and relatively inexpensive to build. This is where unbundling facilties comes in. Hopefully, the playing field comes level when the Bells must share their access.
3rd: While capitalism is a wonderful thing, it has its downsides. The rural market is underserved by the Bells (and will continue to be underserved) because of the return of investment. Metro markets are the low hanging fruit: very dense, high take rates etc. The rural is very costly to build, and often has lower take rates. I believe that the rural markets will be built by independent companies, or if the Bells sell off their less favorable assets.
Of course, selling assets has become passee as of late, look at the now failed sale of local telephone from Qwest(USWest) to Citizens Communications.
I don't like regulation as much as the next guy, when these companies are able to leverage their assets to such a high degree, there has to be some involvement. These Bells are able to slow down every competitor by simply holding them in court. It costs them millions in court fees before getting a single customer.
Two last things:
First, I agree wholeheartedly that the government should stay out of operating telephone networks. If this is through federal state governments, or through municipalities. This crushes the only true competition that might occur. Especially in the form of municipalities. The consumer faces the consequences of higher taxes to subsidize the city's local telephone. So if they do not take it, they end up paying for service twice. Second, muni's are beasts, that once created can never be killed, and often get their hands into other seemingly "common good" items. When it comes to this, ask yourself a simple question, do you want the government starting a business that competes with your job? Hits a little closer to home then....your tax dollars are used to run you out of business.
Lastly, its not the cable providers that are making tons of money. Its the content providers...they essentially can charge whatever they want. Think about ESPN...how can you compete with anyone if you don't provide it? That allows Disney to set whatever rate they want for it...
Anyway...enough ranting..
These days, most ISPs are the ILEC or a subset of the telecommunications industry. They can use telecom to subsidize their ISP business. Basically, their cost of operation will always be less than yours. So, unless you are in a very underserved market, its not worth it.
Only two of the list of vendors, Cisco and Juniper, have bulletproof and fast enough BGP implementations to survive the net. In fact, Foundry admits that their bigiron products aren't up to the challenge of the Internet core.
The IETF is working on 4 octets AS fields, rather than the current limit of 2 octets. Obviously a 32 bit number is quite a few more AS's.