It appears to me that they are simply beta testing these courses on an unsuspecting public.
"Available Now: Pilot version of CSR course including Current content, Case studies and Causality Lab 1.0
Available Summer 2004: Pilot version of CSR updated with improved navigation, interactive pseudo tutors and Causality Lab 2.0 which includes a causal model exercise builder."
Available Fall 2004: Actual version of CSR updated with payment module accepting PayPal and Credit Cards.
No, I did not miss the point. I specifically stated that regulatory agencies would need to begin to differentiate between regulations required for infrastructure, for example open access provisions, and regulations required for services, for example E911, and that this separation would likely lead to reductions in regulation overall as service regulation would be eliminated through market competition.
You state VoIP will replace the phone company. This is false, the phone company will continue to supply connections to customers although they may be digital in nature and provide alternative services including video. As to whether or not the phone companies are, as you claim, less well looked upon body parts, please remember that the phone companies had a hand in building this country and have until recently been at the forefront of technological innovation.
Vonage is advertising their service as a replacement to phone service despite any disclaimers they make about feature limitations. Recently visiting their website would activate a pop-up that invited you to cut your phone bill.
However Vonage and other VoIP providers have been immune from the regulations that increase costs for POTS providers, their competitors.
The argument should not be whether Vonage should be treated as a phone company, but rather what taxes and regulations should be applied to the service components, and what taxes should be applied to the last mile physical components which are typically government granted monopolies.
It also becomes evident that the Universal Service Fund now needs to consider subsidizing VoIP as an alternative to POTS where it is most cost effective. This creates additional business for VoIP providers.
Ultimately VoIP should reduce, though not eliminate, regulations and taxes for all providers as the market determines what features providers must support.
Disclaimer: I am still miffed at Vonage about the length of time my number transfer took.
I thought the original article said that team members were massively sharing nearly completed work units so that every machine on the team would complete the work unit and submit it.
The IEEE Spectrum carried an article that provided more detailed information on Microsoft's Tablet PC specification. It also addressed some other form factors that were being independently advanced.
To address repeated comments about spectrum usage, no additional spectrum is required.
Please see Digital Radio Takes to the Road specfically the section on IBOC (In-band/On-channel). Specifically see this figure which presents how the data is added to the current AM and FM channels.
Perhaps if you should research this technology before you comment on it?
This technology uses the existing bandwidth allocated for radio by allowing existing radio stations to additionally broadcast their signal in digital in their current frequency allocation using much less bandwidth and with additional information like traffic conditions.
"It was in this environment that the concept of in-band/on-channel (IBOC) digital audio broadcasting was born [see figure]. The idea was to create a terrestrial broadcasting system using a new digital signal that could be transmitted in-band alongside a broadcaster's existing analog signal. In theory, this would be ideal. It would require no extra allocation of spectrum, replicate the coverage of the existing services, and allow broadcasters to remain independent from one another--no need for combining audio programs as with Eureka." From the IEEE Spectrum
The author of the article is saying, as far as I can tell, that TiVo as a company will fail because their hardware is in the market too soon. The author has failed to understand some basics of the TiVo business model.
First, licensing is not something that may save TiVo, it is one of the main focuses of their business. With partnerships with Sony, AT&T and DirecTV, and the technology in use in America, Asia and Europe, TiVo is well positioned to benefit from the continued rollout of this technology, not suffer from competition.
TiVo doesn't really make and sell the hardware, so they are not like the hardware based companies (Apple, Commodore) they are compared to in the article. Yes, they do subsidize the stand alone units, but standalone units (and competing standalone units like XBOX) are destined for the garbage heap. Integrating the technology into set top boxes (satellite/cable) and letting the service providers subsidize/support the equipment is the model that will succeed. This completely invalidates the authors arguments of complicated setup and being hard to sell in a retail establishment.
TiVo plays nicely with content providers. TiVo has gone out of their way to try to stay on the good side of the studio's IP lawyers. The clearest example is that it takes some intelligence to turn on 30-second skip; it is not enabled by default from the factory.
TiVo actively pursues other revenue sources. TiVo is using its service to deliver targeted advertising (Best Buy, Lexus).
Now, I am not saying that TiVo as a company will succeed in its current form (my crystal ball is at the cleaners), but if it fails it is not going to be because of some mythical disadvantage from being in the market first.
Look for a firmware upgrade for your bluetooth equipment soon, but read this news item from the IEEE Spectrum now for an outline of the FCC's solution to the interference problem.
"Quick fix will let one avoid interfering with the other"
For more information on how companies are trying to reduce the need for system administration see the recent article in the IEEE spectrum;
By David Pescovitz
If we were just like computer systems, we would all need 24-hour life-support. If computer systems were just like us, they would handle their routine functions the way our bodies do -- automatically.
Slashdot Mirror
It appears to me that they are simply beta testing these courses on an unsuspecting public. "Available Now: Pilot version of CSR course including Current content, Case studies and Causality Lab 1.0 Available Summer 2004: Pilot version of CSR updated with improved navigation, interactive pseudo tutors and Causality Lab 2.0 which includes a causal model exercise builder." Available Fall 2004: Actual version of CSR updated with payment module accepting PayPal and Credit Cards.
No, I did not miss the point.
I specifically stated that regulatory agencies would need to begin to differentiate between regulations required for infrastructure, for example open access provisions, and regulations required for services, for example E911, and that this separation would likely lead to reductions in regulation overall as service regulation would be eliminated through market competition.
You state VoIP will replace the phone company. This is false, the phone company will continue to supply connections to customers although they may be digital in nature and provide alternative services including video.
As to whether or not the phone companies are, as you claim, less well looked upon body parts, please remember that the phone companies had a hand in building this country and have until recently been at the forefront of technological innovation.
Vonage is advertising their service as a replacement to phone service despite any disclaimers they make about feature limitations. Recently visiting their website would activate a pop-up that invited you to cut your phone bill. However Vonage and other VoIP providers have been immune from the regulations that increase costs for POTS providers, their competitors. The argument should not be whether Vonage should be treated as a phone company, but rather what taxes and regulations should be applied to the service components, and what taxes should be applied to the last mile physical components which are typically government granted monopolies. It also becomes evident that the Universal Service Fund now needs to consider subsidizing VoIP as an alternative to POTS where it is most cost effective. This creates additional business for VoIP providers. Ultimately VoIP should reduce, though not eliminate, regulations and taxes for all providers as the market determines what features providers must support. Disclaimer: I am still miffed at Vonage about the length of time my number transfer took.
I thought the original article said that team members were massively sharing nearly completed work units so that every machine on the team would complete the work unit and submit it.
The IEEE Spectrum carried an article that provided more detailed information on Microsoft's Tablet PC specification. It also addressed some other form factors that were being independently advanced.
It discusses future plans for the system.
Digital Radio Takes to the Road
Please see Digital Radio Takes to the Road specfically the section on IBOC (In-band/On-channel). Specifically see this figure which presents how the data is added to the current AM and FM channels.
Perhaps if you should research this technology before you comment on it? This technology uses the existing bandwidth allocated for radio by allowing existing radio stations to additionally broadcast their signal in digital in their current frequency allocation using much less bandwidth and with additional information like traffic conditions. "It was in this environment that the concept of in-band/on-channel (IBOC) digital audio broadcasting was born [see figure]. The idea was to create a terrestrial broadcasting system using a new digital signal that could be transmitted in-band alongside a broadcaster's existing analog signal. In theory, this would be ideal. It would require no extra allocation of spectrum, replicate the coverage of the existing services, and allow broadcasters to remain independent from one another--no need for combining audio programs as with Eureka." From the IEEE Spectrum
Michael K. Powell
Kathleen Q. Abernathy
Michael J. Copps
Kevin J. Martin
Additional Information
The author of the article is saying, as far as I can tell, that TiVo as a company will fail because their hardware is in the market too soon. The author has failed to understand some basics of the TiVo business model.
First, licensing is not something that may save TiVo, it is one of the main focuses of their business. With partnerships with Sony, AT&T and DirecTV, and the technology in use in America, Asia and Europe, TiVo is well positioned to benefit from the continued rollout of this technology, not suffer from competition.
TiVo doesn't really make and sell the hardware, so they are not like the hardware based companies (Apple, Commodore) they are compared to in the article. Yes, they do subsidize the stand alone units, but standalone units (and competing standalone units like XBOX) are destined for the garbage heap. Integrating the technology into set top boxes (satellite/cable) and letting the service providers subsidize/support the equipment is the model that will succeed. This completely invalidates the authors arguments of complicated setup and being hard to sell in a retail establishment.
TiVo plays nicely with content providers. TiVo has gone out of their way to try to stay on the good side of the studio's IP lawyers. The clearest example is that it takes some intelligence to turn on 30-second skip; it is not enabled by default from the factory.
TiVo actively pursues other revenue sources. TiVo is using its service to deliver targeted advertising (Best Buy, Lexus).
Now, I am not saying that TiVo as a company will succeed in its current form (my crystal ball is at the cleaners), but if it fails it is not going to be because of some mythical disadvantage from being in the market first.
"Quick fix will let one avoid interfering with the other"
By David Pescovitz
If we were just like computer systems, we would all need 24-hour life-support. If computer systems were just like us, they would handle their routine functions the way our bodies do -- automatically.