Travis (Randy) Thompson wrote: > In that regard I can only wonder if more effort is being > applied to suppressing wireless technologies because of the resulting > loss of capital expenditures and profits derived from maintaining and > building obsolete infrastructure. > The computer industry has had to deal with the cannabilization issue over and over again because the technology has required it. I believe we are on the cusp of the same eating of the young in telecom infrastructure (or in this case, the old). The whole thrust of the telecom act requires it. Witness the incredible changes in computer technology over the last ten years. I see major changes in telecom that has the potential to obsolete cable and telephone companies. As Andy Grove says, you've got to be paranoid to survive in this business. I think the incumbents are paranoid and looking over their back, but very scared of the future at the same time. I believe we will be offered what I call the "Sony"tm approach to networking. In other words, a consumer electronics driven network creation opportunity. I hope and believe that high bandwidth, short range, unregulated wireless technologies will allow this to occur. The problem is in convincing large numbers of people that they should "buy into" a network solution, just as they have bought into TV, radio, VCR, small satellite dish and computer technology. This is where educated communities and consumers are needed. Knowing what your options are and what the technology can produce, rather than being led around by the technological nose by incumbents with lots to lose. I called my company Low Tech Designs after spending several decades in high tech. My opinion is that the accelerated R&D output of the last 30 years has gotten to the point that we need a pause in order to digest it all. I think we have the pause. Now, will we take the time to digest it, in a way that makes sense for consumers? Marty Tennant President Low Tech Designs, Inc. "Bringing Technology Down to Earth"tm