GSO/Guilford Pols

October 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

« Retail correctness | Main | IFYI »

Jan 18, 2013

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cc33e53ef017d4027df58970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Infrastructure:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

justcorbly

It's interesting to see corporate beneficiaries of an effective state-charted monopoly fend off criticism by trolling about Adam Smith and the free market. The last thing T-W, etc., want is a free bandwidth market.

bubba

"....effective state-charted monopoly......"

Isn't that the fantasy indoctrination game thing my grandson plays endlessly on X-Box?

Or is it just an oxymoron?

Roch

"I was told recently that the conversation has not been forgotten, and that WiMax may be of interest to some powerful folks in that circle." -- Ed

By whom? Nothing will ever change as long as we remain too polite to hold people to account.

Ed Cone

That "recently" note was three years ago. Obviously, it didn't happen. At this point I couldn't begin to remember who said it, but obviously it was someone in that AG inner circle.

Also, it's not being "polite" run blind items, it's a way leveraging access to information. If you don't like it, don't do it at your site. I try to be judicious about it here, and I think my track record is good in terms of the net benefit of information shared.

Roch

Yeah, but after the fact, when people don't follow through and instead of holding them to account you wag your fingers at those of us who ask you to, well... it just seems like you're too often willing to pull up short. That's a proven part of your track record too. I wish it were otherwise—that instead of just sharing information, you did some heavy lifting once in a while and actually affected some change. You'd be effective if you tried, I think.

Ed Cone

Yeah, that would work really well, to tell people "I'll honor our agreement on attribution, but only if things go the way I want them to, otherwise I'm changing the rules retroactively."

The choice here is to provide some information or no information. I think there's value in providing some information.

You burn sources once, then you have no more sources.

Jon Lowder

From the Jan. 20 Winston-Salem Journal:

http://www.journalnow.com/news/local/article_b5e6691a-628a-11e2-9f94-0019bb30f31a.html

Wake Forest, along with Duke University, N.C. State University and UNC Chapel Hill, are establishing the N.C. Next Generation Network (NC NGN) as part of the GiG.U initiative involving 37 universities nationwide. The initiative has drawn more than $200 million in private investment funding.

The goal is enticing an Internet service provider (ISP) to offer ultra high-speed wireless service up to 100 times faster than typically available, with a potential cost of $70 to $100 a month. Providers would design, build, operate and own the network.

The initiative is patterned after the Google ultra high-speed project in Kansas City, Mo.

Roch

Wait, what? You don't remember who the "source" was, but you remember that you promised them anonymity and, even though what they told you turned out to be so much smoke, you think they, even though you don't remember who they were, deserve to remain anonymous?

Okee Dokee.

The comments to this entry are closed.