Avgas in France has reached $7.50/gal !

In article , Matt Barrow wrote:
Then too, it can be foolishly optimistic (I hate the "irrationally
exuberant" poop), as in the dot.com craze. Yet, how much did the murder of
the telecom industry have to do with the dot.com collapse and
subsequent/parallel market implosion?

An enormous amount. The dot.com bubble was built on telecoms. The
implosion in demand for all this extra fibre that was put in (as well as
the wildly overoptimistic expectations for 3G services - telecom
companies ploughed vast amounts of money into 3G licenses which were ALL
to do with the dot.com bubble) - then the bubble went away leaving
telecoms firms with huge amounts of unused bandwidth, empty datacentres,
and no demand for 3G mobile services - but they had to keep paying the
bills they'd run up in investing in all this kit that there was no
demand for.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
In article , Matt Barrow wrote:
Then too, it can be foolishly optimistic (I hate the "irrationally
exuberant" poop), as in the dot.com craze. Yet, how much did the murder
of
the telecom industry have to do with the dot.com collapse and
subsequent/parallel market implosion?

An enormous amount. The dot.com bubble was built on telecoms. The

Yes and no.

The dot.com were built under the assumption, roughly, that everyone was
going to turn off their TV and surf the net and make all their purchases
over the net.

implosion in demand for all this extra fibre that was put in (as well as
the wildly overoptimistic expectations for 3G services - telecom
companies ploughed vast amounts of money into 3G licenses which were ALL
to do with the dot.com bubble)

They did so under the orders of the FCC. (See first article below).

- then the bubble went away leaving
telecoms firms with huge amounts of unused bandwidth, empty datacentres,
and no demand for 3G mobile services - but they had to keep paying the
bills they'd run up in investing in all this kit that there was no
demand for.

Sorta!

"Who killed Telecom": http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa533.pdf

"Telecom Undone- A Cautionary Tale":
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/h...mm-telecom.htm

"The Perils of Transition":
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/eps...ransition.html

In article , Matt Barrow wrote:
companies ploughed vast amounts of money into 3G licenses which were ALL
to do with the dot.com bubble)

They did so under the orders of the FCC. (See first article below).

Not here they didn't - they did it to themselves - the mad scramble for
3G licenses sold by auction pushed the value way above what they were
worth as the telecoms companies scrambled blindly to get on the 3G
bandwagon. To date, there is only one major 3G network (called 3) which
is notable for being awful (it doesn't give you real internet access,
merely a walled garden of their own approved content). Not surprisingly,
3 has moved to selling their service on cheap voice calls. Hardly the
promise of 3G. I think another mobile provider has recently started
rolling out 3G, years after they scrambled to get on the bandwagon that
was as insubstantial as the hard vacuum of space.

There is one telecom company that has continuously turned a profit. Manx
Telecom. But they are a monopoly, and if times are tough they just
ratchet up their charges a bit because they don't need to care about
competition (and to make it seem as if they are offering 'value' and are
not a monopoly, price their less popular services dirt cheap so they can
crow in their advertising how calls to Outer Timbuktoo are half the
price with them compared to a UK carrier). Whilst the rest of the telecom
industry has been in the doldrums, they have been making profit rates
well over 30%.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
In article , Matt Barrow wrote:
companies ploughed vast amounts of money into 3G licenses which were
ALL
to do with the dot.com bubble)

They did so under the orders of the FCC. (See first article below).

Not here they didn't - they did it to themselves - the mad scramble for
3G licenses sold by auction pushed the value way above what they were
worth as the telecoms companies scrambled blindly to get on the 3G
bandwagon.

Sounds like your 3G licenses are similar to our FCC requirements, just with
a different name.

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
To date, there is only one major 3G network (called 3) which
is notable for being awful (it doesn't give you real internet access,
merely a walled garden of their own approved content). Not surprisingly,
3 has moved to selling their service on cheap voice calls. Hardly the
promise of 3G. I think another mobile provider has recently started
rolling out 3G, years after they scrambled to get on the bandwagon that
was as insubstantial as the hard vacuum of space.

Go with Vodafone. We've had them up and running for a couple of
years now and public for a year. You can get a data card or phone so you
can get 384kbps mobile for proper internet access. Don't think they've got
any RBSs on the IOM yet though! Sorry, I'll have to look at the expansion
plans.

As far as I know, Orange, O2 and T-Mobile have all got 3G networks
up and running - possible one of them hasn't gone public yet IIRC.

The 3G license thing was just rediculous.

Paul