5 thoughts on “Bellster take two”

  1. Om:

    Let me first state that (without any qualifications) I didn’t/don’t think that you didn’t get Bellster. After typing the past sentence, I reread my post. I am puzzled how you came to your conclusion. There is something in my composition that is doing the mischief. So let me try to say here what I was trying to say in that post:

    Lots of thought leaders in this field have identified potential issues with bellster. (Even I had identified one of the issues.) But Pulver responds with a single intriguing sentence. So I come up with potential point by point responses from Pulver. Finally I said Andy’s entry doesn’t help us as well. So we continue to be in the dark as to the real idea behind Bellster.

    Om, where do I say that you don’t get it. If anything two of your points – commercial aspect and T&C – are open. But where is economiocal viability in FWD or for that matter in any VoIP services. We have been harping on it for a long time. I hope this clarifies my position to other readers in general and you in particular.

  2. Aswath, i guess i read you wrong then. I tried to sum-up a lot of issues in one line – bad move especially when storage is nearly free. I think jeff is not addressing the financial issue of his service. That’s all. I guess you and I need to communicate more and hopefully no more mixed signals :-)

  3. Victor, not saying Gilder was wrong from a technology stand point, but from an economic standpoint, he helped create a bubble and look where we are at now. putting all the fiber on long haul networks wasn’t smart. Funny stuff right – it all boils down the disaster called the Telecom act of 1996/

  4. Pingback: Dominic's Weblog

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.