>A Era das Contrações – e Contradições
>Parece incrível: em plena era da globalização, parece que vivemos movimentos contraditórios que levam aos fundamentalismos e protecionismos de vários passados. No tema fundamentalista, além dos praticados por países e grupos islâmicos seletos -mas crescentes, sem trocadilhos- outras formas menos perceptíveis estão ocorrendo em movimentos perigosamente tectônicos.
Os Estado Unidos claramente vivem uma era fundamentalista, sob a batuta de Bush e no desenrolar de atitudes pós-9/2001; a Igreja Católica vive momentos igualmente contrários à evolução da história; a América do Sul afunda-se no populismo demagógico e assistencialista, de A a V, da Argentina a Venezuela, e parece que a coisa se espraia, numa visão da década de 50n sem os encantos daquela época.
Se formos examinar movimentos africanos, vemos que a ordem é fundamentalizar, ou seja, princípios imexíveis se sobrepujando à lógica, ao bom senso e a regras mais elementares de convivência.
O fundamentalismo depredatório é contraposto ao fundamentalismo ecológico, e aí só aumenta a devastação e as evoluções sustentáveis são contestadas por movimentos dos eco-xiitas.
Quanto menor o PIB per capita de um país, mais o fundamentalismo de assegurar os direitos das elites se prevalece sobre o bem comum; o contraponto é a linha populista da distribuição forçada de renda e o centralismo do Estado, que nada mais faz do que acentuar as diferenças.
O fundamentalismo de proteger o sabiá de pelo dourado (que nem existe) é oposto à recusa dos Estados Unidos em aderir ao Protocolo de Kioto, que, em última análise, beneficiaria a própria nação americana.
O incrível é que tudo isso ocorre diante da mais profunda revolução tecnológica, epitomizada pela internet, que, por sua vez, permite a disseminação de barbaridades ao mesmo tempo que abre janelas incríveis ao conhecimento humano.
Será que temos saída?
>Bubble Bug
>(This article was originally published in April, 2000. Still good for strategic thinking)
At long last, we saw the inflated stock market bubble burst. What was the excuse? The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Penfield on Microsoft’s alleged monopoly. The aftermath, as we saw, was the bull-turned-bear-well-maybe-not-quite effect that made all those triple-digit p/e technology stocks tumble.
Is Judge Penfield to blame for the vaporization of hundreds of billions of dollars worth of tech-stocks? Well, not quite…
As I watch NASDAQ’s ticker on April 6, Thursday, with most figures turning green again, I come to realize that the newest by-product of the New Economy is NASDAQ itself. With most of its bulk operators running sophisticated programs to track portfolios, some with proprietary AI (Artificial Intelligence) modules built into, NASDAQ’s critical operations are mostly decided by computers, not humans.
And, although most AI algorithms may differ, they will share roughly the same strategy, which is to maximize returns for investors on a snap. Besides that, most market information today is widely available through the Internet, so there aren’t too many “new secrets” around. All the moves are emotionally built into the programs’ logic, in similar ways.
Was the burst inevitable, predictable? Well, no doubt about it. As it was also reasonable to predict that after a couple of large drops (2 consecutive “largest-in-history” for that matter), investors would come back again to play with profits and avoid further drops.
Whith most tech stocks still overvalued, the investor market will not recognize that. We may see further declines in the indexes, but not likely experience a huge crash, which would send many new billionaires straight to the streets to sell, well, Apples!
The reason why most long-term small investors need not worry is that every stock market professional has roughly the same mindset. Information Technology is more than just the New Economy’s powerful engine. It is the investors’ too! As information, decision and trading are done in the milliseconds, there are hundreds of millions of decision cycles within every stock-market day. With similar patterns, similar flavors.
So where will this whole thing lead us? Probably not too far off from where we are today. The Bubble Bug has been identified, but not eliminated. It is, on IT jargon, on quarantine. Unless some new financial genius devises a new model, we will watch the NASDAQ stocks performing pretty well over the years.
Eduardo Guy de Manuel
April 6, 2000
>As Hortênsias do Guy
>Cidades cidades@parana-online.com.br
Assim é a vida – Gladimir Nascimento [ 10/02/2004 ]
especial@parana-online.com.br
Os “cases” são provavelmente a maior parte da literatura de Administração, e a maioria dos autores os escolhe não somente pelos aspectos técnicos, mas principalmente pelo porte das companhias envolvidas. Só “cases” de multinacionais ficam famosos, apesar de haver muito a aprender em cada compra, em cada venda, cada episódio do cotidiano de qualquer empresa, como essa que o empresário curitibano Guy de Manuel conheceu numa viagem de lazer a São Bento do Sul, em Santa Catarina, e que ele vem divulgando como exemplo de visão, atendimento às necessidades do cliente e perpetuação do negócio.
“Cheguei lá na sexta, à tardinha, com minha esposa”, conta o Guy, que viajou para “recarregar as baterias, fazendo nada”. No caminho do hotel, que fica no topo de um morro, “as hortênsias estavam floridas, lindas como nunca”, e então ele se deu conta de que havia esquecido a máquina fotográfica. No sábado, foi procurar uma câmera descartável no comércio local. Numa vitrine, botou o olho nas novas máquinas digitais (Informática é a área de trabalho do Guy). Conversando com o dono, comentou, por brincadeira, “sem nada em mente”, que o que gostaria mesmo era uma daquelas, emprestada ou alugada, para fotografar as hortênsias”. Esse comentário bastou para Pedro, o comerciante, percebesse imediatamente um novo filão.
“Ele, sem me conhecer, disse: Olha, vou fazer uma coisa que nunca fiz, mas sinto uma energia positiva em você. Pegou uma câmera de 2 megapixels, colocou bateria, abriu um estojo novinho e disse para eu levar, emprestada, e devolver quando terminasse”.
Guy fotografou as hortênsias, devolveu o material, viu uma demonstração prática de bom atendimento, saiu falando bem da Marlisa Fotos, de São Bento do Sul, para todos os amigos, e Pedro deverá diversificar os negócios, atuando no recém-criado ramo do aluguel de câmeras digitais.
>Educação: Quer comprar uma monografia pronta? Basta acessar o Google…
>MessageFrom: Guy Manuel
Sent: segunda-feira, 30 de maio de 2005 14:56
To: 96 Minutos; CBN Curitiba – Redação
Subject: Quarta 01/06 – Educação: Quer comprar uma monografia pronta? Basta acessar o Google… www.google.com e pesquisar a palavra monografia
A internet –como tudo na vida- tem suas vantagens e desvantagens. Acessar informações importantes na rede nunca foi tão fácil, tão disponível. Mas, como será que vão os trabalhos escolares, com as facilidades da web?
Pois é, vamos falar um pouco do lado dark da internet: tem gente, muita gente, ganhando dinheiro fazendo um “disk-monografias”, onde o cliente, por uma modesta soma, paga para ter um trabalho feito por terceiros, geralmente de qualidade duvidosa, mas que, estranhamente, passa batido pelos mestres que as recebem.
Afinal, é ético usar esses terceiros para livrar a cara das tarefas escolares? Como isso ajuda a educação e o conhecimento dos estudantes? Com certeza, no momento presente, estamos verificando uma queda na qualidade do ensino por causa da internet. Não que a coisa seja generalizada, mas o fato de termos gente anunciando –e vendendo serviços- de monografias e trabalhos escolares pela internet mostra que os estudantes estão dispostos a pagar para que outros façam suas tarefas escolares. Eles estão terceirizando o aprendizado…
E aí, que tal uma leizinha proibindo isso? Claro que a internet não se sujeita a essas limitações. O que acontece, na verdade, é uma degradação de princípios, onde a internet é um poderoso veículo. Enquanto os estudantes não se derem conta que uma boa avaliação ajuda na capacitação, e os mestres não forem mais rigorosos nessa avaliação, evitando esses “deliveries” esdrúxulos, vamos continuar caindo no ranking da qualidade do ensino.
Essa não é uma regra geral, mas é uma tendência que preocupa. Ao comentar esse tema no 96 minutos, o Eloi Zanetti contou uma historinha de ontem, 31 de maio, quando estava no aeroporto de Salvador, esperando para pegar um avião para Curitiba. Uma senhora ao celular falava alto, com a secretária, mandando-a buscar informações no Google sobre um trabalho de seu pimpolho, para que ela imediatamente fizesse a pesquisa, depois a colagem do texto, sua impressão e que o motorista ficasse esperando para levá-lo ao indolente rebento, Como será essa figura daqui a alguns anos, quando tiver que competir?
Produzir trabalhos parea terceiros não é coisa nova. Afinal, desde sempre a maioria das grandes personalidades do mundo tiveram seus “ghost writers”, e, nem por causa disso, deixamos de ter pessoas marcantes na história.
Os professores, indignados, têm razão ao dizer que não lhes é dado tempo para analisar toda uma massa de trabalhos produzidos por seus alunos, até porque eles normalmente ganham pouco, e precisam buscar a sobrevivência.
Podemos olhar pelo ângulo da praticidade dos alunos: se a informação está lá, então porque não usá-la? Se eu não o fizer, outros saem na frente, e, nesse mundo competitivo…
Na verdade, podemos achar razões e justificativas e até boas verdades que mostrem que nada há de errado com esse modelo. Mas eu me assusto em ver nesse quadro um desestímulo à busca do saber. O aprendizado na escola e na vida é sempre uma busca de um novo patamar de conhecimento. É assim que o ser humano se diferenciou dos demais bichos, e criou.
Seria no mínimo irônico que o acesso ao conhecimento promovido pela internet também fosse um catalisador de um emburrecimento coletivo da espécie humana.
>Telecomunicações privatizadas – 8 anos depois: Como estamos?
>O recente anúncio de um aumento da base instalada de celulares em mais de 40% em 2004, mais a singular notícia que Brasília tem mais celulares que habitantes (por quê?), vale uma pequena reflexão sobre como estamos nas telecomunicações hoje, quase 8 anos após a privatização das teles.
Se levarmos em conta o susto das contas e as reclamações no Procon, vamos mal. Afinal, as operadoras são líderes nas queixas, e todo mundo –eu inclusive- tem histórias de horror para contar.
No entanto, se levarmos em conta que antes da privatização telefone fixo era um investimento rentável (3.000 dolares uma linha fixa, rendendo 2% ao mês) e disponível para poucos, e celular então, uma raridade, para aqueles analógicos que sempre estavam fora da área de cobertura, então hoje estamos bem melhor.
Em 1995, o link da Internet para todo o Paraná era 128k. Hoje, o mínimo de uma conexão de banda larga é o dobro disso, para cada usuário. Então, um usuário ADSL hoje tem o dobro da banda que tinha o Paraná inteiro em 1995…
Celular hoje é commodity, e o acesso disponível para pessoas de todos os estratos de renda mostra isso. A vida de muita gente que trabalha como autônomo, inclusive diaristas, jardineiros, manicures, moto-boys e outros, permite que seu trabalho seja mais valorizado e a renda, idem.
Telefone fixo, então, acabou aquela especulaçào e os serviços estão disponíveis. A guerra de tarifas para DDD e DDI é salutar e, embora com alguma dissimulação quanto aos preços, as operadoras disputam mercado usando práticas muito mais parecidas com o marketing de cerveja do que a de produtos elitizados.
Duas constatações sobre as reclamações crescentes: uma é qua as operadoras realmente não estão ainda com o foco devido no cliente, e sim em aumentar sua base instalada; a outra é que, como temos muito mais clientes no mercado, as reclamações também cresceram.
O saldo é positivo!
>Tecnologia é a mãe!
>Li outro dia que a FIFA vai estrear em setembro, no campeonato sulamericano sub-17 no Peru, a “bola inteligente”. É a evolução daquela que já conhecemos, só que com um chip, um sensor e um transmissor, que vai mandar um sinal ao juiz e ao quarto árbitro, que avisa se/quando a bola passou da linha do gol.
Com certeza, se a experiência funcionar, os erros do árbitro vão diminuir. Mas, por ouro lado, pode estar começando a sair de campo uma das principais personagens do jogo, a sra. Progenitora do Árbitro.
Isso aí não sei se é bom ou ruim, se evolui ao ponto de não precisarmos mais de juiz, e sim de um robozinho, ou, lá na frente, pensarem em colocar chips nas chuteiras ou nos cérebros dos jogadores. Mas isso é discussão para outra hora.
O que me dei conta, com essa “Smart Ball”, é que acaba uma importante fonte de descarga de adrenalina. Afinal, quando há um gol em que existe alguma dúvida em sua legitimidade, a invocação da mãe do juiz é normalmente uma boa desculpa para os torcedores do time que levou o gol. Nada de falar no frango do goleiro ou da falha na defesa. Afinal, é o time do seu coração. A culpa é daquela senhora pacata que, há algumas décadas, colocou esse filho no mundo que hoje, com um apito na boca, anota um gol injusto para o time adversário. Então, “elogios” para a senhora!
É… a tecnologia a serviço da sociedade. Será?
Tecnologia é a mãe!
Li outro dia que a FIFA vai estrear em setembro, no campeonato sulamericano sub-17 no Peru, a “bola inteligente”. É a evolução daquela que já conhecemos, só que com um chip, um sensor e um transmissor, que vai mandar um sinal ao juiz e ao quarto árbitro, que avisa se/quando a bola passou da linha do gol.
Com certeza, se a experiência funcionar, os erros do árbitro vão diminuir. Mas, por ouro lado, pode estar começando a sair de campo uma das principais personagens do jogo, a sra. Progenitora do Árbitro.
Isso aí não sei se é bom ou ruim, se evolui ao ponto de não precisarmos mais de juiz, e sim de um robozinho, ou, lá na frente, pensarem em colocar chips nas chuteiras ou nos cérebros dos jogadores. Mas isso é discussão para outra hora.
O que me dei conta, com essa “Smart Ball”, é que acaba uma importante fonte de descarga de adrenalina. Afinal, quando há um gol em que existe alguma dúvida em sua legitimidade, a invocação da mãe do juiz é normalmente uma boa desculpa para os torcedores do time que levou o gol. Nada de falar no frango do goleiro ou da falha na defesa. Afinal, é o time do seu coração. A culpa é daquela senhora pacata que, há algumas décadas, colocou esse filho no mundo que hoje, com um apito na boca, anota um gol injusto para o time adversário. Então, “elogios” para a senhora!
É… a tecnologia a serviço da sociedade. Será?
>My God, it talks!
>(Peter II, Emperor of Brazil, while testing the newly invented device, the telephone at the New York World Fair in 1876)
At last, everybody appears to be bullish about the telecom market in emerging countries: Governments from any part of the political spectrum, the state-run monopolies, legislators and corporations of any size that have products and services for telecommunications seem to agree: the time is now.
The reasons for that abound: Ideology is no longer big issue; governments are having trouble to finance the basic services it is supposed to deliver, let alone invest in areas like telecom; the global market has come of age, and economic frontiers are getting blurred; the market for telecom products and services in developed countries is experiencing slower growth as it replaces / enhances much more than it gets new clients; finally, capital is available to invest in hot-growth markets.
What could possibly go wrong? Good old Murphy looms over there to predict where and how it can go wrong.
The initial assumptions only reflect the cozy nest.. To fully understand what lies ahead, let’s do a brief tour to the past, back in the mid 60’s.
Back then, the developing nations had almost no telecommunication services. Long distance was still done via operators and analog radio. Waiting 8 hours to place a call was part of the game.
The local telephone operators were often private. Almost all were multinational companies, unwilling or unable to invest. They had better markets at home and the tariffs in these distant countries did not provide adequate revenues, let alone returns on investments. Actually, some of these companies pulled out, while others were forced out.
At that time, financing was available to governments. The post WW II nationalism and the Cold War moved from doctrine to affirmation as easy money began to be pumped into government coffers. That was the beginning of the golden age for the state-run PTT’s.
The oil shock of 1973 literally switched the balance to the OPEC cartel, whose governments were flooded with cash. Besides buying into cheap real estate in the developed nations, it started to lend heavily to developing nations. To just about any type of project.
Countries like Brazil benefited from this situation, building state-of-the-art, state-owned telecom system. It was not ideology alone that drove the telecom industry to government hands. It was real money.
Back to 1996: Real money is now available to private companies, not to governments anymore. Ideology will no longer be sustained by empty pockets.
It is fairly reasonable to assume that privatization will be an unstoppable trend, for the foreseeable future. Questions: will telecom services remain in the hands of private companies? Will telecom density and traffic really increase?
The answer is a plain, simple “yes”, provided we learn from past mistakes. Let us pay attention to an actor who is often left behind the scenes, the consumer. It is reasonable to affirm that past telecom policies and corporate actions in developing markets never had the consumer in mind. If this is changing, then maybe we have a sustainable model. Long-term commitment to the client, that’s the winning formula.
Stable democracies, a more “civilized” inflation, and the urgent need to leave back the dreadful 80’s are the backbone to the revolution that is taking place in most South American Countries.
The Continent is undergoing major changes, and telecom infrastructure is the single most important item to indicate where economic activity will take place, after political and economical stability have been achieved.
The good part of the story is that, while almost any nation is going in the same direction, and that is the direction of modernization, the models, speeds and current stages are strikingly different.
Chile has a state-of-the-art telecom system, competition there is fierce and much more aggressive than even here in the U.S. Others are in the middle of the road, and Brazil, the Continent’s largest market, is just now beginning to take concrete actions to bring investments and technology into the telecom market.
One important factor to be considered is that consumers in South America, may not be looking for replications of the developed world’s telecom networks.
To stress this point, let us imagine that, overnight, the entire U.S. telecom network vanished, through a massive action of a special breed of bugs from outer space that would do the job in a few hours and then would go home.
The next hypothesis would be that enough capital would be available to rebuild the network in a very short period of time, and that all the manufacturers had surplus inventories of cable, switches, computers, software, handsets, routers, satellites, you name it…
One of the probable scenarios in the aftermath of this “New America Network” would be one (a) most, if not all of the wired backbone would be made of fiber; (b) the ratio of wireless / wireline terminals would greatly bend towards wireless; (c) the network would be 100% digital and (d) if insurance companies paid for the losses, the return on investments would occur much sooner.
It looks like South America is pretty much the land to build this “dream network”. Alien bugs did not destroy our networks. Other types of bugs prevented us from building a decent one.
It will only be a natural choice for South American countries to have a 21st century network in place. This makes up for lower costs, smaller deployment times and, best of all, much more flexibility that wireless services offers for most of an individual’s day-to-day telecom needs.
The costs per terminal of almost any wireless service will drop much faster than the wireline ones. This is one key factor to be considered when planning South America. Another point is that wireless services are, in general, less regulated.
Now for the opportunities. Today, the overall telecom market in South America is close to irrelevant, with few exceptions. Take Brazil: In 1994, the whole Telebrás system had a little over US$ 10 billion in revenues, which was less then 2% of our Gross Domestic Product. Telecom density is still closer to the desert than to the rain forest.
In developed countries, telecom products and services can and will top 10% of GNP, with telecom density moving to virtual universality.
In developed markets, telecom became a dominant industry only after it was accessible to almost any citizen; on the other hand, network traffic grew at a significantly higher pace than did the availability of a better, faster backbone and the number of terminals.
As the economics of telecom changed, unit costs come down sharply, market penetration went up sharply, and per capita use also increased dramatically.
Technology Futures Brasil figures out that the 1:10:100 rule-of-thumb applies well to these hot-growth markets in South America: from the current installed base (1), you have a traffic growth potential of 100 times, while making the overall sales grow 10 fold. Unit prices will, on average, decrease 10 fold.
Past technologies forced us to associate a telephone with wires and, therefore, to a physical site. In countries where telecom density began to grow in this decade, wireless devices are being and will continue to be put into operation faster than wireline ones. The “telephone” is regarded as a valuable personal possession, unlike the pervasive concept in developed countries that will consider a telephone as household or office appliances.
That is why wireless communication services will grow much faster in South America than in the U.S.. As the industry matures, market penetration for wireless will be significantly higher.
About 120 years ago, our emperor, Peter II, visited the World Fair in Philadelphia. It was then that the wired telephone was being demonstrated by Alexander Graham Bell. The emperor, while test-driving the revolutionary invention, said, very candidly: “My God, it talks!” Today, he probably would probably not be able to have the same reaction if he tried to use most of installed telephones in the Continent, including cellular ones.
Back to the future, it is harvest time. And the telephone had better talk!
My God, it talks!
(Peter II, Emperor of Brazil, while testing the newly invented device, the telephone at the Philadelphia World Fair in 1876)
At last, everybody appears to be bullish about the telecom market in emerging countries: Governments from any part of the political spectrum, the state-run monopolies, legislators and corporations of any size that have products and services for telecommunications seem to agree: the time is now.
The reasons for that abound: Ideology is no longer big issue; governments are having trouble to finance the basic services it is supposed to deliver, let alone invest in areas like telecom; the global market has come of age, and economic frontiers are getting blurred; the market for telecom products and services in developed countries is experiencing slower growth as it replaces / enhances much more than it gets new clients; finally, capital is available to invest in hot-growth markets.
What could possibly go wrong? Good old Murphy looms over there to predict where and how it can go wrong.
The initial assumptions only reflect the cozy nest.. To fully understand what lies ahead, let’s do a brief tour to the past, back in the mid 60’s.
Back then, the developing nations had almost no telecommunication services. Long distance was still done via operators and analog radio. Waiting 8 hours to place a call was part of the game.
The local telephone operators were often private. Almost all were multinational companies, unwilling or unable to invest. They had better markets at home and the tariffs in these distant countries did not provide adequate revenues, let alone returns on investments. Actually, some of these companies pulled out, while others were forced out.
At that time, financing was available to governments. The post WW II nationalism and the Cold War moved from doctrine to affirmation as easy money began to be pumped into government coffers. That was the beginning of the golden age for the state-run PTT’s.
The oil shock of 1973 literally switched the balance to the OPEC cartel, whose governments were flooded with cash. Besides buying into cheap real estate in the developed nations, it started to lend heavily to developing nations. To just about any type of project.
Countries like Brazil benefited from this situation, building state-of-the-art, state-owned telecom system. It was not ideology alone that drove the telecom industry to government hands. It was real money.
Back to 1996: Real money is now available to private companies, not to governments anymore. Ideology will no longer be sustained by empty pockets.
It is fairly reasonable to assume that privatization will be an unstoppable trend, for the foreseeable future. Questions: will telecom services remain in the hands of private companies?
Will telecom density and traffic really increase?
The answer is a plain, simple “yes”, provided we learn from past mistakes. Let us pay attention to an actor who is often left behind the scenes, the consumer. It is reasonable to affirm that past telecom policies and corporate actions in developing markets never had the consumer in mind. If this is changing, then maybe we have a sustainable model. Long-term commitment to the client, that’s the winning formula.
Stable democracies, a more “civilized” inflation, and the urgent need to leave back the dreadful 80’s are the backbone to the revolution that is taking place in most South American Countries.
The Continent is undergoing major changes, and telecom infrastructure is the single most important item to indicate where economic activity will take place, after political and economical stability have been achieved.
The good part of the story is that, while almost any nation is going in the same direction, and that is the direction of modernization, the models, speeds and current stages are strikingly different.
Chile has a state-of-the-art telecom system, competition there is fierce and much more aggressive than even here in the U.S. Others are in the middle of the road, and Brazil, the Continent’s largest market, is just now beginning to take concrete actions to bring investments and technology into the telecom market.
One important factor to be considered is that consumers in South America, may not be looking for replications of the developed world’s telecom networks.
To stress this point, let us imagine that, overnight, the entire U.S. telecom network vanished, through a massive action of a special breed of bugs from outer space that would do the job in a few hours and then would go home.
The next hypothesis would be that enough capital would be available to rebuild the network in a very short period of time, and that all the manufacturers had surplus inventories of cable, switches, computers, software, handsets, routers, satellites, you name it…
One of the probable scenarios in the aftermath of this “New America Network” would be one (a) most, if not all of the wired backbone would be made of fiber; (b) the ratio of wireless / wireline terminals would greatly bend towards wireless; (c) the network would be 100% digital and (d) if insurance companies paid for the losses, the return on investments would occur much sooner.
It looks like South America is pretty much the land to build this “dream network”. Alien bugs did not destroy our networks. Other types of bugs prevented us from building a decent one.
It will only be a natural choice for South American countries to have a 21st century network in place. This makes up for lower costs, smaller deployment times and, best of all, much more flexibility that wireless services offers for most of an individual’s day-to-day telecom needs.
The costs per terminal of almost any wireless service will drop much faster than the wireline ones. This is one key factor to be considered when planning South America. Another point is that wireless services are, in general, less regulated.
Now for the opportunities. Today, the overall telecom market in South America is close to irrelevant, with few exceptions. Take Brazil: In 1994, the whole Telebrás system had a little over US$ 10 billion in revenues, which was less then 2% of our Gross Domestic Product. Telecom density is still closer to the desert than to the rain forest.
In developed countries, telecom products and services can and will top 10% of GNP, with telecom density moving to virtual universality.
In developed markets, telecom became a dominant industry only after it was accessible to almost any citizen; on the other hand, network traffic grew at a significantly higher pace than did the availability of a better, faster backbone and the number of terminals.
As the economics of telecom changed, unit costs come down sharply, market penetration went up sharply, and per capita use also increased dramatically.
Technology Futures Brasil figures out that the 1:10:100 rule-of-thumb applies well to these hot-growth markets in South America: from the current installed base (1), you have a traffic growth potential of 100 times, while making the overall sales grow 10 fold. Unit prices will, on average, decrease 10 fold.
Past technologies forced us to associate a telephone with wires and, therefore, to a physical site. In countries where telecom density began to grow in this decade, wireless devices are being and will continue to be put into operation faster than wireline ones. The “telephone” is regarded as a valuable personal possession, unlike the pervasive concept in developed countries that will consider a telephone as household or office appliances.
That is why wireless communication services will grow much faster in South America than in the U.S.. As the industry matures, market penetration for wireless will be significantly higher.
About 120 years ago, our emperor, Peter II, visited the World Fair in Philadelphia. It was then that the wired telephone was being demonstrated by Alexander Graham Bell. The emperor, while test-driving the revolutionary invention, said, very candidly: “My God, it talks!” Today, he probably would probably not be able to have the same reaction if he tried to use most of installed telephones in the Continent, including cellular ones.
Back to the future, it is harvest time. And the telephone had better talk!