SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : LAST MILE TECHNOLOGIES - Let's Discuss Them Here
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (8648)9/29/2000 12:58:29 PM
From: lml   of 12823
 
Frank:

Most excellent point. I just wish someone, such as yourself, would be an objective voice of analysis of this whole issue "up on the hill" cuz we sure don't here an intelligent voice along these lines from the MSOs.

I recall discussing some of the alternative possibilities of how a multiple ISP model might be designed into & managed along the cable platform here a few months ago. I think Mike had initiated the discussion and remember how I "piped" in with my own comments on how much control could actually be shifted to the licensed ISP in light of the administrative responsibilities of the MSO to ensure integrity and operational dependability of its own platform. Some areas touched included ensuring a minimum level of bandwidth to each ISP that each could in turn assure its own customers some stated level of service, though it would be expressed in bulk & not necessarily point-to-point, as the MSOs now due to subscribers to their existing proprietary system.

From my perspective, the Courts have been quite clear on the open access issue. It is the FCC that has been vague, or remiss is implementing a clear policy that would serve the interests of the cable industry, the ISPs, and the consumer. The Ninth Circuit was clear on the issue that cable modem service was a "telecommunication service" and not a "cable service" and therefore not within the jurisdiction of the local franchising authority to condition, or dictate, open access policy, or pricing policy on the cable-modem platform. The implication of that interpretation leads one to conclude that the cable-modem platform should be subject to the same "must-carry" rules under which the telcos operate. However, implementation of this policy is left to the FCC until a case comes up through the court system leading to a decision ordering a particular MSO to open up its pipes in accordance with that court's interpretation of "must carry" rules as they now presumably apply to the MSO industry. See biz.yahoo.com for a similar case that is presents a compelling reason for the FCC to implement a clear policy now.

The ball is in the FCC's court. Let's see what creative policy Kennard can come up with. IMHO, he can no longer play laissez-faire. If the FCC doesn't act, the courts soon will.

JMO.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News