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: bill c. who wrote (920)5/27/1997 9:27:00 AM
From: WTC   of 12823
 
Bill C., you raise the question of equipment co-location in the LEC equipment buildings - a very complex and oft-litigated question. In general, where physcial co-location is permitted (offered by the LEC), the carrier equipment to be installed in the carrier's area of the LEC building would need to be NEBS compliant (fire safety, etc.) and as a practical matter, LEC-network compatible. There could be a technical determination, for example, that spectral energy in certain subbands would not be permitted on the LEC cable plant without substantial management, which could be found burdensome to an ISP with an idea to use an xDSL unit that potentially interferes with other LEC services.

It is not definatively obvious that ALL LEC services must be offered for resale to resellers -- note the Hundt speech two weeks ago where he noted there was a good case to be made for exceptions for advanced LEC services, especially new advanced services.

There is no easy answer to your question -- but I would expect the xDSL vendors might be the biggest help in sorting through the technical, regulatory, and economic issues facing an ISP with an idea to provide its customers with "its own" xDSL connection.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext