LAST MILE TECHNOLOGIES - Let's Discuss Them Here Message Board

STOCKTALK

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 Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (11600)	6/26/2001 11:35:40 AM
From: Crossy	Read Replies (1) of 12823

Mike, on DT's cable interests the divestment started 1999 I think. They retained some minority interest, think 25% or so but they now even prepare to shed that. Liberty media is starting a buying binge, and there are 2 further ADR's on the market of buyers of 2 of those regional cable cos. Actually Germany is the real big exception in Europe where cable was owned by the ILEC (PTT). I'm in Austria and here both were different entities.. Mike, I understand your philosophy pretty well. But pls. take into account that even those ILEC didn't build their WIRES in a competitive environment. In the US it was a merger game ("natural monopoly") 100 years ago. In Europe it was government built by a PTT. The nature of "ownership" of those assets is hence dispute to dissent and if not the nature of "ownership" then at least the nature of effective control (call it consumers degrees of freedom) I don't think it's appropriate to let those incumbents ratining local loops play the "switching cost" game on subscribers. They acquired those assets in monopoly world and should be allowed to play monopoly games in a "competitive" environemnt ? I think not ! It's this that gave rise to the notion of "assymetric regulation" in regulatory theory and I underwrite that 100%. Why not do an "opting out" clause for each consumer - as an opening BEFORE deregulation. You would "own" your local loop and rent the CO space and you would be free to connect to ever other company you wanted. Sort of a "must carry" requirement for the ILECs - maybe that will be the future. Why then keep those rules ? Easily - I see the "competitive mode" btw. MSOs and ILECs as a stopgap solution - not the competitive reality that will ultimately prevail. If no 96 act around than this situation will be the maximum in shore for customers. But with the 96 act strictly enforced you will have a 3rd, 4th 5th and even more "fronts" of competitive assaults from unbundlers and players with their own facilities. Finally, why should unbundling NOT be a good business ?? On the ISP front, VZ did such a thing on its own. It's exactly this unbundling threat that keeps a check on MSO and ILEC interests to create their private versions of "the cloud" where you would be able to use the "broadband experience" within the limits they predispose. Especially cable seems to be cheering to this. That's another good reason to keep up with regulatory scrutiny. Would you like to go to Lycos.Broadband or Excite ad Home approved content only at full speed ?? More Liberal Congress now ? My view is that nothing changed, just Jeffords is showing his true colors. I understand a little about your redistricting efforts and from that alone the GOP can gain more than 5-10 seats in the next election as congressional quarterly recently mused. Don't forget that even progressive conservatives among GOPers really like broadband competition and detest ILEC manoevering. (the last paragraph is a value judgement of my own - to seperate facts from opinions). Since the FCC adhers to its version of assymtetric deregulation I see no change and no "open access" to cable networks for the time being (at least until it's not fully deployed for some time) rgrds CROSSY

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next