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 (11633)	6/27/2001 8:49:58 AM
From: Crossy	Read Replies (1) of 12823

Mike well, I see pretty much agreement btw. us two just the conclusion we derive from those facts is a tad different <g> Let me get some angle of my musings right that you might have taken up differently... -> I pointed out that the intent of the Act of 96 was not so much to speed up broadband deployment (or at least it just didn't do it)....the ACt as I see it is a pathway to a competitive broadband future And you responded -> But it didn't work. The local loop competitors have been, for all intents and purposes, killed. Now the Act only hinders broadband rollouts. Hinders ILECs and MSOs and even the LD players for that matter. 10,000 rules to keep them from just getting out there and betting the farm. They aren't going to bet the farm with so many in congress/FCC beating up on them constantly with a hickory switch. OK.. Seems I didn't make this too explicit: I believe that the act of 96 framework will be very valuable IN THE FUTURE. In the past it just didn't matter. Not the Act killed the CLECs but the interest rate hikes and a sudden change in the amount of risks that bondholders were willing to digest (credit spread). The Act doesn't hinder the ILECs at all. They can either have the MSOs eat their lunch or do it themselves. The Act is pretty meaningsless in the SHORTTERM I agree. But that's it - only in the short term. What I wanted from the FCC is a concise set of rulemakings not a patchwork and if more of it would have been unleashed in the beginning of the broadband expansion the path would be better comprehensible and better conductive to players' investment decisions. I believe the real set of rules for xDSL is now in place for 1 year or so. A tad late on behalf of your regulator. All CLECs are dead ? Not really. BLECs are still alive, new CLECs are forming and some old players are still there. Next time pls. : more equity, less debt, more stuff, less fluff, more fair value for money less coveted "free" stuff that ultimately isn't free at all (it doesn't really matter whether bondholders or customers are paying this bill IMHO) Take away the TA of 96 and you get a scenario for the future where broadband's limits will be again subject to the strategic "cage" of incumbents, this time "enriched" by the MSOs on top of the ILECs. I'll try to find stats on Europe but I can't promise this. Interestingly, it's easier for me to get aggregated US stats than from here around.. DSL equipment plays ? Well that sector was hit most. Too many players here IMHO. But some are quite ok, look at GSPN. They added an NPU (network processing engine) to their tools of the trade (they bought up an interesting startup last year) best wishes CROSSY

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next