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: Bernard Levy who wrote (2950)2/25/1999 8:00:00 PM
From: WTC  Read Replies (2) of 12823
 
Cable MSO vs. ILEC regulatory regimes ARE different

Re: B. Levy's opening assumption, < First, I assume that we are all in
agreement that there is no reason to treat ILECS and cable companies differently. They operate within a regulated monopoly framework,...>

Right you are, as far as you go with this. I truly like where you are going with this, but I am convinced that is not where Kennard and his pals are taking MSO open systems regulation. The rub is that there is now a common carrier framework for ILEC regulation, and a non-common carrier framework for MSOs -- patterns of regulation that have diverged since the mid-80s. The issue for the MSOs seems to be whether they will be obliged to accept a change to common carrier regulation for a part or all of their pipes. Their historic business models are built on non-common carrier status. The ILEC (or CLEC, for that matter) option to go to Open Video Systems includes the option to elect non-common carrier status, but I am not aware of any ILEC that has gone down that road.

As much as I would professionally like to see parity in ILEC/MSO regulatory treatment, there seems to be ample precedent and basis for a continued divergence in the FCC's treatment, i.e., Title II vs. Title VI rules. The MSOs with their HFC architectures will continue to argue that they architecturally have finite capacity that is only suited to their non-common carrier status. It seems a status quo that is theirs to keep, or loose if they get really stupid with their public pronouncements like a few have made on the DOCSIS issues.
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