UMG - MediaOne Group 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 : UMG - MediaOne Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Larry S. who wrote (867)	6/5/1999 7:20:00 AM
From: Thomas C. Donald	Read Replies (1) of 891

Does anyone know any of the details regarding the court decision regarding access by various ISP's to cable systems reported in the following reference? msnbc.com Does AT&T already have a cable system in place in Portland to which the new rule will be applied, or is AT&T simply applying for a license to install a new cable system? It doesn't seem reasonable that a municipality could retroactively change the rules on an existing installation. This would constitute a "taking" which is prohibited by the Constitution. Would a cable owner be required to install additional equipment to support access by various ISPs? Who would provide the capital for such expansions. Who would own and support the additional equipment? Would support of additional ISPs be required if it caused the quality of service to customers of the cable owner to be degraded? Suppose one of the "alien" ISPs was not satisfied with the quality of the service provided by the cable owner. What recourse would the ISP have? Each party would probably blame the other every time anything went wrong. There seem to be many loose ends here!

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next