Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lml who wrote (4206)	6/16/1999 11:40:00 AM
From: MikeM54321	Respond to of 12823

lml, I agree with some of what you said. I didn't put those comments down because this discussion would get boring<G>. But here is what I disagree with you on. "Redundancy in the plant, particularly in residential areas, is not something I think the FCC necessarily wants to encourage, or is the appropriate business model for competing access providers to pursue." But this is exactly what should be pursued. If this wasn't the case, we would all be driving the exact same car. But the fact is, there are many automobile makers (probably used to be hundreds), selling US consumers, "CARS." IMHO, this is what makes America great (and why cars are pretty fantastic vehicles considering their relatively low price). "I believe that once the nation's cable plant is substantially upgraded & the MSOs have established a proven cash flow from their investment, FCC policy will shift from one of exclusive access to one of more open access." Well I would hate to be in AT&T(Mike Armstrong's really) shoes investing $70 billion in the cable plant, then probably some $2 billion per year for 10 years, to have this hanging over my neck. He's staking his entire companies future on creating a new landscape. I don't think it's fair to put AT&T under the burden you purpose and expect them to, "Hurry up and get it built," as the FCC's Kennard has clearly told them in no uncertain terms. "Taken to an extreme, open access does not necessarily mean "30,000 providers" sharing the same pipe." Not taking into account the technical merits of what you say, but 30,000 providers is exactly what is needed. How many software companies do you think started out 15 or 20 years ago, all creating and competeing for the same marketplace. TREMENDOUS redundancy in that field. There still is. I think it's been totally revolutionary what has happened to the world as a result of these 30,000 competitors (probably closer to hundreds of thousands worldwide). Albeit, one dominates now, but if we didn't start out with 30,000 I bet the innovation wouldn't have happened nearly as quickly. Thanks, MikeM(From Florida) PS I appreciate the very civilized disagreements. Makes me learn.

To: lml who wrote (4206)	6/16/1999 11:52:00 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 12823

lml, Interesting post, as were the views of WTC and MikeM. What I think is being avoided in these discussions is the possibility, however subtle it may be, that through the use of next generation loop techniques, such as those in the modified FITL recently deployed in Atlanta, redundancy becomes subsumed by transformation. That is, the same capabilities as HFC, multiplied by some factor when it comes to data services, and possibly video as well, are afforded by VDSL-based services supported by deep fiber now being contemplated, and in some cases already being installed, by the ILECs. Yes, I know that this goes beyond the current flavor of dsl for consumers, but for the sake of discussion, hang in there with me. It's only a matter of time before the more advanced platforms manifest themselves, and this becomes more relevant. This kind of platform in its generic form is not as widespread now as I think it may be in the near future. By the same token, not all MSO builds are complete, either, nor have they landed on their final resting place with regard to segment size, features, etc. But what I am suggesting here is that it (FITL/FSAN) portends a parallel set of circumstances to that which is being presented currently by the MSOs. The ensuing question is, should the ILECs, after spending untold millions, billions, on upgrading their residential delivery platforms with -303 and FITL provisions, also be subjected to opening up their access platforms as well? As it turns out, this is a no brainer. Certainly, they will. All ISPs will be accessible (will have open access) over these new ILEC platforms under the same terms of common carriage as they now experience using dialup and dsl provisions. The major difference being, and the reasons why this is possible, is because the telephony carriers are designing to a different set of rules, namely universally accepted interface standards both in hardware and in software. And these already take into account as their defining criteria: the need for interoperability; adequate capcity; and universally available open access. The MSOs, on the other hand, for reasons which are neither a part of this message or deemed to be judged right or wrong, are not. They are designing to their own industry's internal set of rules, and they are doing "translation" of open standards to theirs, at their borders, instead. This has to do with the etiology of obsolescing concepts, the evolution of enhanced capabilities, and other factors ascribed to inheritance and mutation. The old rules don't work, in other words. And obviously this has more than just a little bit to do with the self-serving protectionism on the parts of all concerned. What do you think? Regards, Frank Coluccio