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 : AT&T -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FR1 who wrote (2636)	7/15/1999 4:31:00 AM
From: lml	Respond to of 4298

Interesting point. First, what does Steve mean by "step in?" The FCC has already spoken on this issue & the position is "hands-off" local franchising authorities, & two local authorities have failed to show deference to this expressed policy. The Federal Communications Act expressly exempts cable companies from common-carrier rules & prohibits local franchising authorities from imposing such open access conditions. The local franchising authorities have determined de facto that Internet access over cable lines does not apply to the cable company exemption. This whole matter is now properly within the jurisdiction of the courts to decide what Congress intended. As I see it Congress intended that cable companies be exempt from common-carrier rules as applied to Internet access in order to encourage the necessary investment in plant & architecture to bring about competition in the local loop. IMHO, the focus of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was not solely on telephony, but data communication as well. Under the present push for broadband, it would not be prudent at this point in time to carve out an Internet exception to the exemption. Kennard clearly understands the economic forces necessary to bring about competition, & clearly values Internet access as the primary impetus in spurring competition with the RBOCs that they have lived without for too long. In the end, Kennard knows the consumer will benefit. And that is what public policy is all about. So, at the present, the FCC, IMHO, will do nada. It will await guidance from the 9th Cir. when it rules on the Portland matter.

To: FR1 who wrote (2636)	7/15/1999 5:26:00 AM
From: Robert Scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4298

The FCC under its authority from Congress can step in and say that they preempt the local authorities based on the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. It says that Congress & only Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce. FCC recently ruled that calls to ISPs are "interstate in nature" and certainly internet traffic knows no state boundaries. They also most likely have the authority based on their enabling legislation as well. The FCC has far more foresight than many think - they know that the only way we are going to get competition in the local loop anytime soon is to let T have its way in the broadband market. This is far more important to Americans and affects many more Americans than the open access issue for cable. For some reason this message is getting lost in all the PR exaggerations. Many AOLers cling to their idol and the past. They can't see beyond their specific investment and really have little to fear from @Home anyway which seems to escape them. The market is way big enough for both. WCOM is now offering national DSL service so AOLers soon will have the broadband they want.