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 : AUTOHOME, Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Islander99 who wrote (14619)	8/17/1999 1:01:00 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 29970

Islander99, Your observation holds true, but it is but one of many in a world of make believe, of denialistic folly, and a regulo-marketecture place full of of foo-foo twenty-first century-isms. Regards, Frank " how are they going to maintain that the cable infrastructure is not a telecommunications service, when all the cable companies are marketing it as such! In my own market, Cox is aggressively marketing the exact same infrastructure as the basis for both cable modem service and digital dial-tone."

To: Islander99 who wrote (14619)	8/17/1999 1:08:00 PM
From: ahhaha	Respond to of 29970

Good point. There is the further Unlike any local government, the FCC oversees all broadband areas, from wireless to cable. "Local franchising authorities would have no such opportunity because they have no regulatory authority over broadband-service providers other than cable systems," the brief says. The FCC is asserting that local franchising authority only extends as far as cable tv, not to cable broadband. Thus, the FCC has separated cable tv and cable broadband into two separate markets. Necessarily then if those two are separate then broadband must be separated between cable broadband and telco broadband, because the RBOCs have a local telephone monopoly that the FCC can't directly break. Telco broadband therefore operates under a privileged condition even though it carries many ISPs. All of those ISPs must go through one carrier, but Portland is objecting to a similar status for Att in cable broadband. If AOL and ELNK can come in on the local telco, then Raod-Runner, HSAC, and ATHM can come in on Att. Thus Att is wrong and has to open its lines to other competitors in the cable market and Portland is wrong because they want Att to act like a telco monopolist, and cable anything is a separate and distinct market from copper telephony. If copper ISPs want a cable presence, then they will just have to buy, create, or partner with a cable distribution system.