To: E. Davies who wrote (6032 ) 11/20/1999 12:05:00 PM From: Frank A. Coluccio Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 12823
Eric, you and I discussed this "sharing" scenario back in the spring on the ATHM board. I used it to support an argument contrasting the issue of equal treatment to both the ILEC environment and that of the MSOs, if you recall. The issue at the time had to do with the mis-application of any sense of parity treatment for voice services, ironically, since T had made projections of voice penetrations using cable facilities in the RBOC territories. We were discussing the apparent disparities which existed in administering the rules as they apply to monopoly players for one service (cableTV, in this instance), and not applying those same rules to the same player as they apply to other services (voice and data). Specifically, we scrutinized the future "potential" of xLECs and other SPs of various persuasions piggy-backing on top of the ILECs copper, in much the same way that ATHM and the MSOs were being pressured to accept additional service providers over HFC, as led by AOL. At the time I also suggested that the same fate would await any successful wireless provider, in the future. It will be interesting to see how the wireless providers treat the inevitable encroachment by upstart interlopers who are able to identify some slice of spectrum, virtual or physical, which is unused, at that time. ---- The next chapter in this evolutionary process, where the ILECs' plant is concerned, can also borrow from the cable experience, and it will take place when a given ISP or Portal service (aside from that of the ILECs' own) makes claim to this coveted morsel of spectrum, and disallows other SPs access to it, a la ATHM. Frank