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 : Frank Coluccio Technology Forum - ASAP -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ahhaha who wrote (410)	11/20/1999 10:56:00 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1782

It's high time you showed up here, Doc. Welcome! You highlight some additional interesting twists. From the reference you cited: "Incumbents must share the line with only one requesting carrier." And you ask, "This one I don't understand. Does it mean that if COVD and RTHM request SBC for the sharing spot on the line, presumably the high end, only one can be accommodated?" My first take would be that if two CLECs are colocated in the same Central Office, then the ILEC would have to cross connect their subscriber loop to the one that the customer requested the service from. I don't think that entire neighborhoods will be pre-subscribed, or pre-wired, to a single CLEC's DSL access muxes. But judging from some recent releases, one has to wonder about that. But what if, as in my case, there are multiple users in a household using different services? My job related VPN may be aligned with a Covad strain of service, while my daughter's job related link to Bloomberg (the one that allows fast motion multimedia, not the slow V.34 one) may require that of Northpoint, or Red. And then, the ISPs could also conceivably be the CLECs in this case. One or more of them will be forced to acquire an entirely separate copper loop for resale to the subscriber at the much higher price from the incumbent, while the first CLEC gets away with the lower tariff, if the following is true: And again, this is from the reference you cited: "Carriers may not request access to just the high frequency portion of a loop if the incumbent is not presently using that loop to provide analog voice service." Wow, that's rather arbitrary, wouldn't you say? The fortunes of the CLEC are tied to the phone subcription habits of the population of a given locale, which habits are obviously not under the control of either the CLEC or the ILEC. This presents a weird set of factors for planning purposes. And sooner or later voice over IP, or VoIP, will kick in over the DSL link portion, which will serve to further mitigate the need for switched POTS lines. Hmm... And the CLECs will become ISPs where they are not already, and the ISPs will become CLECs [not to mention Internet Telephony Serivce Providers, or ITSPs, as well] wherever possible, due to the attractiveness of bundling all of these services under one umbrella as the world moves closer to an all-IP framework. "What is the definition of carrier? What is the definition of incumbent? Are they disjoint entities?" Good point. The reference material is guilty of not being specific enough when using these terms. And the terms themselves are nothing if not industry specific in their connotations. The reference you cited referred to the term "carrier" when alluding not only to the ILEC but the CLEC as well. The incumbent is the one who has been there for a thousand years, and the "carrier" (as in the term that your release used) was really referring to the newly arrived competitor, or the CLEC, as I read it. Are they disjoint? That makes me put on a grin, like this: -g- You brought up some very good points, thanks. By the way, I was only able to find the press releases and the FAQs which I posted upstream a bit back. Do you or anyone else here have the url for the actual FCC order in its entirety? I was unable to locate it on the fcc.gov site... maybe they post it on the web only after a predefined period of time after the official filing. Who knows. Or did I just miss something? Anyone?