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: JayPC who wrote (18037)	12/18/1999 11:20:00 AM
From: matt gray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

1. I haven't been in too many headends that would allow for co-location space. Take the case of co-location in Bell end offices once the office is without space the feds have ruled too bad....tough luck. The carrier is under no obligation to build additional facilities. Ergo, co-location with CATV other than possibly a regional headend is a pipedream. My guess is that in most cases it will all take place virtually. Why should AOL get to located in a headend and not PSIx, MSPG, and the thousands of other ISPs. I though this was about equality. Unlike the bell building which housed early generation switches that gobbled large spaces, CATV has always been a bused system with small endoffices thus maginifying the problem. 2. Once a virtual situation takes place now somebody needs to arrange for transport. Broadband transport over long distances that is controlled by the incumbent. A few problems exist: QOS issues, cost of bandwidth, provisioning and billing systems to mention just a few. These all will be resouce intensive. These costs are real costs and if bell undbudling is any indication the tab won't be picked up from the incumbent. The last guy in will pick up the tab as they rightfully should since their actions cause the system to be changed. Its gonna be pretty hard to make a business case to offer competative broadband services as a 3rd party ISP just on the cost of access and transport alone. Widespread Open access by 2004 would be an aggressive schedule. T knows it. After all they were put thru the ringer by the regional bells. No doubt their decision to purchase CATV systems was as a result of myriad problems they encountered in Bell unbudling. Another data point, the 1996 telecom act is 4 years old and they are just really starting to unbundle many of the offices. This was a 4 year delay. If the FCC ruled tommorrow that they are forced to open access, extrapolating the Bell experience, we would see CATV opened by 2004 at the earliest.