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 : LAST MILE TECHNOLOGIES - Let's Discuss Them Here -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (6465)	2/21/2000 1:10:00 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12823

re: ISPs' rights of tv program providers I see this approach by the ISPs as a variation on a familiar theme used by the RBOCs in the past to achieve similar ends. During the Nineties, several RBOCs petitioned arguing 1st Amendment freedom of speech, and following each legal victory they were allowed entry into their respective cable TV markets. Of course, despite the "appearance" of a strong desire at program-orientation in one form or another in a few big-named RBOC/cross industry alliances --each of which proved to be disasterous-- in these earlier instances they were striving for the right to build their physical networks (all three: wireless, HFC and DSL based, depending on which BOCs and which parts of the country), but similar principles applied. This all was taking place when such notions as switched digital video (SDV) and open video services (OVS) were popular among service providers, as was provider-based (VOD). At that earlier time no one gave serious thought to ISPs eventually taking over all three domains: VOD, OVS and SDV (albeit, switched, here, may be traded for "routed" video services as in RDV<?>).

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (6465)	3/15/2000 6:36:00 AM
From: MikeM54321	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12823

Re: SBC Using FCC 99-238 to their Advantage Thread- I consider what SBC is doing a significant strategy in the on going battle between data-CLECs and RBOCs as DSL services rollout. IMO the article is difficult to understand, but the concept is easy. SBC is running packet switching (Voice over ATM) out to their remote gateways, neighborhood nodes, field cabinets, mini-COs, etc...This does to things. I'm not sure which is more important. First, it virtually makes it impossible for the data-CLEC to line share but not for the reasons the article states. IMO, it's more of a physical problem. How do you line share at a remote terminal? And it appears to fall under rule 99-238. RBOC's don't have to line share packet switched lines. A double block of a data-CLECs entry into the SBC customer base. Secondly, it allows SBC to bring fiber into the neighborhood for a higher data rate to their customers. Hopefully allowing SBC to supply cable TV like services over their copper plant. -MikeM(From Florida) PS My next posts details FCC 99-238. **************************** SBC SQUARES OFF AGAINST CLECS OVER DSL ACCESS** Critics Fear Project Pronto Thwarts Competition March 14, 2000-- A fight is quietly brewing over the future of DSL that promises to equal the 1996 battle over the interconnection regime. Oddly, SBC Communication's Project Pronto is touching off the war. The $6 billion DSL-network upgrade, a landmark on SBC's map of its broadband future, has CLECs furious. Think of SBC and the CLECs as the U.S.-Russian alliance during World War II -- a coalition of natural antagonists, one of which thinks its ally is secretly planning an empire. But this is telecom, of course, so don't look for anything as dramatic as a Berlin blockade. SBC's opening salvo was a dry Feb. 15 request that the FCC interpret its conditions on the SBC-Ameritech merger so as to allow SBC to own DSL line cards in the gateways being built as part of Project Pronto. That relatively uncontroversial issue exploded after data CLECs got a look at SBC's design for its DSL network. SBC's plan is to push fiber as far out the network as possible, with fiber-fed "neighborhood gateways" aggregating copper local DSL loops. So far, so good. The primary limitation of DSL is the length of the local loop. The further the signal travels on fiber, the more customers will be able to reach it. And SBC is offering to make the line cards an unbundled network element, possibly the first case in history of an ILEC volunteering a new UNE. But the gateways, or "remote terminals," will require SBC-specified, Alcatel [ALA]-made line cards to connect the fiber and copper. CLECs say that will prevent them from offering any type of DSL other than ADSL. Worse, they fear the gateway proposal is a Trojan horse, a plausible offering that conceals a host of future, proprietary limitations. "This could be just the tip of the iceberg," says John Windhausen Jr., president of the Association for Local Telecom Services, a Washington-based trade association representing CLECs. Trade Organizations Unite Against Proposal ALTS, the Global Alliance for Telecom and the DSL Access Telecom Alliance all have questioned SBC's plan and said the ILEC is rushing it through the FCC in a process so expedited that CLECs can't properly assess the design. SBC says CLECs shouldn't judge the design. "ALTS wants to dictate the construction of a private network," says SBC spokesman Matt Miller. "They want to dictate the way we spend $6 billion to bring DSL to millions. Frankly, that's ridiculous." The CLEC fears, however, are widespread. GAT told the FCC that RBOCs are "thumbing their noses at the FCC and its policy." DATA, an alliance of Rhythms NetConnections [RTHM], Covad [COVD] and Northpoint [NPNT], said an all-SBC UNE would be "competition lite," killing facility-based competition. Launched last fall, the Project Pronto initiative would make DSL available to 80 percent of SBC customers by 2002, which represents 77 million people. As of February, more than 12 million homes and businesses were able to receive SBC's DSL services, company officials say. The company plans to add the service to 300 additional markets by year-end, through its subsidiaries. At its current pace, SBC expects to exceed its initial goal of 16 million DSL-eligible homes and business at the end of 2000. -- Paul Coe Clark III

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (6465)	3/18/2000 9:53:00 AM
From: MikeM54321	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12823

Re: AT&T's Cable Telephony Agreement with Insight Communications Thread- Another significant event that has drawn little attention. Maybe it's because T has already cried wolf with their STILL ongoing negotiations with Time Warner. That PR was done early last year. To this day, still no agreement has been reached between T and Time Warner for T to provide local phone service to all of Time Warner's customers. This time, same story but smaller MSO. This MSO, Insight Communications, has 1.6 million customers. 1.6 million customers is nothing to sneeze at, but this is not extremely significant in itself. What is significant is the agreement can be used as a model for T to get access to a LOT of homes via remaining MSO's cable plants. -MikeM(From Florida) PS See linked, "who wrote post 6465," above for a significant FCC ruling that went unoticed by the mainstream media. IMO, things are going well for AT&T's ambitious plans. One day the media may agree and write something postitive about the $120 billion risk Mike Armstrong took. *********************** Insight Communications, AT&T In Pact To Offer Local Phone Service** NEW YORK -- AT&T Corp. struck a deal with Insight Communications Co. to provide phone service over Insight's cable-television lines in the Midwest. Most of New-York-based Insight's (ICCI) customers are located in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio. Insight already operates a cable venture with AT&T in the Midwest. The tentative agreement calls for Insight to market, sign up and bill for AT&T-branded local phone services. AT&T would install and market switching equipment at Insight's cable head-end, where video and other broadband signals originate, and also will be the "local exchange carrier of record." Pressure is mounting on AT&T to deliver on its ambitious promise of offering local phone services over cable-TV lines. AT&T has so far committed more than $120 billion to buy major cable concerns, with an eye on turning itself into a major force in the local-phone business. As part of that plan, AT&T had hoped to cut phone pacts with all the big cable-TV operators. The idea was to link arms with the industry and gain access to most of the U.S. on par with the Baby Bell telephone firms. Despite more than a year of trying, AT&T has yet to strike a major phone pact. AT&T had hoped to use a Time Warner Inc. agreement as a model for phone deals with other cable companies, but now that America Online Inc. has set plans to buy Time Warner, the outlook is unclear. AOL has its own telephone ambitions, which could put it at odds with AT&T.