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 (6665)	3/15/2000 6:53:00 AM
From: MikeM54321	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12823

Re: Details of FCC 99-238 Thread- I actually thought SBC's strategy was important to enough to torture myself and read the entire FCC 99-238 ruling. Of course it's very hard to decipher because it's totally nebulous and open to interpretation. But what government ruling isn't? I tried to pull out the parts I thought were significant and relate to SBC's Project Pronto game plan. This kind of reminds me of what AT&T did in their bid to by-pass the RBOCs(same as incumbent LEC) by purchasing coaxial cable plants. It was very complicated at first, but ultimately appears to be working see this link for details: Message 12929942 IMO, the FCC should allow SBC to go ahead with their plan but with the caveat of a time frame constraint. I think that is just what San Francisco did with AT&T. They said they would approve T's move to upgrade the HFC plant and not force the open access issue on them. In return, I believe T has to complete the project in three years. If SBC's plan works, then it will be very interesting to see if other RBOCs follow suit. After all, it's probably the only way they can ultimately compete with the cablecos HFC plant. So sounds like a win-win(for SBC only) to me. Ouch! 262 Pages long. But here it is for anyone else that wants to review: fcc.gov -MikeM(From Florida) ************************* FCC 99-238 SELECT EXCERPTS** Page 14 Packet Switching. Incumbent LECs are not required to unbundle packet switching, except in a limited circumstance. Competitive LECs are actively deploying packet switches to serve high-volume customers, and are not impaired in their ability to offer service to such customers, without access to the incumbent LEC's facilities. Competitive LECs are impaired, however, in their ability to provide services to small-volume users without access to unbundled packet switching. Nonetheless, we consider the other goals of the Act in making our unbundling determination, and conclude that given the nascent nature of the advanced services market and the Act's goal to provide incentives to all carrier to invest and innovate, incumbent LECs are generally not requited to unbundle packet switching. 205. We find that lack of access to unbundled subloops materially diminishes a requesting carrier's ability to provide services that it seeks to offer. We also conclude that access to subloop elements is likely to be the catalyst that will allow competitors, over time, to deploy their own complementary subloop facilities, and eventually to develop competitive loops. Lack of access to subloops discourages competitive LECs from attempting to combine their own feeder plant with the incumbent?s distribution plant to minimize their reliance on the incumbent's facilities. We also find that lack of unbundled access to the incumbent's subloops would preclude competitors from offering some broadband services. Accordingly, we conclude that incumbent LECs must provide unbundled access to subloops nationwide, where technically feasible. 218. Third, competitors seeking to offer services using xDSL technology need to access the copper wire portion of the loop. In cases where the incumbent multiplexes its copper loops at a remote terminal to transport the traffic to the central office over fiber DLC facilities, a requesting carrier's ability to offer xDSL service to customers served over those facilities will be precluded, unless the competitor can gain access to the customer's copper loop before the traffic on that loop is multiplexed. Thus, we note that the remote terminal has, to a substantial degree, assumed the role and significance traditionally associated with the central office. In addition, in order to use its own facilities to provide xDSL service to a customer, a carrier must locate its DSLAM within a reasonable distance of the customer premises, usually less than 18,000 feet. In both of these situations, a requesting carrier needs access to copper wire relatively close to the subscriber in order to serve the incumbent's customer. 306. We decline at this time to unbundle the packet switching functionality, except in limited circumstances. Among other potential factors, we recognize that the presence of multiple requesting carriers providing service with their own packet switches is probative of whether they are impaired without access to unbundled packet switching. The record demonstrates that competitors are actively deploying facilities used to provide advanced services to serve certain segments of the market - namely, medium and large business - and hence they cannot be said to be impaired in their ability to offer service, at least to these segments without access to the incumbent's facilities. In other segments of the market, namely, residential and small business, we conclude that competitors may be impaired in their ability to offer service without access to incumbent LEC facilities due, in part, to the cost and delay of obtaining collocation in every central office where the requesting carrier provides service using unbundled loops. We conclude, however, that given the nascent nature of the advanced services marketplace, we will not order unbundling of the packet switching functionality as a general matter.

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (6665)	3/20/2000 8:37:00 PM
From: MikeM54321	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Re: SBC- Fighting the CLECs with FCC 99-238 Thread- I'm pretty certain this strategy is going to become very important if other RBOCs follow suit. This may mean a lot more ADSL will be rollout via the RT(remote terminal). Contrary to what the first article says, it's not so much that it's Alcatel gear, but the network design(ATM out to the RT) that keeps the CLECs off. I still think it was a good move by SBC. And I'm wondering if the RT ADSL service will be upgradeable to VDSL when SBC sees the demand is there? -MikeM(From Florida) ************************* SBC: Don't Mess with Our DSL March 14, 2000- SBC execs yesterday lambasted an attempt by CLECs to get the FCC to stop SBC from using proprietary Alcatel gear in its $6 billion Project Pronto DSL rollout. "Their strategy is a calculated and anticompetitive ploy," SBC VP Priscilla Hill-Ardoin said. "The FCC has repeatedly held that it is not the role of the commission to select the 'best' or 'preferred' technology." CLECs worry that SBC-specified, Alcatel-only gear will limit them to offering only ADSL. ______________________ CLECs Declare War Over Project Pronto** March 8, 2000- A fight is quietly brewing over the future of DSL that promises to equal the 1996 battle over the interconnection regime. Oddly, SBC'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.