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 (6844)	4/16/2000 5:21:00 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 12823

Hi Mike, I think that the perceptions that you have/had are pretty much shared by most, including myself for a great period of time, but I don't think that T was precluded by law from entering LEC operations in general... rather, only precluded from buying out the baby bells which it agreed to divest. Nothing prevented them from acquiring other ILECs (of which there were about 1200 at the time of Divestiture One, I believe). Witness, they are actually going into the LEC business right now. Granted, they are using Cable instead of t.p., but I'm inclined to think of this fate as one that was governed by circumstance and convenience, rather than by the hand of law. For quite some time prior to T's going into cable, they were armwrestling with all of the RBOCs for resale margins for last mile t.p facilities and end office switch ports (and CLASS services, etc.), if you recall. The resale route was the only practical alternative for them at the time, prior to getting into cable, because going after a full-fledged twisted pair or next generation dlc buildout was out of the question, their project Angel was slipping always, and the prospect of pulling t/p would have presented both an enormous franchise hassle and inevitable endless rounds of litigation. And unbundled elements weren't settled upon yet at that time, if I recall correctly. Perhaps some of the legal minds on this board who are familiar with both Divestiture One and the Act of 96 can shed some more light on this, fwiw. Sorry, but I'm afraid that I don't have any of the stats that you are looking for. Not at my fingertips. Again, perhaps someone else can help out here. FAC