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 (6924)	5/12/2000 1:11:00 PM
From: lml	Respond to of 12823

Here, Mike, here's some news coverage on the co-location at the RT issue now being debated on "The Hill." teledotcom.com Still awaiting my "Pronto." Should have by "end of year," but I've heard that promise too many times before.

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (6924)	5/13/2000 2:28:00 AM
From: John Stichnoth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Mike and Frank--Re DSL. I promised a while ago to keep this thread updated on status of DSL in my neck of the woods. Well, it's finally arrived. I ordered my residential service ($50 per month, includes ISP charge). Bell Atlantic (I am in New Jersey) has apparently seen all the demand they can handle. Of course, it hasn't arrived everywhere around here. My neighbor can't get it at his office in Glen Rock, and it still isn't available at all in Franklin Lakes. Glen Rock is a prosperous suburban town with houses on fairly small lots. Lots of popultion density, but apparently not always close enough to the CO, The Franklin Lakes CO apparently hasn't been provisioned. Installation took four trips by BEL. First, it was supposed to be turned on by the CO (no truck roll to be required) but I could get no signal. It took a couple weeks to get the repair guy here. He couldn't figure it out. The next morning, a second person appeared. He wasn't aware that someone had been there before. The second guy was much better, and got everything all set--and confirmed that there was a problem with the card in the central office. Later that day I had a decent signal. Guy 2 stopped by to put his tester on the line, for Visit 3 by BEL. A short visit. Unfortunately, it still wouldn't work in my computer. BEL had sent out three installation manuals with the equipment. Plug-and-Play--NOT! One of the manuals was for the network card for my computer. The second one was to initiate service. The third one superceded a bunch of the second one. I went through the directions pretty carefully, but was unable to get it to work. At that point, I had to start worrying about taxes, and I'd decided to get a new computer so I set the effort aside for awhile. When the new computer came, I didn't even try to install the DSL myself. A tech came, and had it up and running in half an hour. (It helped that I have a new, fast machine with plenty of RAM, apparently). Interestingly, the tech looked at one of my installation disks, and practically laughed. It was out of date, and apparently was the cause of a lot of calls. My conclusions: 1. BEL is winging it with DSL. They are getting there, but they still are not dealing with a mature product nor do they have depth in the tech support side. 1a. An indication that we are dealing with an immature product: I can close down the browser and receive the prompt to disconnect from the modem. Clicking "Yes" will sometimes, but not always, prevent me from logging on again. I can reboot, and then quickly sign back on through DSL. Annoying, and something that will cause me just to stay on all them time, thus using up BEL's IP addresses. 2. BEL is very much interested in preserving their copper in this area. Thus, they should see a real benefit in moving users onto DSL, rather than say ISDN or even staying on analog. 3. Service so far has been excellent or non-existent. One of the problems BEL has always had with their internet service is unreliability of their servers. I seem to be going through those same servers now, and they are sometimes up and sometimes not. For instance, there appears to be a distinct log-on server farm that is accessed by both analog and DSL customers to initiate service at the start of each session. For BEL, this is sometimes down. Similarly, the analog service used to slow to a crawl after I was on for a long time. That appears to have happened with the DSL as well. I presume this is congestion on the back end. All in all, of course, it is a huge improvement and a big boost to my productivity. Best, JS

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (6924)	5/25/2000 3:04:00 PM
From: lml	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12823

FWIW, Mike & Thread: This morning I first learned how the co-loco issue is going to be handles at the RT -- at least as Pronto is concerned. The answer is that there will be no co-location rights since the RT will NOT be OWNED by SBC, but by a separate entity known as "ASI." I don't have all the specifics, but based upon what was provided to me it looks very similar to a sale-leaseback type of structure. As a separate operating entity, ASI objective will be to maximize revenues, & thereby will lease space at the RT on a "first-come, first-served" basis. Sure SBC will pay the same lease rates as the CLECs, but how will SBC enjoy the fruits of the venture when it comes to ownership in ASI. The details are not available, but I think ownership in ASI will represent SBC ROI in Pronto, who in-effect is being contracted by ASI to build the RT infrastructure. Nevertheless, I think the goal here is to structure a business model whereby the CLECs will be able to compete with the incumbent for DSL consumers based competitive DSL pricing models. However, IMHO, SBC is an extremely shrewd company, & will likely use its existing market power upfront to consume as much capacity in each RT as possible & limit the ultimate "co-location" availability to CLECs. Is the following hypothesis consistent with the 1996 Act & Congressional & FCC policy regarding encouraging competition along the loop? I would venture far enough to say yes. In the instant case, SBC is establishing a business model that will allow the CLECs to compete for customers on a level playing field, with both incumbent & CLEC have the same cost structure when it comes to provision DSL along the loop. It is obvious that the incumbent will command a large market presence at the outset, & perhaps rightfully so. But if competitive forces are truly allowed to compete, prices will drop, & the consumer will gravitate to that provider providing the best service at the best reasonable price. If, for example, the CLECs are successful, then I would think the demand for incumbent gear would diminish & it would be in the interest of the independent RT operator to accommodate market demand & reallocate space at the RT accordingly. In a hurry here, so gotta go, but I welcome comments from all copper & coaxial pair ends.