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 (7127)	5/27/2000 4:02:00 PM
From: lml	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12823

Hi Mike: Sounds like it's a very similar situation to the CO co-location problems between data-CLECs and the incumbent. The only difference is that the incumbent now doesn't own the RT(mini-CO). So doesn't this make it a worse situation for SBC, or any incumbent, in the same situation? I think the similarities are far more complex that you attempt to characterize here. The word "only" is almost a dangerous as the word "never," and would be cautious in describing something not well disclosed at this point. Unfortunately I cannot comment further on the RT ownership & operational structure other than what was communicated to me. My source said that SBC plans to announce the ASI deal w/i 30 days, so perhaps then a more intelligent discussion of the issues will ensue here. Seems like to me, SBC would have been better not to even attempt to shut out the data-CLECs using 99-238 and just have said, "Let's do our typical games in the RT as we have played in the CO." . Please explain the nuances of 99-238, as I am unfamiliar with the details of FCC regs as you have diligently studied. As I may have stated here or elsewhere, I don't believe SBC's intent is "shut out" the CLECs, but rather to forestall their competitiveness among SBC's incumbent customers in order to make it more difficult for the CLECs to compete on even-footing. It is also important to weigh in one's analysis and conjecture that SBC stands to benefit by leasing RT space out to the CLECs that it would otherwise not immediately utilize. I view SBC's Pronto venture as a huge undertaking requiring a tremendous commitment of capital. From a financial standpoint, I would want to maximize my ROI, and it is more likely I can do this if I lease out space in the RT to competitors rather than monopolize it all for myself. IMHO, SBCs business model going forward is going to focus on its role as an ACCESS PROVIDER rather than as a CARRIER. It is going to charge the CLECs a nice fee for ACCESS to its infrastructure. OTOH, I also believe that SBC seeks to established itself as an "incumbent-like" provider at the RT as it does at the CO, but at the same time recognize that at the RT, where the facilities are closer to the customer premises, their ability to control as an incumbent the apportionment of space & various networks is arguably diminished. I think this view is consistent with the 1996 Act. The foregoing is just speculation on my part. I find the whole matter as interesting as you do, and as Frank apparently does. All I can say at this point, it should make for some good news when the news on ASI is officially released across the wires. Then we can all comment with more intelligence.