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: John Stichnoth who wrote (7280)	6/10/2000 4:25:00 PM
From: transmission	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Cable is a municipal franchise and among first brouhaha was Portland saying open access with Los Angeles more recent. MMDS is FCC regulated. MMDS can and did/does do video delivery but DBS economics and ubiquity had made it the video competitor to cable. WCOM made some announcement recently about using AOL for retail presumably over MMDS. May be part PR move to have FON with ELNK and WCOM with AOL to show ISP diversity to further merge prospects.

To: John Stichnoth who wrote (7280)	6/11/2000 2:41:00 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

John, that's an interesting analysis. I understand your reasoning, but I don't know if I necessarily agree with it. We have several things happening now which tend to offset the usual arguments about "monopoly" status today in the specific space that we're concerned with. And that space is Internet Access. The coming abundance of all types of players in a given serving area, where previously there may have only been one or two (an ILEC and a cable operator) claiming the undergrounds and the poles, makes it difficult to rationalize who should be deemed the dominant player, or if in fact one even should. That disctinction, in the end, will come to depend largely on consumer choice, not squatter's rights or PUC edict. Neither of the two former kings of their space (ILECs and MSOs) can be cited purely on the basis of who they are, any longer, as being the sole or best or most successful provider for any given type of service in a given locale, and most notably for Internet access, over time. Especially as it relates to 'Net access. Not to mention that each of these former monopoly players aspires to offer the other's legacy services in addition to those of their own. The coming multitude of existing and still nascent players within both the same and different mediums who both currently and in the future will co-exist within the same serving area makes this a daunting situation to analyze and administer, if we use the old rules which governed monopolies as a guideline. To wit, cases where there are two or more competing cable operators (including some wireless and satellite ones), multiple wireless Internet access operators, and indeed, multiple LECs, both incumbent and competitive, in-region and out-of-region. Assuming that the foregoing facts hold true, would you have the open access rules apply to the longest standing incumbents in each media group (the so called "dominant ones," only? Or, should the evolving rules of open access apply to all purveyors in this space, new and old, regardless of medium that they support, alike? FAC