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: transmission who wrote (7281)	6/10/2000 4:56:00 PM
From: MikeM54321	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 12823

My Question: Why is there hell to pay when AT&T wants to do an exclusive with Excite@Home with their cable pipes, YET no complaints when a mobile broadband wireless SP does an exclusive with an ISP or no complaints when a fixed broadband wireless SP does an exclusive with an ISP? My Point: A pipe, is a pipe, is a pipe. Why put a coaxial pipe under restrictions other pipes don't have to deal with? ____________________ John Stichnoth- 1. I don't understand what you are saying about market share? Don't some of the wireless SPs claim huge market footprints? Don't fixed broadband wireless SPs(as my article says) claim huge market footprints? Some supposedly larger than AT&T's. Or how about a wireless broadband satellite SP, with a blanket over the entire country? So no exclusives with any ISP will be allowed? 2. As far as cross-ownership, I understand what you are saying. So does that mean if SP Sprint buys 20-25% of ISP Earthlink, they will have hell to pay with the FCC? Or if ISP AOL takes an equity stake in any of the mobile wireless SPs, there will be hell to pay too? Isn't this analogous to General Motors buying an equity stake in Goodyear tires? I doubt that would be illegal. So I don't follow why AT&T can't own an equity stake in ISP Excite@Home? ____________________ transmission- Cable is a, "municipal franchise"...now that's something I didn't think about before. Thanks. But what does that mean? Are you saying if your are a municipal franchise, then you can't do exclusive deals with ISPs. But if you fall under FCC regulations you can? How is this fair? Why wouldn't the FCC be just as concerned about...oh I see what you are saying. You are saying it's not a matter of fairness. It's just the way that it is. And it's going to take a supreme court ruling to decide if, in fact, a local municipal franchise(in Oregon) can over ride the ubiquitous FCC. Is this what you are saying? If so, it would be totally hypocritical if the mobile broadband wireless players AND the fixed broadband wireless players are running around freely doing exclusive ISP deals, but AT&T can't. AT&T would have a strong argument against forced access, wouldn't they? Thanks for both your responses. I'm truly not trying to be argumentative, I'm really just trying to follow the reasoning behind the ruckus. -MikeM(From Florida)