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 (7282)	6/10/2000 5:03:00 PM
From: transmission	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Homes in Service Area inclusive of line of site or more expensive ODFM is PR fluff again vs. 65% market share of cable. FON owns big %age of ELNK already. Think global, act local. That's politics and that is what LMA providers provides preach and practice.

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (7282)	6/10/2000 11:50:00 PM
From: John Stichnoth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Hi, Mike. I was responding specifically to this comment: So why is Sprint allowed to sign an exclusive deal with ISP Earthlink for a ride on Sprint's broadband wireless pipe, and no ones cries for the FCC to step in? Yet everyone screams when AT&T does the same with ISP Excite@Home. Or even the Time Warner deal with RoadRunner brings complaints. My (rather terse--sorry) reply addressed a couple of thoughts: ATT's long distance market share is a lot bigger than Sprint's, so naturally the T will get looked at more. I had remembered that the original uproar to the ATT/@home agreement was to their wireline service. Maybe I'm remembering this wrong? There do appear to be several large-footprint wireless SP's: verizon, ATT, Sprint and the US GSM network (I'm going blank on the name). But, footprint is not the same as market share, of course. ATT's position in wireline long distance will earn it the glare of anti-trust scrutiny for awhile. I won't address the broadband sats, which remain immature, imo, until Ka-band comes live. My understanding of anti-trust policy is that monopolies are allowed, as unavoidable. However, monopolies operate under tighter constraints than non-monopolies. (This is why in the Microsoft case, the "finding of fact" that msft is a monopoly was so important) One constraint is their ability to enter into exclusive agreements, because exclusive agreements have such a chilling effect on competition. Who cares if two minor players enter such an agreement, if it improves their competitive position against some larger players? But, what would happen to the market if Bell Atlantic (the local POTS monopoly) had been allowed to enter an exclusive agreeement with ATT as the sole long distance provider? (Hey, we would have been back to pre-breakup!) On your second series of questions: Cross-ownership is only one issue. As Sprint becomes part of WCOM, they're going to be required to divest some of their assets. If Earthlink was dominant in the ISP space (creating a vertical dominant player, given WCOM's position in the backbone), I'd think it would be an issue. However, Earthlink isn't dominant. AOL isn't quite dominant either, but they are the largest. My bet is that any large equity investment they make will get scrutiny, especially since Time Warner is the largest content provider. It's not the same as GM and Goodyear. There's little network effect in the auto industry. That's why the car makers have been divesting their parts businesses, and are becoming more and more "assemblers". A lot of work is being done in developing a legal structure to deal with the anti-trust impact of network effects, especially for high-tech companies. The question is whether an ATT/ Excite@Home tie-up would create huge barriers to entry for others. Would ATT or Excite@Home suddenly have a superior competitive position to other ISP's? I dunno. Some people seem to think so. I'm too tired to decide if they're right. :o) Edit: Sprint owns 14% of Earthlink.

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (7282)	6/11/2000 3:47:00 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 12823

"I'm truly not trying to be argumentative, I'm really just trying to follow the reasoning behind the ruckus." Of course, your first assumption here was also your first mistake, and that is that reasoning took place at all. More like the regs are struck with paralysis as they look into the oncoming headlights of the 'Net, defaulting to a mindset that was created in another time warp, is more like it. ---- A bit off topic, but the same rule applies here: I just read an account of how a firm spent the last two and a half years developing an enterprise resource planning (ERP) platform by SAP that has outlasted a reengineering overhaul that the firm went through. The same firm also has seen the light recently, and they are now well on their way to being Webbed up for ecommerce. The ERP is still not done. When it's finally completed, the enterprise will have transformed twice, and the new system will be, for all intents and purposes, useless. I'll bet real money that someone will go to extremes to make the new enterprise structure -the Web context, and all- fit the new ERP system in ways in which it was originally conceived.

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (7282)	6/11/2000 8:21:00 AM
From: Peter Ecclesine	Respond to of 12823

Hi Mike, From the editorial in last week's RCR News: D.C. Notes By: Jeffrey Silva, RCR News Wireless regulation is a temporary state of affairs. Some years from now there will be very few, if any, wireless rules. This is not a bold prediction. It is a foregone conclusion based on a confluence of economic, technological and political forces that have only gained in strength since 1993, when Congress pre-empted most state regulation of wireless carriers. First, working backward, the political case for wireless deregulation in coming years will become more persuasive as policy-makers come under increased criticism for the continued lack of local residential competition promised by the '96 telecom act. To escape the wrath of consumers and their inside-the-Beltway advocates, Congress and the Federal Communications Commission will look to wireless technology-mobile and fixed-for political cover. In the global arena, U.S. telecom policy-makers will grow tired and embarrassed of reading another news story of European and Asian wireless superiority. Wireless rules-one by one-will go by the wayside. And those rules that remain intact likely will be wireless-friendly. Deregulation will not happen tomorrow, or even the next day. But, most surely, it will happen. Talk of FCC reform is no more than code for industry deregulation. == Indeed, the technological transformation of our day is also a political transformation. High-tech is king; political decisions affecting everything from visas to taxes are skewed toward digital. The only thing standing in the way are the trial lawyers. Whether it's securities litigation or privacy litigation or consumer-fraud litigation or even health litigation, the lawyers will be there. It's the brave new battleground, called the marketplace. == petere

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (7282)	6/11/2000 1:30:00 PM
From: lml	Respond to of 12823

Hi Mike: Can't spend too much time here, so I'll be brief (yeah, right), & I apologize for other subsequent posts that may have address the same issues that I have addressed. 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? 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. Cable service is subject to a non-exclusive franchise license granted by the local franchising authority, be it a municipal or county legislative body. Hence, the heightened visibility & "point of access" to influence policy regarding multiple issues. Though wireless franchises require local approvals for infrastructure improvements & ROW easements, in contrast, the point of access is not focused at the local level, but more appropriately at the FCC level. I say appropriately, because, IMHO, the Portland ruling is wrong. As I see it, it is clear that the Federal gov't has legislated in this area (cable) and that efforts by the Multnomah Franchising Authority (the franchising authority in the Portland case) to impose their own policy as a condition transfer of control of the TCI franchise to AT&T places an undue burden upon interstate commerce, which is violative of the Commerce Clause found in Article I of the US Constitution. But, this is JMO -- & every lawyer has an opinion (you know that). I think if the local municipality were to impose local policies upon local wireless franchises via their local approval process for ROWs the FCC (& the courts) would come down much harder & swifter on the local governing bodies than what we have seen on the cable landscape. Under the Cable Act (which I admit I am not that familiar with) the Federal gov't has expressly granted certain rights to the local franchising authorities (ie local leased access for community based programming), & thereby the policy issues regarding cable are a bit more murky, as we have seen. BTW, the 9th Cir., which heard the Portland case in October, 1999, has yet to hand down its decision. Interesting, huh? Much has happened since that hearing. AOL has entered into an agreement to merger with TWX. T has expressed its intent to open up its pipes in the next year. Could the 9th Cir. waiting for issue to become moot - resolve itself so there is no longer a controversy? I dunno, but the Court has taken an awful long time to issue its opinion on this matter. Mike, I think you touch upon a broader issue, one that we hear about re: the MSFT case, & that is about consumer choice. But really, at what "point of sale" is the choice made? With wireless, that choice is made when the consumer chooses his wireless provider. Right now, but not much longer, the consumer has little or no choice with respect to cable, & that's obviously changing. But, IMHO, it is that perceived lack of choice on the cable platform upon which the open access argument rests -- & IMHO, it is flawed. Gotta go.