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: lml who wrote (7481)	7/5/2000 8:35:16 AM
From: MikeM54321	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

"But even the most successful companies offering DSL service have only signed up a combined 500,000 subscribers for a service that is markedly faster and cheaper than dial-up modems or ISDN connections and, in theory, keeps users connected to the Internet 24 hours a day. The problem in getting DSL to customers is closely related to the hotly disputed issue at the core of telecommunications since 1996: How and when should the Baby Bells, called "incumbent local-exchange carriers" (ILEC) in FCC lingo, be allowed to enter the rewarding long-distance business? That was at the heart of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and, nearly four years later, there has been little progress toward that end. The Baby Bells say they're cooperating with the independent DSL providers, even though in their view, services like DSL require large, new investment in technology. If they are forced to give that to competitors at wholesale prices, it will be a disincentive to investment." lml- I'm confused. DSL has ramped up to 1 million customers today. Once the cable shot was fired by T, it was off to the races for DSL rollouts by the incumbents. DSL is forecast to pass cable modems in a few years. So I'm not sure why the author paints the current pace of rollouts, as slow? Little progress towards LD for the incumbents? Again, Bell Atlantic has been approved. And apparently so has SBC. Those two are biggies. Add the ramifications of the approved USWest/Qwest deal, and LD/Incumbents seems to be happening to me. But the article paints it as almost no progress has been made? DSL is expensive, but what has that got to do with the incumbents keeping CLECs out? The CLEC does not ride on the incumbents equipment. They have to purchase their own and install it in the CO. So I have no idea why the author paints the decision as one based on cost to the incumbent and a giveaway to the CLEC? Maybe the author is confusing it with the ISP issue? That's more like a free-ride IMHO. Not that I know you think the article is accurate, but if you believe so, I wouldn't mind being corrected. I just didn't think anything the author was trying to say was accurate. IMHO, he is confusing the RT issue with other issues unrelated to it. -MikeM(From Florida) PS It'll be a miracle if this posts with my HTML italics code. If so, maybe SI could be fixing the problems. I still find it hard to believe, they couldn't PM all of us with some sort of status report and apology. Just amazingly incompetent.