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 : Westell WSTL -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (19642)	7/22/2000 8:31:53 PM
From: Michael F. Donadio	Respond to of 21342

Mike, I agree with you about the significance of what ATT did under Armstrong with cable that lit a fire under the ILECs to get DSL rolling or die. As far as the Nov. FCC ruling it is the one that is often referred to as line sharing, but in fact the often missed aspect is that it gave the ILECs the incentive to invest in DSL by indicating that their investment in improving the network for DSL is theirs, and basically giving them a monopoly again. Most of DSL will be deployed via fiber remotes into the neighborhoods. These lines are the ILECs. This was reported on RadioWallStreet back in February. Enacted in Nov.99 it began just this June. All the best, Michael

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (19642)	7/23/2000 12:41:51 AM
From: Michael F. Donadio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21342

Yes Mike, it was FCC 99-238 I want to correct myself, it was indeed FCC document 99-238 of Nov. 5, 1999 which I was referring to and not the one on line sharing for the CLECs.(I thought they were on the same document but are separate). It was the provision of 99-238 to encourage new investment by the ILECs for modernization of their network infrastructure and more specifically the development of DSL and high speed access -- New investment by the ILECs does NOT have to be unbundled if it is based on packet mode transport. Thus ATM became the dominant DSL technology partner as well. The 1996 Telecom Act failed to clarify what obligations the ILECs had in sharing new investment with the CLECs. The ILECs were not about to invest the forture necessary in high speed network buildout if it was to be handed over to the CLECs. This ruling basically reduced the CLECs to at most 30% of the ILEC lines which the CLECs could provision for DSL via 'home run copper' and set the stage for mass investment by the ILECs and the significance of fiber remotes. Tom Nolle speaks about this and its investment implications on RadioWallStreets "The TechPower Show" on 2/11/2000. You can find it by going to this page and checking the other shows listed at the bottom. It is called "Regulations, Technology & Networking": radiowallstreet.com All the best, Michael