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 (7926)	8/8/2000 11:50:34 AM
From: lml	Respond to of 12823

Hi MikeM: You either sound like me, or are referring to me. Just about a year ago my brother, a EE with years of software experience in S-Valley, but some telecommunications (Granger & Associates, circa 1978-80), asked me whether COVD was a good investment. I told him, like you, I honestly did not know how to evaluate the CLECs; that much of the money had been made in the group; and that eventually in the long term, they would get eaten up by the ILECs, or other major telecoms. I viewed their existence at the time as a form of affirmative action that afforded them the luxury of cherry-picking the most attractive customers from the ILECs, leaving the ILECs with the responsibility for serving the less undesirable customers (ie. rural). I figured that such a current model could not remain in place forever, & that sooner or later the model would mature & fail in terms of growth, leaving the ILECs or others (ie. GBLX) to simply pickup the infrastructure & customer base built by the acquired CLECs at fallen marketcap prices. But, first, I figured there would be certain consolidation within the industry as margin pressures would soon lead to greater needs of economies of scale. Long term I view the CLECs with the liability of the inability to offer bundled services that the ILECs will increasingly offer in defense against the MSO push to offer the same to residential customers. IMHO, the successful CLEC will be the one to limit its market to businesses, and focus on that market by delivering the highest QoS possible, & build brand. IMHO, the CLECs will ultimately get their butts kick if they try to aggressive market residential customers UNLESS they can team up or line up other consumer services that residential customers want & will likely be offered in a bundled package from their more likely providers, the incumbent telco and MSO, and possible DBS provider. Since advising my brother not to invest in COVD about a year ago (July), this is what the stock has done: chart.yahoo.com

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (7926)	8/8/2000 1:01:21 PM
From: lml	Respond to of 12823

Reprise: why would the FCC allow the ILECs to eliminate competition by acquisitions? Good question, Mike. I didn't initially "get" the importance of you blip from Reuters until I just saw the full news myself. This development, IMHO, is significant. Obviously, NPNT need capital infusion. Perhaps, as you suspect, this will undergo strict FCC review. IMHO, the issue will be how much competition will be in the loop following consolidation. One must factor into the equation not only ILEC v. CLEC competition, but ILEC v. out-of-service area ILEC competition. SBC has been laying ground work to compete as a CLEC in territories beyond its incumbent service areas. The question to ask is whether competition & consumer choice provided by ILEC v. ILEC competition along the same loop sufficient to satisfy the requirement of the 1996 Act. Did the 1996 Act by virtue of its passage grant a birthright to CLECs, or was the core intent of the legislation to provide competition along the local loop, & thereby provide the consumer with choice for local communication services? A second question to answer is how much overlap is there b/w NPNT and VZ (BEL & GTE lines). As I have alluded to here on occasion, at least in So. Cal. GTE, from my POV, has been doing absolutely nothing in terms of moving forward to provision DSL beyond the most simplest of installations (close to the CO, no disturbers). So, IMHO, this strategy has been brewing for some time. Now, it seems, all GTE has to do out here, is incorporate NPNT equipment into their network & they have just saved themselves much time & effort. The expense was an investment in an enterprise rather than labor & material. As I sidebar, I've been waiting for provisioning of a NPNT line since May 18, when I first placed my order for IDSL. Just got my line tagged Friday. The qualifying line test still hasn't shown up on NPNT's system yet. The whole process is utterly ridiculous, and as I result, I cannot see how the CLECs can compete successfully along the residential loop, particularly the less dense ones. As as second sidebar, its now semi-official, G.lite is dead. See yahoo.cnet.com

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (7926)	8/8/2000 2:19:12 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12823

Re: NPNT --> VZ For $800 million Verizon can take a controlling interest? Look at the debt assumption features as well. Seems to me that says that NPNT is overvalued. By whom, VZ or the retail investor? :) why would the FCC allow the ILECs to eliminate competition by acquisitions? Mike, I alluded to this earlier. The FCC views the real competition to be occurring between the ILECs and the MSOs. The CLECs are just a sideshow. And they have shown themselves to be incapable of developing critical mass. Financing for the CLECs, including the BBFW guys is going to become increasing problematic as we move forward. JMHO, Ray