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 (7930)	8/8/2000 4:10:06 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Hi Mike, There's a favored expression in the Oval Office called "Overtaken by Events". This is the way I see that antique and by now obviated legislation from the last century that you refer to. :) Re: And of course, the fixed wireless players nipping away at both. This is no real threat. If you look at the cost of the gear that the BBFW guys are stuck with, there is no reason to get excited. And the fact that there is no consistency in the spectrum allocations across the globe insures that there can't be economies of scale in the production of the necessary ASICs, PHMETs, DSPs, filters, codecs, muxer/demux, etc. Besides which, if you look at Wall Street's reaction to the BBFW sector today, the interest in financing this sector is almost nil. A case in point is ARTT, which has been in business since 1993, has loads of licenses and has been able to only create $1.5MM of revenue (ttm) while paying out $204MM for the privelege! This isn't a business, this is a black hole. BWDIK, Ray

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (7930)	8/8/2000 4:15:06 PM
From: lml	Respond to of 12823

I agree, MikeM. The issue is not limited to the telco v. MSO platform, but more particularly along the copper loop, upon which competition was non-existent preceding passage of the 1996 Act. Sure, with advances by the MSOs & their current effort in deploying advanced services that include telephony, the local copper loop is still a platform that the Act seeks to unbundle & provide the consumer with choice and competitive pricing for services rendered thereon. IMHO, the FCC's policy is slightly different towards MSOs as their upgrades require much more in the way of investment to install, maintain & operate relative to the limited scope of their traditional infrastructure & scope of services. Hence, we saw this past year Kennard step away from forcing open access with respect to cable modem access despite many calls asking him to do so. And it seems that market is moving towards open access via its own forces, which is what Kennard has preferred all along. Similarly, I think the same will happen, eventually, when it comes to provisioning telephony over coax. Open access will mean that the MSO customer should have a choice in who is local and LD carrier will be much in the way of ISP. Do we see this yet? No, not yet, but it is exemplary of why closed MSO v. telco (or coax v. copper) competition is not enough under the Act. I think the larger question to ask is how many different carriers can the market support, and can a carrier without a national footprint compete successfully in the future world of telecommunications. It is clear that the RBOCs will move to establish a national footprint, at least in select markets, beyond their incumbent service areas. IMHO, the CLECs, who wish to compete, must eventually compete on the same scale or eventually be undercut in terms of pricing competition. It remains to be seen what CLECs will be standing, if any, when this is all over. COVD is the most prominent CLEC out there. I think the market will be following the strategic steps COVD pursues in the coming year to assess the future of the CLEC industry. JMO