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: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (8648)	9/29/2000 12:58:29 PM
From: lml	Respond to of 12823

Frank: Most excellent point. I just wish someone, such as yourself, would be an objective voice of analysis of this whole issue "up on the hill" cuz we sure don't here an intelligent voice along these lines from the MSOs. I recall discussing some of the alternative possibilities of how a multiple ISP model might be designed into & managed along the cable platform here a few months ago. I think Mike had initiated the discussion and remember how I "piped" in with my own comments on how much control could actually be shifted to the licensed ISP in light of the administrative responsibilities of the MSO to ensure integrity and operational dependability of its own platform. Some areas touched included ensuring a minimum level of bandwidth to each ISP that each could in turn assure its own customers some stated level of service, though it would be expressed in bulk & not necessarily point-to-point, as the MSOs now due to subscribers to their existing proprietary system. From my perspective, the Courts have been quite clear on the open access issue. It is the FCC that has been vague, or remiss is implementing a clear policy that would serve the interests of the cable industry, the ISPs, and the consumer. The Ninth Circuit was clear on the issue that cable modem service was a "telecommunication service" and not a "cable service" and therefore not within the jurisdiction of the local franchising authority to condition, or dictate, open access policy, or pricing policy on the cable-modem platform. The implication of that interpretation leads one to conclude that the cable-modem platform should be subject to the same "must-carry" rules under which the telcos operate. However, implementation of this policy is left to the FCC until a case comes up through the court system leading to a decision ordering a particular MSO to open up its pipes in accordance with that court's interpretation of "must carry" rules as they now presumably apply to the MSO industry. See biz.yahoo.com for a similar case that is presents a compelling reason for the FCC to implement a clear policy now. The ball is in the FCC's court. Let's see what creative policy Kennard can come up with. IMHO, he can no longer play laissez-faire. If the FCC doesn't act, the courts soon will. JMO.

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (8648)	9/29/2000 5:16:50 PM
From: justone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Frank: My understanding of Cablelabs is that their first line of defense is to tell the FCC "Don't forget, we are the ONLY chance you have of finding a competitor to the ILEC". So far, this has worked, even to the point where the FCC is worried that the cable companies make enough profits to roll out voice over cable and start competing. This was Mike Armstrong's initial reply to the critics, before ATT got more suavely political. The FCC is probably just making "nice sounds" to pacify the critics. There is some standards support for sharing long distance voice access, and some for several small cable companies to share network equipment, but not much support for multiple providers to share access to the end subscriber. In fact, there is a lot of authentication that protects the cable service provider from people trying to get by them. Remember, Cablelabs is run totally by service providers who own their subscribers,and they don't want that to change. I think I agree with this as policy, at least for the 67% population covered by cable, and the 40% or so covered by DSL. The real problem, I think, for the FCC is not competition, but rural access. My prediction: the wireless and satellite people will get very nice rulings from the FCC.