SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (9625)12/10/2000 5:51:06 PM
From: axial  Respond to of 12823
 
Mike, I wonder what will happen, when I look at the disarray in the industry, and in the FCC.

Apologies for the poor expression of many oft-covered subjects. I'm struggling with the question of what's at the center of this Gordian knot.

WRT telephony, the monopoly that was supposed to be deregulated was composed (if you want to look at it this way) of two parts: transmission/reception and switching/addressing.

One of the problems in the present dereg path is that switching/addressing remains firmly in the hands of the incumbents. Tacking on a different input (ie., DSL, cable, wireless) is primarily a question of transmission/reception.

Until a wireless, or DSL, or cable provider can provide a guaranteed access to all recipients, without access to legacy switching/addressing equipment, how can the monopoly ever be broken?

And isn't that still-existing monopoly the only thing preventing the demise of the telcos?

As long as we have a hybrid of legacy infrastructure and new transmission techniques this logjam is unbreakable. Some way must be found to parallel the switching/addressing stranglehold of the incumbents, which is both real, and regulatory, especially in terms of reliability.

And where's the profit in that? Can it be made profitable? I don't see how, unless whole communities implement the practice: and then they still have to plug in to legacy infrastructure at some point.

'He was saying wireless and cable can do local and long distance with no restrictions. So he believes the incumbents should too?

It's a nice thought, but is it even possible, without the acquiescence of the incumbents? Why would they allow this?

The only answer I can see would be breaking out Last Mile switching/addressing (and wireline/equipment maintenance), as a separate, competitive business.

Funny, I haven't seen the incumbents talking much about that.

Regards,

Jim



To: MikeM54321 who wrote (9625)12/11/2000 1:09:44 AM
From: Raymond Duray  Respond to of 12823
 
Mike,

In addition to Tauzin and Kennard, the Republican with highest standing at FCC is Colin Powell's son. Another character to pay attention to, he's likely to succeed Kennard. :)

-Ray



To: MikeM54321 who wrote (9625)12/11/2000 1:44:01 AM
From: elmatador  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 12823
 
If ILECS were in another country, the US would bring them down to the WTO for uncompetitive behavior.

The US tech sector -as a whole- will suffer as a result of the ILECs straglehold in the access to users. US exports will also be adversely affected. This because Europeans are persuading the whole world that 3G is the way to go. Owing to their GSM footprint, Eurovendors will take these markets ahead of the US.



To: MikeM54321 who wrote (9625)12/11/2000 10:11:09 AM
From: elmatador  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 12823
 
Mike, If Michael Powell becomes FCC Chairman MSO's may be in trouble. I read about him with a slant and it appears he will favor ILEC's.

He will try to do what ILECs here in Europe want the regulators to do: To subject cableas to the same regulations of ILECs.

From Michael Powell's FCC Page
fcc.gov
Additionally, we must recognize that the Digital Migration involves every segment of the communications industry (i.e., telephone, cable, broadcast, wireless, and satellite) and none should be examined in isolation.

Legacy carriers are rapidly working to acquire the assets of modern war: digital networks, Internet services, packet routing, broadband, optics and content. Examples include SBC's Project Pronto, an accelerated effort to offer DSL, or AT&T's purchase of cable assets to offer video, voice and data. Similarly, companies are working to forge new alliances that position them well in the new land: American Online/Time Warner, Qwest/US West, Bell Atlantic/GTE (now Verizon), AT&T/MediaOne are all examples.

From the US State Dept. International Information Programs
John Koskinen, Assistant to the President and Chair
Guests: Michael Powell, Federal Communications Commission
Jerry Roth, GTE Service Corporation
usinfo.state.gov

"...The FCC's efforts in conjunction with the President's Council includes many industries, in addition to the one that garners the most substantial press, the wire line telephone industry. It also includes television, cable, broadcasting transmissions, satellite transmissions, and wireless technologies..."

From news.cnet.com
FCC's Powell calls for new regulatory approach
By Patrick Ross
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
December 8, 2000, 10:50 a.m. PT
WASHINGTON--Federal Communications Commission member Michael Powell, the man many insiders say will be the next FCC chairman, Friday called for a move away from technology-centric regulation to a model that allows companies the flexibility to innovate.

Mere reform is too modest a step to solve the problems of regulating communications, Powell said at the Progress and Freedom Foundation conference here. Powell and others are "opening (their) eyes to the great exodus from legacy business models, technical infrastructures and graying federal regulations," he said.

Many insiders believe Powell will be named FCC chairman in a possible George W. Bush administration. His forceful speech, which in many areas called for dramatic change from the current regime under William Kennard, struck many in attendance as the public debut of what a Powell-led commission would be like.

In a brief interview following his speech, Powell refused to say if he was interested in being chairman, saying only, "I'm happy doing what I'm doing at the moment."

In his speech, Powell bemoaned the fact that the Telecom Act of 1996 "left unchanged the balkanized regulatory treatment of different technologies and different industries." In particular, he singled out the "continuing uncertainty over how to treat the multitude of services offered on a bundled basis over a high-speed cable" network.

The cable industry has spent nearly three years fiercely resisting having its cable pipes regulated under phone rules, for they then would be forced to open them up to competitors. The FCC is conducting an inquiry on the so-called open-access issue.

Powell was persistent in his theme that technology is driving a migration of companies and focused on the efforts of AT&T and WorldCom to separate themselves from long-distance service. "Species migrate to escape hostile conditions," he said.



Do you have an opinion or comment on this story? Tell us.

Powell also noted that FCC regulations are "analog based," but digital technology is driving every sector of the communications market.

The FCC's role
Current commission rules "promote regulatory arbitrage," Powell said, noting that companies construct business plans to take advantage of quirks in regulations. The Bells argue local phone companies have been doing this when receiving fees for terminating calls from Bells with Internet service providers.

Powell also faulted companies that "seek shelter in regulations to protect themselves in the fierce storm of the market," yet often "attempt to use regulation to harm or burden their competitors."

He listed several approaches the FCC could take. For one, he said it should focus on promoting innovation, not price competition. He also said the FCC should not "prematurely rush to conclude we are witnessing a market failure that justifies regulatory intervention," suggesting a much more hands-off agency than the communications industry has seen in recent years.

Consumer protection is important, Powell said, but "it should not be a straw man" used to rationalize new regulations.

Finally, he said, the agency should move away from its current system by which companies must submit new technology and business models for approval. Instead, the agency should let companies act as they choose but inform them of the consequences if they break the law. "My view is if 98 percent of the time the answer is 'yes,' you don't need to do the up-front prophylactic review in the first place," he said.

Powell received a strong endorsement at the conference from Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., the odds-on favorite to be chairman of the House Commerce Committee next year.

"Michael Powell is my choice for FCC chairman," Tauzin told a luncheon crowd. He said Powell had the "intelligence and leadership" to guide much-needed FCC reform.

Tauzin promised a reform initiative of his own next year, including "substantial and accelerated deregulation." He said he and others on the Hill planned to work with the General Accounting Office to find ways to streamline the agency for the digital age.



To: MikeM54321 who wrote (9625)12/11/2000 2:12:30 PM
From: axial  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 12823
 
Hi, Mike - I don't really have any bias on the questions of regulation, deregulation, and government intervention.

I make the observation that the FCC seems to be more reactionary than other regulatory bodies, which are, or try to be, anticipatory. That is only a personal view; I'm sure that knowledgeable others would contradict me.

The purpose of regulation, or deregulation, IMO, is to provide a good business case for the implementation of the best possible technology in telecomms.

But, look at the success of the 'foot-dragging strategy', and not only in the US. In the UK, the interminable delays in opening access to broadband have provoked howls of outrage, directed at BT and the British government.

My point is: as long as the incumbents have physical ownership of, and the responsibility of maintenance for, last mile switching/addressing, then everybody else will get table scraps: some more, some less.

You will never be able to achieve the ideal, which is to access anyone, anywhere, with a big fat pipe that will do it all. Not unless the incumbents provide it: so what 'monopoly' is being eliminated?

The incumbents have a de facto monopoly, even when they are "deregulated" de jure.

In Canada, as others (cable, wireless) fight for table scraps, the rates the incumbents charge to maintain last mile switching/addressing/connectivity start to approach larceny.

What I'm trying to say is, until that monopoly is broken, in fact, deregulation, regulation, whatever, is just a sham. At the very least, incumbents will continue their extortion and foot-dragging, claiming declining revenues, and costs of maintenance.

The incumbents hold one end of the bridge, the only bridge that counts: guaranteed access to the customer.

Regards,

Jim