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: Bernard Levy who wrote (9762)	12/16/2000 5:46:40 PM
From: MikeM54321	Respond to of 12823

Bernard- Yes he did describe the problem(not only is there the twisted pair world, but cable and wireless too) well but failed to state it's resolution. I hope it's not to further regulate the 'innovative provider.' This statement scares me: "With increasingly converged services it is difficult to trationally label and thus assign regulatory treatment to an innovative provider, product or service." Easy answer. Don't label and don't assign regulatory treatment. My hope is even further deregulation for not only the traditional twisted pair players, but even more deregulation on the non-traditional players. I'd even go so far as to say the government ought to pay the HFC and BBFW players to build their infrastructure(through tax breaks). I can hardly blame ATT for slowing down upgrades and rollouts with the current FCC gun to their head about opening up their networks and forcing them to give up around 40%* of their broadband revenues to competition. -MikeM(From Florida) *I've read figures of subtracting around $15 to $18 off the $40/month CM revenues that goes to their competition(other ISPs). $40/month is not much to begin with, and to have to give away such a large chunk is disincentive for spending/risking billions of dollars in infrastructure upgrades. Not to mention the legal morass it ties up cablecos in.