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: The Phoenix who wrote (10184)	1/15/2001 7:20:03 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Hi Gary, "... but the FCC seems to be biased in this regard. Notice their lack of desire to tarriff IP voice and congresses desire to not tax the internet." Where they may have been predisposed to relax the rules in the past has been in those rare cases when they have granted pioneer status to certain wireless plays, freeing them from normal regs and other barriers to entry. But I don't see - although, I think I know where you are coming from, but the relationships are still a stretch, IMO - the relationship between the FCC's hands-off policies on IP Voice and 'Net taxation, and the opening of wireless operators' facilities to the rules governing open access (OA). I see the distinctions between the ILECs, along with the MSOs, contrasted against the wirelesses, as being this: The former two (the ILECs and MSOs) have established platforms that are capable, to varying degrees, of supporting high speed data, and the wireless operators, thus far, do not. VoIP is supported by all of them, however, without impacting whether or not they are required, or immune, to the rules of access. "Today the focus for equal access seems to be focused on the ILEC's and of course the MSO's." Again, this is simply because the ILECs and MSOs are the only ones that have overall plant distribution models that, in theory, can support equal access. More importantly, ISPs want to piggy back on them at this time, whereas very few would jump onto the back of a wireless operator's platform at this early stage, except for those virutal operators who have designed their platforms for WAP and operating systems that are uniquely suited for wireless transaction profiling. In a subtle way, the fact that wireless does not yet face the question of OA should be a tip-off that wireless is not yet ready for prime time high speed data, if they can't attract suitors who are demanding OA. If and when the wireless operators reach that plateau, i.e., where they can offer sustained high speed services [for a qualifying period that will be judged by other players in the market place], then they will have the burden of supporting OA, too. My guess? I don't see it happening for a while, because, while wirless Internet players may meet their own objectives (which might be dependent on wireless APIs and truncated forms of web access, etc.) they may not be desirable or suitable alternatives for the regular ISP who simply wants to allow an alternative form of access to their subs. Most ISPs have been struggling to upgrade from DUN and ISDN to DSL, and readying themselves for Cable Modem access. It seems almost counterintuitive to me (but what do I know?) for some of them to be looking the other way, i.e., to support abbreviated forms of access, such as WAP and the like. I can see niche applications for such, by a limited number of SPs, but these may not be the rule for some time to come, IMO. I'd be interested in any other views on this topic of OA for wireless operators from you and others here. Comments and corrections are also welcome. FAC