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: Peter Ecclesine who wrote (11528)	6/22/2001 2:18:37 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 12823

Telecom Act of 1996 is not fixable. This is because whatever action there is a reaction. The perceptions that the Telecom Act 1996 embodied have been -all of them- already absorbed by the market. Whatever way the burrocrats* try to make the telecoms market fit into this Telecom Act cloth it only make look ridiculous. *bur·ro (bûr, br, br) n. pl. bur·ros A small donkey, especially one used as a pack animal. ILECS kill to live and live to kill. They are now coming after the cable companies. It is going on for over two years here in Europe this assault on the cable companies. The EU mandated the ILECS to sell their cable interests. (Telia sold, Deustche Telekom has been selling) Afraid that the Callahans of this world would dismantle the gentlemen agreements, they started lobbying for the regulation of the cable businesses. That's because ILECS have a lot of political power. "regulating" the cable business, to "protect" the customer is their way to rein (since they control the regulators) in the cables companies.

To: Peter Ecclesine who wrote (11528)	6/24/2001 3:07:40 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12823

Re: The Local Loop:A Natural Monopoly? from the June 2001 issue of Business Communications Review Hi Peter, Thanks for pointing out that "Briefing" piece from BCR. The author seems to have a clear-headed notion of where things stand in the LM game. A couple of observations..... It has never been as clear to me as with this article that CIMI's Tom Nolle is a partisan in the ILEC vs. Everyone Else battle. He's generally come across as less biased in his own publications. Ya gotta love these Bellhead vs. Nethead debates. Endless, and endlessly frustrating. An example? As Nolle put it: "It's not a legitimate public policy objective to foster competition. It's a legitimate public policy objective to foster some change in the consumer experience, and then to mandate competition as a mechanism for addressing it." Huh? Nolle seems to be way out of line here, spinning the history of anti-trust going back to the Standard Oil breakup with a rewrite of history that is pathetically stilted and off-base. The Nolle comments on residential broadband are nothing but smoke. The ILECs mean to move into commercial/institutional broadband and would dearly love to have nothing to do with residential broadband upgrades. I can't believe he's making so much of this stuff up for the sake of his own ability to collect "toady-writer" fees from the incumbents. JMHO. I do tend to agree with Eric Krapf, that the new battlefield for the RBOCs is not with the CLECs but rather with the MSOs. However, in that arena, the cableco equipment vendors aren't producing DOCSIS 1.1 compliant gear, and the whole MSO VoIP effort seems stalled if not stillborn at this time. Score one for the old copper loops and the postponement of the future. Best, Ray :) PS: TTBOMK, Tauzin-Dingell is dead, a fate it richly deserves.

To: Peter Ecclesine who wrote (11528)	6/25/2001 10:54:14 AM
From: MikeM54321	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

From Peter's url: "So if it's impossible for a critical mass of local competitors to subsist either by using the ILEC's facilities or building new plant, is there any way to have real local competition? The only remaining option would seem to be structural separation—requiring each RBOC to split its loop operations into an entirely new company, one that would provide the plant on a nondiscriminatory basis to all would-be service providers—new competitors as well as the retail arm of the incumbent." elmatador- The above what you were saying. And I say-Please God no. Then we waste another six years before we realize it didn't work. No more rules and regulations please. -MikeM(From Florida)