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: MikeM54321 who wrote (11566)	6/25/2001 3:01:51 PM
From: MikeM54321	Respond to of 12823

Again from Peter's url: "One of the things he's done is to ask for additional enforcement, larger fines and things like that," Hatfield said. "If we're going to have competition, you need a very, very active regulator." Right. And we need more IRS employees to enforce the 10,000 pages of tax laws that are already incomprehensible. "Last month, both supporters and opponents of the Tauzin-Dingell bill seemed ready to agree on provisions that would raise fines from $120,000 to $1 million for each incident in which an ILEC is found to have failed to allow competitors to connect to its network. The maximum fine would also jump, from $1 million to $10 million." So let me get this straight. If an ILEC won't let a CLEC truck unload in their parking lot, does anyone seriously think the ILEC will end up paying a $10 million fine? Not without a $1 million legal battle and about 5 years in court. I wish we would trash the Telecom Act and try something different. As elmatador says, "ILECs live to kill and kill to live." It's hard to stop them with regulation and litigation. -MikeM(From Florida)