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: Crossy who wrote (11618)	6/26/2001 11:04:01 PM
From: MikeM54321	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 12823

"You can't think of ILECs to deploy broadband when they have no incentive to do so. Is it that ?" Crossy- Yes. Incentive One-Competition. To steal away not only their relatively small consumer business, but more important business revenues. Incentive Two-Revenues. If they risk/invest literally billions of dollars, they need a return. They should not have to give up revenues to competitors or to ISPs(open access to multiple ISPs). "What the market will pay" has somewhat determined the price charged to consumers is only $40/month for broadband. They deserve to keep the entire $40/month for each subscriber. It's really not that much for what it takes to deliver it. Then you outline that rules are not needed anymore because competition from MSOs is finally coming. Yes. Not only MSOs but BBFW and fiberless optics too. "You also seem to imply that if the ILECs could deploy what they wanted without others access to unbundled network elements and co-location then they would already have rolled out DSL express way." Well let's put it this way. Say you considering risking $6 billion to roll out Project Pronto(SBCs DSL project via NGDLC). Would you want to then open up that network that you just spent $6 billion on to your competitors? So my answer is, without the telecom act, the ILECs would have had more incentive to rollout broadband (not that in itself it would have been enough). See Incentive One above. So my answer is no. Even without the ill-fated 96 Telecom Act, ILECs would have just sat still. That was their advantage in having a monopoly. ...their fear of cannibalization of T1 lines for business and metered ISDN lines for individuals. This strategic issue exists with or without the 96 Act. The act magnifies it only. I totally agree. That is the reason they would have done nothing even if they didn't have to line share per 96 Telecom Act. That is why incentive one above is so important. So the 96 Act is NOT a shortterm solution IMHO and it does nothing to increase the speed of DSL broadband deployment BUT - it is a pathway to a competitive future and precicesly this "assymetric" regulation is to address the simple fact that there does exist a PSTN network that was created in a world of monopoly (the uneven playing field) I'm not sure what you are saying here? Is this what you think, or what you think I think? The European anti-trust office is pretty much modeled after this. The key agenda here is the establishment of competitive behaviour against all forces in place undermining competition. So far the German Bundekartellamt did an excellent job - one of the best pro-market institutions in the world. So are you saying Europe would be pro-96 Telecom Act? I didn't quite follow your comments. Thanks. -MikeM(From Florida) PS I just read notes from FCC Chief Powell's speech at a cable convention. Powell seems to think that money can be pulled off that miraculous tree of wealth that government speech makers so often refer to when hiding free market facts.