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 : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (3902)	9/7/2001 9:56:21 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 46821

The bubble have seen lots of parties -the newcomers- going into telecoms: 1) Municipalities 2) Utilities 3) Cable TV 3) and way back, Real Estate I suspect the business cases of those newcomers were more influenced by vendors trying to sell their wares rather than by these newcomers real understanding of the telcoms' business. What they failed to realize is the very nature of the telecoms business. Mainly vendor incumbency. The unholy alliance between: Operators, regulators and the vendors that supply equipment. Fail to understand this and you lose. I am talking about guys who are willing to spend USD1.000+ billion to save USD250 billion (the PSTN in the US HW+SW amounts to USD250 billion). It would make a Third World country blush. But that's exactly what happened. Not only was money thrown to the wind in a scale never ever seen before but the job losses cause by this unwise investments -to defend legacy- is much greater than would be if the PSTN would be now in a process of being junked. It would help much more these newcomers an understanding of telecoms -the old died in the wool monopoly- rather than IT the technology underlying their plans. But during the bubble we didn't witness a lack of telecoms people. There were only lacking IT people. Not surprisingly: everyone was seeking IT people. The lesson is very clear. Anyone trying to make a business in this area has to understand the nature of the telco. Would you go ito battle without knowing who your enemy -and its allied are? Do armies not have an intelligence wing to supply its information? And I am not talking about the latest Frost and Sullivan, Yankee Group or Forrester Research Report. (Never trust a report which you didn't make it yp by yourself.) That's the second lesson any newcomers trying to go into this field have to learn. Any adjunct technology is bound to fail. It will fail unless it is "approved" by the incumbents under their own terms. Try to get Washington, DC to force-feed competition and you'll fail. The lesson for Metro Loops is clear in this respect: It will only be deployed under the terms of the incumbents. Period. FTTx will only see the light of the day if the incumbents ILECs would accommodate it under their own business model. A simple business model based on: overcharge long distance and international and business users and give local calls for free. The day this business model is changed then we could come back and discuss this gain. Because them we would have something that has changed. So far it has not. If I had to go on business today I would rather go for a business that would help ILECs/incumbents/legacy to preserve their grip rather than going into something that will cross their interests. And that's is what is comsuming my time now, Frank.

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (3902)	9/7/2001 10:12:03 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 46821

BUILDING-BASED LOCAL EXCHANGE CARRIER REVENUES TO REACH NEARLY $1 BILLION BY 2004, FINDS NEW REPORT FROM NEW PARADIGM RESOURCES GROUP Control of “First Mile,” Abundance of Unwired Commercial Real Estate and Significant Market Advantages Give BLECs Room to Grow CHICAGO, APRIL 16, 2001 – New Paradigm Resources Group, Inc., (NPRG), the leading research firm covering the competitive communications industry, today released the second edition of its BLEC Reportä, finding that Building Local Exchange Carriers are poised to generate revenues of nearly $1 billion by 2004, up from $71 million in 2000. COMMENTS: It is because of this kind of thing that the road is littered with the carcasses.

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (3902)	9/8/2001 2:46:17 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 46821

May 29, ILEC filed revision of tariff. Notice inviting for comment, June 27, deadline for filing comments, (in five copies, of course) July 16. This is why I say ADSL is dead. It is this time scale. This morosity in which telecoms provision is made under the assumption that is still a public service. Technology deployment dicussed under the egide of a Public State Commission? Look to the telecoms debacle to see the results. Guess whom benefits form this status quo. OK, I'm not going to use the California energy crisis. It would be too much. Page 1 STATE OF NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION CASE 00-C-0127 – Proceeding on Motion of the Commission to Examine Issues Concerning the Provision of Digital Subscriber Line Services NOTICE INVITING COMMENTS (Issued June 27, 2001) On May 29, 2001, Verizon New York Inc. (Verizon) filed revisions to Tariff P. S. C. No. 916-Telephone, proposing rates and regulations for Line Splitting Arrangements, to be effective July 1, 2001. Additionally, the filing applied new OSS cost recovery rates to Line Sharing, Unbundled Sub-Loop Arrangements and Feeder Sub-Loops. On June 22, 2001, Verizon postponed the effective date of the new OSS cost recovery rates associated with Line Sharing, Unbundled Sub-Loop Arrangements and Feeder Sub-Loops from July 1, 2001 to September 5, 2001. All other portions of the tariff filing will become effective July 1, 2001. The Commission is seeking comments from interested parties regarding the proposed tariff filing. Consequently, parties wishing to comment on this matter should file five (5) copies of their comments with Janet Hand Deixler, Secretary, New York Public Service Commission, 3 Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York 12223-1350, by July 16, 2001. Comments should also be served on all active parties to Cases 98-C-1357 and 00-C-0127. JANET HAND DEIXLER Secretary 1