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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Moufassa's Lair -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tradelite who wrote (5032)	2/15/2002 4:26:04 PM
From: Tradelite	Respond to of 13660

FCC Rules Seek High-Speed Shift Phone Firms Would Keep Cable Rights By Jonathan Krim Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, February 15, 2002; Page E01 The Federal Communications Commission yesterday proposed that high-speed Internet access provided by telephone companies not be subject to the same regulations governing basic telephone service, a move that could redefine how Americans receive broadband service. If adopted, the rules would hand large regional telephone companies a key victory: They would not be required to allow competitors to offer Internet access, e-mail and other services over the same souped-up telephone lines the regional carriers use to deliver high-speed service. The rules would significantly shift the federal government's approach to telecommunications policy. As Internet access developed, the Clinton administration sought to require competition, particularly in the digital-subscriber-line (DSL) service provided by telephone companies. Such competition also was among the goals of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. But the nuts and bolts of how the law is executed reside at the FCC. The new thinking, reflecting the vision of FCC chief Michael Powell and many technology executives, is that sufficient competition comes from the different types of broadband service available: via DSL, cable networks or satellite dishes. Powell and his supporters argue that it is difficult to foster competition within each mode of high-speed Internet access because of the huge cost involved in building networks. As it is, technology companies, whose growth is dependent on greater adoption of broadband, claim that its transmission speeds are not yet fast enough, and more robust networks of fiber-optic lines to the home or other technologies must be deployed. "We are faced with the grim reality that the government likely will not, and probably cannot, cover much of the hefty price tag associated with building out one or more broadband networks that can eventually serve all Americans," Powell said yesterday. "Thus, our greatest challenge in promoting broadband is deciding how best to stimulate enormous private sector investment." Consumer groups and independent Internet access providers argue that this policy will leave the country with a tiny number of broadband providers that would wield tremendous power over the availability of Internet service and content. Localities typically are served by only one cable company and one telephone carrier. The nation has only two major satellite providers, and they are seeking to merge. Providing competition for Internet access offers consumers choice without the need for expensive parallel networks, critics say. "If you don't have competition within each platform, then you will spend all this effort to end up with a duopoly or an oligopoly," said David Baker, policy director for EarthLink Inc., the nation's second-largest Internet access provider. Consumer groups also note that as of now, Americans are not showing strong demand for broadband. More than 80 percent of the nation's households have access to some form of broadband, but only 10 percent have taken the service, which typically costs about $50 per month. Although the specific text of the proposed rules is not yet available, they would provide some of what the telephone companies badly want: certainty that if they invest in broadband network development, they will not be required to open those systems to other Internet service providers. The rules would put them on the same footing as cable broadband providers, who are not required to open their systems. It is unclear how the new rules would affect the small number of alternate DSL providers, such as Covad Communications, which offer service in limited residential areas by sharing some phone company lines. Covad said it would not be affected. But if a telephone customer chooses his local phone service provider for DSL, he could be forced to choose its Internet affiliate to provide broadband access. A handful of companies such as Starpower Inc. offer high-speed access over their own networks. But it is costly for them to expand their reach. Telephone and cable companies have long argued that forcing them to share their systems with other providers removes their incentive to build high-speed networks. But a notable exception is AOL Time Warner Inc., the union of an Internet provider and a cable system. As a condition of merger approval, the new company was required to allow a limited number of other Internet access providers, including EarthLink, to operate on the Time Warner cable broadband system. AOL fought the requirement, but an official with the company said the presence of such competition appears to be driving more people to sign up for broadband service. © 2002 The Washington Post Company