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: axial who wrote (12167)	2/28/2002 5:56:36 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 12823

"long-distance data services without first opening their local networks to competitors" Only DSL customers 2.7 million did the trick. That is: if those 2.7 millions are realy connected to ADSL modems at homes is a different story. It played like I said it would: House bill gives broadband boost to Bells news.com.com By Reuters February 27, 2002, 3:20 PM PT The U.S. House of Representatives approved a measure on Wednesday relaxing regulations on regional telephone giants to promote the launch of high-speed Internet service, though the measure faces opposition in the Senate. Lawmakers voted 273-157 for the bill, which would allow the four so-called Baby Bells--Verizon Communications, SBC Communications, BellSouth and Qwest Communications--to offer lucrative long-distance data services without first opening their local networks to competitors. The carriers, seeking the profitable $50-a-month customer for fast Internet service known as broadband, have been battling other telephone carriers and cable TV companies for nearly three years over the bill. The four dominant telephone carriers offering digital subscriber line, or DSL, service argue their cable rivals do not face similar network-sharing requirements and thus have a market advantage. The bill "means we'll have choice and competition in that marketplace and all Americans will enjoy the benefits instead of just a few," said Rep. Billy Tauzin, a Louisiana Republican and the chief sponsor of the measure. There are almost twice as many cable modem customers as DSL customers, 5.2 million vs. 2.7 million, government data shows. Both charge about $50 a month for such service. While the bill is expected to pass the House, its fate is likely doomed because of opposition in the U.S. Senate. Sen. Ernest Hollings, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, said he would not consider it because it would "extinguish competition." Telephone competitors like WorldCom and Allegiance Telecom have lobbied against the measure, arguing that easing the existing access requirement would remove the incentive for the local giants to open their networks. "What the bill...does is give the local Bell monopolies a license to exclude," said Rep. John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat. Still, the debate over encouraging faster deployment of broadband among policy-makers has flourished, with several bills proposed in Congress to promote high-speed Internet service, including proposals to offer tax incentives. To promote competition in the local markets, the 1996 Telecommunications Act barred the Bells from offering long-distance data and voice services in their home markets until they prove their local networks are open to competitors. The House-approved bill would eliminate that requirement for long-distance data and some requirements that they unbundle certain elements of their networks necessary for rival carriers to offer service. At the same time, it would require the big carriers to launch DSL in hard-to-reach and rural areas by certain dates. "The reason why the cable guys are winning is not because of regulation, but because cable can provide it at a lower cost," Legg Mason analyst Blair Levin said. "If you relieve some of the unbundling obligations, I don't really see how that really reduces costs. It may increase their profits." Story Copyright © 2002 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.

To: axial who wrote (12167)	2/28/2002 11:57:50 PM
From: Rob S.	Respond to of 12823

"The whole mess is still a solution looking for a market, mired in commercial throat-cutting, regulatory labyrinths, spectrum inconsistencies, and standing on the shifting ground of constantly-changing technology." True but that is par for the course isn't it? Look at this simply as what will it take to turn on buyers. I don't think wide area or metro wireless broad band is much different than WLAN. People will buy it if it is cheap and easy because it saves them time and money and makes their job easier or enhanced. There is no miracle needed for wireless BB to go over the top: A $200-$300 CPE, perhaps subsidized by the WISP or MMDS ISP provider and a flat unlimited usage rate of $30 per month. This should be easier to achieve in many third world markets because the telecomms didn't pay so exorbitantly for spectrum. In N. America the government should leave hands off the floundering telcos and let more of them go out of business, maybe coughing up their spectrum for lower prices. It is a snake pit but so was the young PC marketplace and most "revolutionary" hotbeds of development. Let the weak and dimwitted perish and the strong survive. During the early stages of new technology there is a lot of creative destruction and only those with the clearest vision and best directed efforts will come out winners. I think the telecommunications industry and equipment providers need to be shaken down to their roots because it is such a bloody mess. If they can't deliver what the market wants then good riddance. "If you're saying that one or two will soon emerge as victors over all their competitors, and gain huge commercial success, with the attendant attractive investment potential, I disagree." I don't think that at all. I think that standards will prevail above any single company. The field is likely to remain extremely competitive and cutthroat for years if not decades, particularly in the unlicensed spectrum markets. It's very unlikely that anything like a Microsoft or Intel equivalent will evolve imo. This will be much more like a commodity market at the low end with a few companies who will rise to provide back-end systems. If I were to take a wild guess on any single company gaining the largest market share at this point I'd say Cisco even though they don't currently have a viable product. They will either end up acquiring companies in the field when it reaches a level of critical mass or develop their own. Their prior effort, V-OFDM based stuff, failed but recent investments in Flarion may be a viable vehicle into this market. They have time because it's not going anywhere fast right now. The reason I think Cisco may come in to capture this space, if they want it, is because it plays to the sale of their other gear. This end of the business will probably be low margin compared to the bulk of their business but it will allow them more sales tied to the IP market and technology "convergence".