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: Peter Ecclesine who wrote (12338)	12/21/2002 12:36:27 AM
From: Peter Ecclesine	Respond to of 12823

And a bit more on Commissioner Martin At 22:17 -0800 12/17/02, Bruce Kushnick wrote: I'm much more afraid of the FCC. Here's Commissioner Kevin Martin's speech which was given at the FCC Bar Associations dinner. <http://www.newnetworks.com/martinfcbaspeech.htm> He wants to restrict any use of future broadband networks, especially if they are fiber to the curb. --- see quote below.) So what if the fiber-to-the-curb-deployments were already paid for by customers and they never got anything for their hundreds of dollars. Before giving away a public-utility-asset to a private company, the FCC should get the facts about the deployments and get the money back for customers --- or at least not close customer-funded networks to competitors who want to use them. He also wrote that the Bells shouldn't have to resell to ISPs.... and that it will be contractual and therefore the Bells will be nice to these companies ---- Ha. He hasn't bothered to read the complaints filed by ISPs currently about how they are being screwed today. my favorite line ---- "I must give Tom Tauke of Verizon credit for this policy construct. About a year and a half ago, shortly after I joined the Commission, I heard Tom give a speech where he laid out the concept of "new rules for new wires." Talk about being in the pocket of the monopoly. Bruce kushnick -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- He wrote: 2. Deregulate New "Fiber to the Home" Secondly, I believe we also need to adopt the principles set forth in recent proposals regarding the regulatory framework for new fiber investment deployed to a customer premises. Under these proposals, "fiber to the home" facilities would be relieved from unbundling requirements and incumbents would be relieved of any obligation to deploy copper facilities in new build situations where fiber to the home is deployed. Incumbents also would have several options and obligations with respect to the existing copper plant in new build situations. In the recent DC Circuit decision overturning our unbundled network element regime, the Court criticized the Commission for not fully taking into account the ability of new entrants to invest in and deploy new network infrastructure. I believe that it is not "necessary" for a competitor to have access to a new fiber loop. I believe that if incumbent service providers decide to build new fiber local loops to a customer premise, they should be free of "old-style" legacy rules. Legacy rules are ill-suited for new facilities and new services in the supercharged IP and fiber broadband worlds of tomorrow. ========================================= "In doing so, we would need to change our Computer II rules so that incumbent providers would no longer be required to provide underlying transmission services as retail service offerings. Providers nevertheless would have the incentive to provide broadband transport to unaffiliated ISPs on reasonable terms, because only by doing so could they maximize the value of their investments. Such offerings would be made available on a private carriage basis and not as unbundled tariffed offerings."