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: ftth who wrote (6557)	6/4/2003 4:00:06 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

ftth, Re: It's right up there with FCC-Powell's latest spin re: the Media concentration ruling where he spins the words but essentially says less competition leads to greater competition and less provider-diversity means greater provider-diversity. Simply unbelievable. I saw Powell before McCain's Senate committee today. He was cool as a cucumber as he got flailed for 34 meetings with a chief lobbyist for the mega-broadcasters, and 1 meeting with the public. Powell went poor-mouth on that one, claiming the FCC had no budget for public hearings, in spite of the fact that Adelman and Copps managed to hold over a dozen public hearings for under $20,000. (Which was the cost of the Richmond public meeting, the only one all the commissioners attended.) Democracy is being very ill served by both of the Powells. Both are lying scoundrels.

To: ftth who wrote (6557)	6/17/2003 2:25:43 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 46821

ftth the person, and Ray, C'mon, folks. You know that running the FCC is an incredibly untenable job. By the time they get to the docket du jour, the technology and service implications supported by that technology are in many cases already passé, or just about to be... The fact is, and I think we're beginning to see this borne out in some recent wireless implementations (never mind how fiber optic sewer paths should be regulated), much of their meddling into current-day competition is intrinsically unfounded, or flawed at the root. Granted, spectrum monitoring and licensing still bears merit for many applications. But how about treating all new fiber route construction projects as an opportunity to truly engender more competition by mandating that those new routes be opened to consortia or condo participation? Nothing new here. This is how transoceanic routes have been constructed for decades. Instead, they've come to this incredibly bizarre conclusion that effectively states that, through a cessation of unbundling (at least where fiber is concerned), the ILEC shall be the only game in town. You all know where the real influences lie (double entendre?), and it serves us no good purpose to be cynical about it ;) FAC