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 (20967)	4/19/2007 7:15:30 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

There will never be any enforceable evidence of a problem if there is no accountability on what they're selling. They will always be able to say, "well we never actually promised that, you just read that into our sales literature." I think what we are dealing with here can be explained by looking at the history of the first big government regulatory body, the Railroad commission. It was, in actuality, taken over and run by the railroads, because they were the only ones making a buck in the situation. So they put the time, money and energy in to influencing the decisions. Same same with all of them since, for the same reason.

To: ftth who wrote (20967)	4/19/2007 8:04:19 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 46821

re: "They will always be able to say, 'well we never actually promised that, you just read that into our sales literature.'" Yes, this type of non-committal language is very similar to campaign rhetoric. Several weeks ago someone here in this forum wrote about the predilections of industry stakeholders and participants of various persuasions to use extremely vague language in order to avoid committing themselves on an issue. I learned long ago from the masters of the street about the value of keeping one's options open during negotiations, but big deals are never cut if decisions at some point are not made. While I have no desire to hand the FCC a pass in this regard, I should at the same time also acknowledge that attempting to place bookends on SOME of the attributes of "best effort" IP services in the absence QoS and other bandwidth shaping techniques would be a very difficult act to follow. That said, however, there is a large-enough number of parameters that the FCC can harness and define, for which it should be doing a better job of holding the SPs accountable, but are not. Quite the opposite has been true, in fact. ------