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: Sam Citron who wrote (1438)	11/14/1997 2:57:00 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 12823

Sam, concerning "neutrality," your article sounds a lot like one that I've made into a must reading here, from Americas Network Magazine, titled: "Checking out Carrier Hotels; Space ... A Fading Frontier for Carriers." By Annie Lindstrom see: americasnetwork.com While speaking about one of the facilities management firms that houses SPs, the article states: ""Because [facilities provider] is a "carrier neutral" facility, however, its clients don't have to promise any carrier a specific amount of traffic to purchase floor space for their equipment, nor do they have to exchange all of their traffic with a single carrier."" Other claims of neutrality have been offered up by CLECs in much the same way in the past. What happened during the early stages of CLEC existence, when they were known as ALTs and CAPs, was that they catered heavily to the Interexchange Carrier market bypassing the LECs, and they didn't want to step on the toes of the Big Three, so they maintained that they would not compete with them in the long haul marketplace. Of course, all of that has changed, as it almost appears inevitable that it would. Today carriers (wholesalers) that boast about neutrality and unequivocally state that they won't compete with their customers (retailers), would need to possess the patience of a monk and the religion of a saint in order to avoid the temptations that will cross their paths as convergence follows through, once they are up an working. Just my two cents... Frank

To: Sam Citron who wrote (1438)	11/14/1997 5:47:00 PM
From: Tiger	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

The public CLECs: icix acsi gst icgx nxlk colty wcii artt No view on relative attractiveness. The near-term IPOs: elix tgnt The Telecom Act requires the RBOCs to resell the individual components of their network, but pricing and access has been contested in the courts and remains unresolved. This has slowed down local competitive entry via resale. In the meantime, the CLECs must negotiate with the RBOCs on terms. The RBOCs won't be allowed into the long distance market until competition exists in their markets; so they're playing the game of trying to present the illusion of competition without losing significant revenues. There are 2 types of collocation - physical and virtual; physical has its problems sometimes - limits on space at the facility for competitors' equipment; virtual means running a high speed line to the competitors' equipment elsewhere, for which they charge handsomely. CLECS, of course, prefer real collocation. Here's a good webzine, covering lots of different issues including collocation, for those of you with interest in the industry. teledotcom.com