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 : Ascend Communications (ASND) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gbh who wrote (41568)	3/30/1998 2:53:00 PM
From: Narotham Reddy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 61433

We made it to 38 For a brief moment though.. Narotham

To: gbh who wrote (41568)	3/30/1998 3:15:00 PM
From: pat mudge	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 61433

Gary -- Pricing by telcos is a mystery. I suspect they can put whatever amount on DSL they want, depending on who'll pay what. If they go to the business market first, they can ask more, but will cannibalize their T1 market. If they go straight to retail, they'll have to ask less, or so the general thinking goes. Sympatico in Canada asks $69 per mo. Canadian for 1.5Mbps. I believe USWest is quoting closer to $95 for those speeds, though I'd have to check old press releases to be sure. More than pricing, it's the darn unbundling issue that's holding up deployment by telcos. Did you read today's LATimes on MCI and LCI's different proposals to have telcos split off their network business? latimes.com <<TELECOM TALK Push for Sell-Off of Bells' Network Operations Gains Speed By ELIZABETH DOUGLASS ÿ ÿWant to print? A printer-friendly version of this story. n proposals reminiscent of the landmark 1984 breakup of AT&T, two long-distance companies have asked federal regulators to consider splitting up parts of the Baby Bell phone companies to break the competitive logjam in the residential market. ÿÿÿÿÿMCI Communications filed paperwork with the Federal Communications Commission last week suggesting that the regional Bells should be required to sell off their network operations. ÿÿÿÿÿIn late January, LCI International, another big long-distance carrier, floated a similar proposal. ÿÿÿÿÿThe idea, though somewhat drastic, comes at an opportune time since both federal and state regulators are puzzling over why the 2-year-old Telecom Act has failed to draw new rivals into the consumer local phone market. ÿÿÿÿÿMuch to the dismay of the local phone companies, which flatly reject the concept, some regulators are at least willing to consider the arguments. ÿÿÿÿÿLCI's plan is under review by the FCC, as well as by state regulators in Illinois and Oklahoma. ÿÿÿÿÿAt a recent hearing held by California regulators, LCI urged the state to consider its plan. ÿÿÿÿÿ"My experience in attempting to pry open local markets for LCI has convinced me that we need a new approach if we are to see broad-based local competition develop," Anne Bingaman, a former Justice Department antitrust chief and president of LCI's local phone division, said during the California Public Utilities Commission hearing late last month. >> The FCC speech I posted yesterday alluded to similar solutions becoming a possibility. As for G.Lite, I know it's the solution being pushed by MSFT/INTC/CPQ and ostensibly by everyone who joined the consortium, but there are many who believe full ADSL will be deployed as readily as the watered-down version. Both solutions have problems that must be overcome. With Lite it's interference, filtering, and speeds per distance; and with full DSL it's installation and provisioning. Later -- Pat