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 : Voice-on-the-net (VON), VoIP, Internet (IP) Telephony -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (948)	7/10/1998 12:41:00 AM
From: Daniel G. DeBusschere	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3178

Frank, what happens to the CLECs if the following action is taken: But Klein's response is accurate only to the extent that Section 271 is constitutional. If it is not, then the final decision-maker will no longer be the fcc, as indicated in the DOJ's response to DeWine's letter: "If the district court's ruling invalidating Section 271...is not reversed on appeal, the [DOJ] will consider all possible options currently under review, including a possible reinstatement of the AT&T consent decree, in order to protect and promote competition in all telecommunications markets." Under the consent decree, the DOJ was the sole arbiter of the Bells' market entry. IF Judge Green (or his successor) gets the football back, does this affect the rest of the 1996 Telecom Act which requires the RBOCs to unbundle raw copper lines?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (948)	7/10/1998 1:02:00 AM
From: Ray Jensen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3178

Frank, a former co-worker who is part of the telecom regulatory and legal quicksand in our Nation's Capitol tells me that these latest proposals might also result in the Telecommunication Act of 1996 being renamed. The proposed new name? "The Washington D.C. Bar Association Lifetime Employment and Retirement Security Act of 1998". Ray.