To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (2574 ) 7/27/1998 12:28:00 PM From: ahhaha Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 29970
The cable MSOs can be the intermediary that enables long and local to abide under one roof without inviting legal challenge from the current interpretation of the Telcom Act. An independent company could be formed as a holding company to hold companies performing the currently barred but highly desirable joint function. The holding company couldn't be a nominal entity, a shell corporation, it would have to provide a special distribution service or content and use the long and short legs as a means to accomplish the ends of its charter. TWX isn't an MSO, but they are approaching the formation of a national cable network from a less contentious position. The T-TCI attempt to merger will be tied up in court for many years because T's competitors don't have the equivalent access. The merger, it will be argued, is just a way to get around the law. This argument will fail, but it will delay the merger, not the build-out. T's move with BT tends to supersede the applicability of the Act since if WANs are tied together and brought down to the local loop in Europe, economies of information scale would tend to make the current interpretation of the ACT a constraint on maintaining network development parity with the rest of the world. The RBOCs have no choice but to start buying MSOs and LD carriers like QWST, LVLT. Ameritech is already in position on this front though they need a collection of MSOs. The question that will be asked is , can TWX specialize its CLEC services enough so that the IXC LD function circumvents the perception of indirectly offering universal cable telephony?