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: lml who wrote (2118)	10/12/1998 12:37:00 PM
From: Bernard Levy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Hi lml: I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it, takings require fair compensation. In this particular case, I do not think that there would necessarily be great difficulty in establishing the value of copper lines. Since the demand for them is so great, why not conduct an auction? Best regards, Bernard Levy

To: lml who wrote (2118)	10/12/1998 12:37:00 PM
From: Doughboy	Respond to of 12823

Let me add my two cents: the feds will never condemn the local loop for public use. Their opportunity was a few years ago when they passed the telecom act (and I don't think a taking was ever contemplated; the BOCs would have screamed bloody murder). Who knows how they would have figure out compensation. But the whole unbundling regime is the way the feds thought that CLECs could get access without having to pay inflated retail rates. The appeals court decision waylaid those plans by 1st finding that the FCC overstepped its authority by issuing uniform, nationwide pricing rules, and 2nd by reading a stupid requirement into the law that CLECs must "combine" the unbundled elements themselves (the equivalent of a CLEC having to walk into the local office and unplug the local loop from the frame and then plug it back in again). Obviously the court had no idea what the technology looks like or they would never have come up with that silly idea. The Supreme Court may put the law back on track again, but important time has been lost. I think it means that competition in the last mile has to await somebody breaking the technology barrier and bypassing the Bells' networks entirely in an inexpensive manner. Doughboy.

To: lml who wrote (2118)	10/12/1998 12:41:00 PM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Iml - I understand your concern about the "taking" of property without the payment of compensation as dictated by the Constitution. As you know, the Courts have gotten around this requirement by analogizing property as a bundle of sticks and arguing that a regulation only removes one of the bundle. Of course, multiple regulations can result in a removal of the entire bundle. The court is likely to look at the intent of the Telecom Communications Act and find an intent to promote competition. If there is evidence that the ILECs are stifling competition, they will work against them. In the long run, the ILECs will find it is in their best interests to improve their image and that will be done by improving access. Just my personal opinion, Ken