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: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (2446)	12/5/1998 8:29:00 PM
From: lml	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Frank: Thanks for the link to the post on the ATHM thread, which for some reason I fail to read on a regular basis. Perhaps because there are too many postings. Your lengthy post underscores your tremendous insight into this subject, not only technically, but policy-wise as well. I concur that the owners of the pipe, or Layer 1 as you put it, are in the enviable position to control to what extent bandwidth will be apportioned among the other participants in/providers of Internet connectivity, & that companies like ATHM run tremendous risk going forward of having TCI's road system closed to their facilities. I would expect at some point a possible acquisition by TCI of ATHM facilities & thereby the ATHM franchise. Or TCI may surreptiously choose to develop their own ISP subsidiary, & leave ATHM & its shareholders without a road to travel on. Unfortunately, I am not read in the 1996 Act, so I cannot respond directly to your comments re: property law. I can only speculate what you are referring to. If Layer 1 facilities are to remain the realm of the private enterprise, then each owner's property rights at some point will run counter federal interests governing the "modes of interstate transportation," and the authority of the federal gov't to regulate under the Commerce Clause. What has the 1996 Act said with respect to the obligation of these owners to provide bandwidth to the purveyors of Internet connectivity. Are we playing the same game that the FCC is playing out with the ILECs? Maybe. But I do see the right of cablecos to choose not to carry services such as offered by IVI, if in-fact it causes them to drop another stream of content (cable channel) that they choose to provide. Its really a business decision. But if I'm running a small cable operation w/no opporunity of delivering Internet connectivity both up & down my pipes because of the large-scale capital expenditure, it would be imprudent for me not to offer what IVI has to provide - at least in the interim -- & assuming there is subscriber demand. lml PS Thanks for your timely post refreshing all on the original intent of this thread as envisioned by Warren Gates, its founder. You, IMHO, have been instrumental in fostering a high-level & stimulating discussion here. Bravo to you. PS2 For the informed, could either you or one of the other "industry" folks clue us lay people in on some of the buzz-words zipping across this board. To begin with, what does the term DAVIC stand for? I've figured out that DOCSIS stands for Data Over Cable Systems Interface Specifications. Lemme guess. Data, Audio, Video Imaging Communication? Just a guess. And does MSO stand for media service operator?