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 : Winstar Comm. (WCII) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bernard Levy who wrote (9499)	12/7/1998 6:48:00 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12468

Bernard, I think that both of your points are based on tenets we once took for granted, but are now disintegrating at the seams. Namely the issues of DSL offerings and property rights vs regulated monopolies. DSL offerings were originally thought to be the province of ILECs almost exclusively up until about two years ago, but they have now become the prospective service-offering-of-choice by CLECs - both facilities-based and non-facilities based (a.k.a., the POP-less and switch-less types). You have differentiated between bona fide facilities-based CLECs and those who merely offer DSL via resale. While there are those CLECs, who I refer to as Paper-CLECs who do this, it's important to remember that even the bona fides are offering DSL, so DSL offerings cannot be regarded as a kind of differentiator here between the two grades of CLECs. TCG [offered HDSL] and UUnet/MFS [offered IDSL] were among the first CLECS to offer DSLs, if I'm not mistaken. Prior to these, ISPs here in the States [first in Alaska, and then in Chicago, Ill.] and in Canada, had beaten even the CLECs to the punch, never mind the ILECs, who are only coming on to the scene two years later. The issue concerning private property laws vs regulated monopolies is another area in which I think we are going to see changes. Maybe not in the absolute physical concrete property, but on some virtually-defined level. We're already seeing an attempt at this now, where facilities based providers are allowing users and resellers the use of the medium for a price, but they are imposing limits and use-policy- defined restrictions on what kind of content can and cannot be ported, and for how long. I don't know if we disagree on the property law issue, and I am quick to note that I am not versed in the law on this subject. In another thread, on another board, I mentioned how the Comm Act of '96 disregarded such rights, in favor of the greater good. My point was that while the Act was attempting to do certain things through the leverage of regulatory powers, there were other potentially legitimate claims and positions that some facilities based players could be making in defending their investments under the principles of property rights. BTW, this has also been an issue in the cable TV arena lately. When will these same kinds of mandates be imposed on the wireless carriers? Anyone care to venture a guess here? Or am I already too late in asking this? Has WCII already been called upon to open up its spectrum to outside providers, while managing those connections at its POPs? Curious minds would like to know... BTW, it's always a pleasure discussing these issues with you. Regards, Frank Coluccio