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: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (2528)	12/10/1998 9:03:00 AM
From: Stephen B. Temple	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

So what then are we to conclude about the 96-Act as monopolies gradually lose their stranglehold, yet this response tells me we are headed again, back into an uncertain future monopolies. I believe we have made great strides for the small carriers in callbacks along with refiles internationally. But when you look at figures like AT&T in 97 having 45% of international traffic out of the US, then BT 56% out of UK, thats a little sickening when it comes to local markets. Sure the Bells monopolize 97% of local traffic "now", but I don't think the FCC is looking further down the road. Every where you turn, the MSPs, multi-service-provider 'term' is popping up, like its the final road for limit-less connectivity. Cable, being an unexplored entity when it comes to telephony-accessories could be the most powerful telecom sector yet, IMO. AT&T has been testing Cable-broadband for over 7 years, they have a plan, and I don't think any of us have seen what lies ahead. I think from this news statement, the FCCs plate is way to full at this time to make rash statements about closed pipelines. IMO, it should take many more months to shake out a few more possible bones in the closet. Cable is way to hot an item to let one company monopolize 1/3rd of the consumers. I just don't get it I guess. It is a fact that reports show consumers, especially in europe, would lean heavily on a one-stop-shop over cable. Voice,data,video, including e-mail once the consumer knows it works well will, IMO, stifle competition beyond a few years from now. I see AT&T/TCI as another headache if as they said" pipes are not opened". If you picture say AT&T pounding out the pavement with the local ILEC in that region, in a matter of years, someone is going to win. If you only have two players, one is left dominant. If the FCC opens the pipes from the start (but first letting AT&T get a few wrenches turned), I see a brighter future in competition. I just can't see shuting the value off. If there's just a trickle, no one else will want to play. When you have the FCC with no real measuring stick looking down the road a few years, we seem to be left holding the 4-ft level wondering why things are still unbalanced. Understandibly, they FCC is trying to break that hold on the ILECs, but not allowing the other small players locally to access the cable-pipe into TCIs customer base is a grave mistake IMO. I see no reason why there shouldn't be this type of merger as long as there's equal access for everyone. So the ILEC's have their backs against the wall, they don't want to give up any local ground, AT&T is on the way, the CLECs, ITSPs, are going to get their bundled services for DSL, and there falling further behind their must-get point system persuading the FCC to let them into the LD market. Where do we go from here? Temp'

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (2528)	12/10/1998 11:34:00 AM
From: lml	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 12823

Good article, Ken. For once it appears Kennard & the FCC are standing behind its words -- the priority to create competition along the 'last mile.' And it is clear in the way to do so -- to provide incentive to deliver broadband access to a market that is virtually monopolistic. From a policy standpoint, certain "must carry" regulations should be waived at the outset to ensure installation of the infrastrusture. Its obvious this is the only way to bring out competition. Whether such waivers may be maintained over the longer term is another issue. The purveyor who is funding the capital improvement to build such infrastructure should first be afforded the opportunity to recoup its capital costs. A second issue is IF true competition develops, the "must carry" rules need to be modified to reflect the level of competition that was non-existent before. AT&T will not be the only the pipe to the home.