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: Bernard Levy who wrote (2950)	2/25/1999 7:38:00 PM
From: MikeM54321	Respond to of 12823

"...to accommodate xDSL service,the ILECs will need to deploy a lot more fiber in the local loop." Bernard, Exactly! In this regards LECs should fall under the same rule as the MSOs. It did make sense to allow ISPs a somewhat free ride on the LECs network, WHILE this entire new communications technology was being born. Now that it's here (and beyond anyones wildest dreams), it's time to let the games begin. With consumers screaming for bandwidth, AND xDSL and HFC technologies fully developed (LMDS according to most on this thread), it's time for the FCC to simply say, "If you build it, it's yours." Both MSO's and LECs have openly stated they don't want to be dumping hundreds of millions, to build networks others can piggy back off, for regulated fees. I know there is the problem of the dial-up ISPs (Or from the ISPs point of view, "when the s__ hits the fan!), but what else is new when, "things," change?" Did we cry many tears for the Mom and Pop hardware stores when Home Depot smashed them? I don't recall any federal regulations to slow them down. If the demand was not specifically there, and the need was (law enforcement for example), then that is an entirely new subject. But with consumers dying for fat pipes, VOD, VoIP, and Video Phones(well maybe that is not a good example), I think de-regulating the entire communications game would be good for the consumer. Don't get me wrong. I am truly puzzled by this regulation game. I don't understand what seems so obvious to me. But I'm not nearly as savvy to the details as to you, Frank, and others on this thread. Feel free to criticize me. But (IMHO) I do not see it being such a complex issue as Kenard consistently says it is. I sure would not want to be the one pulling the trigger on a hundred million dollar project, while Kenard puzzles over it's implicataions. Thanks for your comments/opinions. MikeM(From Florida)

To: Bernard Levy who wrote (2950)	2/25/1999 8:00:00 PM
From: WTC	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12823

Cable MSO vs. ILEC regulatory regimes ARE different Re: B. Levy's opening assumption, < First, I assume that we are all in agreement that there is no reason to treat ILECS and cable companies differently. They operate within a regulated monopoly framework,...> Right you are, as far as you go with this. I truly like where you are going with this, but I am convinced that is not where Kennard and his pals are taking MSO open systems regulation. The rub is that there is now a common carrier framework for ILEC regulation, and a non-common carrier framework for MSOs -- patterns of regulation that have diverged since the mid-80s. The issue for the MSOs seems to be whether they will be obliged to accept a change to common carrier regulation for a part or all of their pipes. Their historic business models are built on non-common carrier status. The ILEC (or CLEC, for that matter) option to go to Open Video Systems includes the option to elect non-common carrier status, but I am not aware of any ILEC that has gone down that road. As much as I would professionally like to see parity in ILEC/MSO regulatory treatment, there seems to be ample precedent and basis for a continued divergence in the FCC's treatment, i.e., Title II vs. Title VI rules. The MSOs with their HFC architectures will continue to argue that they architecturally have finite capacity that is only suited to their non-common carrier status. It seems a status quo that is theirs to keep, or loose if they get really stupid with their public pronouncements like a few have made on the DOCSIS issues.

To: Bernard Levy who wrote (2950)	3/2/1999 1:08:00 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Hi Bernard, In the upstream message to this post [2950], you noted: " So we must have either regulation or competition....<delete>.. so that perhaps the answer will involve what Frank C. was suggesting, which was to perform the unbundling at the higher levels of the networking stack. An unlikely assemblage of vendors is about to take this one step closer to reality, with yet another alliance, as they attempt to define some of the networking rules in this new virtual battle zone. The following is from Stephen Temple concerning the Open Service Gateway. Regards, Frank Coluccio --------------- Fifteen Industry Leaders to Create Standard for Bringing Internet-Based Services to the Networked Home Open Service Gateway Specification Will Enable Vast New Business <> March 2, 1999 REDWOOD SHORES, Calif., March 1 /PRNewswire/ Fifteen leading technology companies today announced a new alliance to create and maintain the Open Service Gateway specification, the industry's first open interface for connecting consumer and small business appliances with Internet services. The Open Service Gateway specification will be designed to provide a common foundation for Internet service providers (ISPs), network operators and equipment manufacturers to deliver a wide range of Internet services to gateway servers running in the home or remote office. Alcatel, Cable & Wireless, Electricite de France, Enron Communications, Ericsson, IBM, Lucent Technologies, Motorola, Network Computer, Inc., Nortel Networks, Oracle Corporation, Philips Electronics, Sun Microsystems, Sybase, and Toshiba intend to jointly define the Open Service Gateway specification to allow the consolidation and management of voice, data and multimedia communications to and from the home. The specification will also be designed to provide secure wireless or wired links between high-value home services - such as security, energy management, emergency healthcare and electronic commerce services-and the computer systems of external computer networks and Internet service providers. With the Open Service Gateway specification, service providers and software vendors will be able to depend upon a standardized software environment for residential, small office/home office and remote environments. Through this effort, the alliance is creating standards for the delivery, installation, deinstallation and management of applications - opening vast new markets for Internet service and software developers. Now, even homes without traditional desktop computers can look forward to deriving benefit from Internet connectivity. As consumers see easy access to a much broader array of home and small office services -- from home alarm, medical alert, food service delivery, intercom, telephony services and others -- demand, just as on the Internet, for these value-added services will dramatically increase. By writing to the Open Service Gateway specification's Java(TM) technology-based environment, service providers and vendors traditionally faced with inflexible dedicated systems development will be able to leverage the infrastructure of the Internet while drawing from the resources of the millions of Java software and Internet developers worldwide. =========