SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Orckit (ORCT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: D.J.Smyth who wrote (1741)4/6/1999 12:17:00 PM
From: SteveG  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1998
 
<A> "New bill could level DSL playing field"
from news.com

By Corey Grice
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
April 5, 1999, 6:15 p.m. PT

Pacific Bell and other local phone companies in California could be forced to share their wires with upstart data firms that want to offer high-speed data services under a new proposed state law.

The law, if passed, would require the California Public Utilities Commission to set pricing and other guidelines for how competing local phone providers can offer DSL, or digital subscriber line services, over the same wire the local phone company uses to deliver voice service.

The market for DSL has heated up as providers make new marketing deals and cut prices on the high-speed data transmission technology. Local phone companies, like Pacific Bell in California, offer the service over a single twisted pair of copper wires.

Data-focused competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) such as Covad Communications and NorthPoint Communications want to get into this lucrative market, but argue that local companies have an unfair cost advantage when it comes to existing networks.

The CLECs currently must lease a separate line from local firms to provide DSL services. If a customer wants to order the high-speed service from a provider other than their local phone company, they need to pay for the added line. This inflates the cost of the service, and leaves the CLECs at a competitive disadvantage, they say.

"In the absence of line-sharing, customers who want to choose a competitive DSL service must pay for a second line to their homes," Michael Olsen, NorthPoint's deputy general counsel, wrote in a letter supporting the bill.

"The cost of the second line exceeds $20 per month, artificially inflates the cost of competitive offerings, and effectively excludes competitors from the residential DSL marketplace," he added.

The California bill, AB 991, sponsored by Assemblyman Lou Papan (D-Millbrae), faces a vote next week before the state Assembly's Utilities & Commerce committee, a 12-member panel that oversees business, telecommunications, and international trade issues.

Under the bill, California state telecommunications regulators would be required to set guidelines for delivering DSL over existing copper wires, also known as "local loops." The process is known as "line sharing," or "sub-loop unbundling."

The bill is sponsored by the High-Speed Access Coalition (HiSAC), a group of ISPs and other Internet companies including Infoseek and PDO Communications. That company failed in its attempt to get the state commission to require line sharing in January.

Covad and NorthPoint also officially support the bill. The data CLECs, which are currently concentrating on serving small and mid-sized business customers, argue they cannot compete on price with the local phone companies' residential DSL service.

Baby Bells lately have slashed prices even further for the high-speed services. Pacific Bell parent company SBC Communications trimmed the price for its residential DSL service to $39 earlier this year--one of the lowest prices in the industry, and on par with competing high-speed cable modem services.

Pacific Bell executives said line sharing raises many technical questions about quality of service, equipment maintenance, and whether the local phone company can ensure phone service if a competitor's DSL equipment were to malfunction.

"This makes very complex issues out of what today are routine customer service issues," said Michael Heenan, a legislative spokesman for Pacific Bell.

David Schlosser, a regulatory spokesman for SBC, said the company should not be saddled with regulations on data services because it is not the dominant, or incumbent, player--the way it is in the local voice market.

FCC on same path
Separately, the Federal Communications Commission, in a regulatory notice issued last month, said it would examine whether it should require local phone companies to allow competitors to offer advanced services over a single voice line. Public comments are due June 15 with reply comments due July 15.

Heenan said California lawmakers would be unwise to adopt a new law before the FCC weighs in on the issue. "We feel it'd be inappropriate for the state, right now, to involve itself in something the FCC is looking at," he said.

Others say that the Baby Bells would like nothing better than to stall until the DSL market takes shape.

"PacBell is trying to slow it down so that they can get enough market share before the competitors get in," said Ed Randolph, Papan's chief of staff. "What we want to do is speed up the process so some of the smaller guys can get an opportunity to get into the market."



To: D.J.Smyth who wrote (1741)4/7/1999 10:31:00 PM
From: savolainen  Respond to of 1998
 
[wireless]

hi darrell,

so you're still following this one eh? ;) ... seems like orctf is indeed (just) beginning to get noticed... and am now inclined to believe that the jpc second source (whomever it/ they may be) will probably be announced at either/both Interop and SuperComm as noted in the NBMO report...

---
am guessing that there aren't any current orctf wireless efforts (which we will hear about near term), but then i'm probably the wrong guy to ask... as i just follow the news and therefore am somewhat removed... shlomi might have a better idea if anything is up behind the scenes...

that being said, would not be entirely surprised if longer term we hear about something, as orctf seems to have the background/talent: once upon a time wireless was orctf's stock and trade... in the early days of orctf ... say before 1994... orctf's revenues were derived primarily from wireless contract engineering and wireless commissioned projects... probably the best known project was the comstream cm701 digital satellite modem .. which apparently became something of of an industry defacto standard... fwiw comstream was absorbed into rok and i imagine that expertise (at least silicon) probably lives on in cnxt...

a couple of other (known) projects were a spread spectrum wireless modem ... and some r&d for wireless local loop

some names from those early orctf days: Geotek, OKI America, Inc., Pacific Communications Sciences Inc., Comstream Corp., Hughes Network Systems Inc., Interdigital Communications Corp. and National Semiconductor Corp.

---

orctf has pretty well phased out the contract engineering ... except for cable stuff with their own subsidiary ultracom..

also have heard nothing of fujitsu/ orctf joint efforts in wireless.. and expect therefore the gte/sbc news is pretty much a nonevent as far as orctf is concerned...
---
on the other hand, believe (longer term) news (other than adsl) to watch for on the orctf/fujitsu front may be vdsl... way cool/ way fast... from what i can gather reading between the lines... gte has been trialing orctf/fujitsu(?) vdsl... it is known that dt is..

along those lines, thought this post interesting (note: no confirmation this is orctf/fujitsu vdsl, but still think it certainly in the realm of the possible)... :

"... BTW I found out some very interesting news from the tech that came out to hook up cable modem. Last month he personally did some installs of GTE's VDSL trials only a few blocks from where I live. He told me it was pretty amazing. Full TV video services(70 channels), phone service (with bells and whistles) and an Internet connection(he thinks it was 1 meg service), all via that little, teeny tiny twisted copper pair. He did the install, made sure it worked and then hasn't heard about the project since. He thinks there are bugs they are working on. But I was pretty amazed that it even worked, period. Maybe I have to re-think the xDSL plays?"
MikeM(From Florida)
Message 8137474

til later
s