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 : Covad Communications - COVD -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MangoBoy who wrote (78)	4/15/1999 10:03:00 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 10485

Mark, thanks.. that was one of my points of reference. The other source, perhaps related, being the FCC itself, who has suggested that the ILECs should not subsidize their own (would be) faltering DSL financial models with ordinary, day-to-day POTS and other ILEC services, which fall under monopoly regs. There was a growing sentiment, leading to some stated intentions last year, that if this were to be the case, then the ILECs "might" prefer to open what they have at the current time in the way of copper plant for resale, across the board, and be left free at their own options in the future to deploy their own structurally separated next generation subsidiaries. Bill, what you've stated sounds entirely logical, especially when you position your logic in the time frames of your previous involvement. I would suggest, however, that sea changes are taking place in both the ways the ILECs must now manage competitive threats (which was your parting point), and the economies that will become available at the unit level with evolving integrated services technologies. It is my opinion, furthermore, that if the ILECs put in their own structurally separated infrastructures, then they would not be precluded from entering into the portal space such as T/ATHM's and others who would position themselves to replace the ILEC's loops with multi service offerings over their own (the ILECs') media. I think that the industry is ready for a backlash of sorts. At some point it will be clear that the multitudes of upstarts who have been granted a kind of competitive immunity thus far, will have to step up to a more hostile plate, as the potential benefits that could be derived from the larger players' offerings becomes clear. Incidentally, what I've stated in the foregoing actually runs contrary to my otherwise entrepreneurial spirit, but these are some of the possible outcomes I think are possible,nonetheless, over the next several years. There is no immediate threat to the COVDs and the like, however, at this time. Not on this score, in any event. Thanks for your experienced views on the topic. Regards, Frank Coluccio

To: MangoBoy who wrote (78)	4/15/1999 12:15:00 PM
From: SteveG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10485

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that your point is not correct Mark. My most recent understanding is that in order for the RBOCs to be free from 271 relief unbundling requirements, the FCC requires that they need to form a separate entity to do so, and that this entity NOT be given any preferential treatment in access/provisioning of RBOC infrastructure in competing against CLECs. This seems primarily to effect the buildout of DSL infrastructure. I know BEL has been the most aggressive in satisfying the NYPUC checklist, which is the basis for the FCC's 271 relief, and is expected to get that relief sometime later this year.