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: Doughboy who wrote (3465)	4/27/1999 1:35:00 PM
From: MikeM54321	Respond to of 12823

Re: DSL Deployments ILEC or Providers? DougHboy, Your number 2 reason made me recall (I hope I didn't post this before?) the very funny articles about how the, "DSL Providers" (I'm not sure what the official name for them are) had some bathroom wars with the ILECs. It seems that the Providers had to have an escort to use the bathroom in the ILEC's COs. Then the ILECs didn't want to keep designating a bathroom monitor randomly to escort the Provider's personnel to the bathroom. So they had to go in groups! Then the Providers complained because they felt they shouldn't have to go in groups and what if they wanted to go in between, etc., etc. Very funny reading material. Also, and this was even funnier, the ILECs were required by law to let the Providers into the COs. Okay fair enough. But it appeared that the FCC forgot to make sure they could get parking space. Of course the Providers had to park close by to haul in their equipment. So some Providers had to literally turn around and go home when they weren't allowed to park at the CO. Well as you said, the recent rules are putting an end to those funny games the ILECs were playing to keep the competition out. Kind of sad because I enjoyed reading the articles. You would think the billion dollar ILECs could have come up with some more creative ways to keep the competition out. Or maybe the bathroom and parking lot was pretty creative? MikeM(From Florida)

To: Doughboy who wrote (3465)	4/27/1999 1:48:00 PM
From: lml	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12823

(1) From my corner of the copper plant, I don't necessarily see "glacial movements by the ILECs. SBC and BEL have moved quickly to deploy DSL in their most competitive markets. Granted, not all COs have been wired for DSL yet. In some situations available space in the CO & the overall condition of the copper plant may forestall early deployment. I would think these factors would forestall early deployment by the CLECs as well. As far as USW & BLS are concerned, I think their focus may be in other areas as their operations cover a larger range of businesses. GTE, while not as aggressive as the SBC & BEL, is also not sitting still. (2) While the ILECs & their lawyers are doing whatever they can to retard the CLECs from deploying their own equipment at the CO, I don't believe this is core to their strategy. It is merely a delay tactic. The ILECs must compete or die; they know this. (3) As far as I know, there are no present plans by SBC/PacBell to move into DSL-Lite. PacBell is rolling out DMT-DSL aggressively. IMHO, as DMT deployment expands, the advantages of splitterless DSL diminishes. IMHO, the ILECs may be sitting back a bit, permitting the CLECs to invest in their infrastructure, establish a pricing structure, only to come in later & undercut them with pricing. Now the question presented is -- as I alluded to before -- how will QoS impact the demand for DSL at various pricing levels. What investment do the ILECs -- & the CLECs need to make to ensure that the ATM switches/routers at the CO do not become the bottleneck that delivers poorer service than what a competitor is offering.