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 : AUTOHOME, Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (9388)	5/11/1999 8:57:00 PM
From: Secret_Agent_Man	Respond to of 29970

OT, Frank, Thanks and WOW! cheers

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (9388)	5/11/1999 11:50:00 PM
From: FIRENZA	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29970

Frank....hardly off topic. That was an incredible post. Thanks, that one that gets saved for sure.

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (9388)	5/12/1999 1:10:00 AM
From: Techplayer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

.TITLE BROADBAND NETWORKING NEWS .DATE May 11, 1999 .HEADLINE INTERNET ACT WOULD CHAIN RBOCS, CABLE OPERATORS .TEXT Sick and tired of the FCC's lethargy concerning access to cable and mass deployment of broadband services, U.S. Reps. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.) hurtled two bills known as the Internet Freedom Act into the U.S. House of Representatives last week. Although the lawmakers generated much fanfare for the bills, conspicuously absent were the back-slapping and rallying public statements typically issued by incumbent carriers when they favor a measure. That's because the bills -- hailed by Goodlatte and Boucher as the grand regulatory solution long-awaited by RBOCs and competitive carriers alike -- are not only unacceptable to cable operators who will have to open their infrastructures. The Internet Freedom Act is causing quite a panic among incumbents, who sense the walls might finally be closing in on their cherished monopoly status. An industry source who prefers to remain anonymous given the politically charged atmosphere surrounding the bills, says the Internet Freedom Act has some "good stuff in it," but is troublesome in several major ways. Particularly irksome, says the source, are the Sherman Act provisions in the Goodlatte version of the proposal because it shifts the burden of proof for providing fair competitive access to networks from the competitive carrier onto the incumbent carrier. "This has got criminal sanctions, plus huge financial penalties," the source says. The source also decries a provision in the Act meant to accelerate DSL deployment, whereby incumbents would be required to file all DSL plans with state utility commissions. Essentially, this means that state commissions can force incumbents to provide DSL everywhere it is technically feasible and would be empowered to penalize carriers if they did not follow through. The industry source says this kind of power shift could result in incumbents facing a "potential shakedown in the state commissions." Just Desserts? If approved, the act would be undisputedly a great development for ISPs, competitive carriers and consumers who would get DSL faster. Goodlatte and Boucher, both members of the House Internet Caucus, submitted last Thursday one version of the bill to the House Judiciary Committee and the other to the House Commerce Committee. Although Boucher insists the proposal is "going to get a broad base of support," it is obvious that certain provisions rankle incumbents. But the lawmakers may not be too concerned about that. "There are only 50,000 DSL subscribers across the country right now," Boucher says. "Let's be honest...[RBOCs] don't want to cannibalize their higher cost services," such as T-1 lines. Congressman Bob Goodlatte, 202/225-5431.)