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: DavidCG who wrote (10456)	6/5/1999 3:01:00 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29970

DavidCG, see my reply to Dave H. I agree that if this ruling holds it will be the single-most influential factor in the shaking out and consolidation of smaller ISPs. I would expect to see a number of significant rollups by larger more competent players of those who don't have the wherewithall to manage such a transition. The smaller dialup ISPs' subscriber accounts are more valuable and salable at this time than would be their ability to overcome the inevitable speed shift that they would have to overcome, in order to survive, otherwise. -- TIME OUT! I suppose it's time for one of those disclaimers here, lest a client of mine happens to be looking in and thinks that I've gone over the edge, entirely. None of what I've presented in the upstream or even in this post reflects what I would consider reality in its purist form. I'm simply replying to the ways in which I see regulatory foo foo evolving, juxtaposed with the physics of the technology as it presently exists, and what has been proposed by various players in disparate sectors, to date. This technology, in its present iteration, was never intended to accommodate multi-Terabit flows at every head end. It's fabric, both software and hardware, indeed the state of cable art, simply wont permit it yet. And the colocation requirements, if that were the tact taken, purely from a real estate perspective, in an open door policy (open access to all) at every head end, would be enormous. You've heard of Carrier Hotels? Think Cable Hotels. [Side note: This in some ways brings back the concept of the MSO becoming the facilities based custodian for all players, like a utility, but that would go against the proprietary interests they now have in their own ISP-like entanglements.] Unless, of course, an open-ended fiberspheric environment were created, but no one is talking about that possibility with any degree of seriousness, yet. Instead, we're still stuck in the nuances of Frequency Division Multiplexing constraints offered by the coaxial component of the current model. When these were first designed and engineered six, maybe seven years ago, the notion of Internet Time hadn't even been conceived yet. That's why I'm constantly qualifying my statements, ad nauseam at times, providing caveats and qualifiers such as, "at this time" or "predicated on the current state of the art," or "HFC, in it's current state," and so on. It's this kind of language that gets me into trouble with AHhaha. He says I'm too noncommittal at times. This industry needs a form of direct optical delivery, but quick. Otherwise, the gradual, incrementalistic approaches ascribed to me by the Doctor will hold true, no matter what some politically-motivated judge rules, and despite whatever tantrums are thrown by the ISP community and end-users alike. Maybe one or two could fit their way into the model, but it wont work for the greater number of SPs who would want in, the way things stand today. And how does one rationalize only letting one or two in? Through a cablemodem lottery? Oi! Regards, Frank Coluccio