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: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (4061)	6/6/1999 5:59:00 PM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

I read the opinion. The court glosses over the issue of whether the requirement imposes an undue burden on interstate commerce with this language: Although plaintiffs contend that the open access requirement would impose extra expenses on them, they have not shown that the incidental burden on interstate commerce caused by these expense would outweigh the local benefits of encouraging competition. First. The effective burden on interstate commerce is substantial, not incidental. If ATT/TCI does not make the substantial investment in upgrading the facilities, the Portland metropolitan area does not get two way cable access because nobody else will make the investment. That lack of access for the Portland metropolitan area, which does business with the rest of the world, is itself a substantial burden on interstate commerce. Second. There are no "local benefits of encouraging competition" because again, without T's investment, there is no competition in the Portland market for two way access. Who is going to come in and compete with ATT if T does not make the investment in the first place. IMO, the judge has assumed his conclusion - that the benefits of competition would outweigh an incidental burden on interstate commerce. Ken