SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : InfoSpace (INSP): Where GNET went!
INSP 82.06+0.3%Jan 28 3:59 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: RTev who wrote (9606)7/15/1999 7:47:00 PM
From: PatrickMark  Read Replies (1) of 28311
 
RTev,

Appreciate your feedback. I linked back to your ATHM post and from there wandered all over the ATHM and Last Mile threads - lots of info on this topic. I'll be doing more homework over there.

I had assumed (no firsthand experience) that ATHM's (and GNET's future) interface controlled the user environment in much the same way as AOL's. You indicate this is not the case. In this sense then, ATHM is acting as an ISP only (as opposed to a gatekeeper). You made the statement:

Any cable system that attempted to force a gatekeeper ISP on their users would deserve any regulation that forced them to open the wires to other ISPs who might provide an open internet system.

If a cable operator is using their proprietary content provider as an ISP only (open to the internet), do you still feel that they deserve regulation forcing them to open the pipes to other ISP's?

At this point I am of the opinion that they should be entitled to restrict access as an incentive, since they are bearing the cost of building/upgrading the infrastructure. But I'll probably be re-thinking this stance as I continue to research. Frank Coluccio makes some interesting points at:

Message 10497961

Any thoughts on the possible effects of mandated open access on GNET's growth?

Re the upcoming San Francisco ruling, I went to the SF city website hoping to compare the wording of the proposed ordinance with that of Broward County, but their meeting agendas are not current. The latest I could find on the subject is at:

news.com

T's response to the Broward ruling at:

beta.siliconinvestor.com

PM
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News