ATT is also spending massively. I've seen their TV ads urging people to write their congessmen against the internet "monopoly". Use common sense here as the congressmen must. They cannot allow one company to monopolize both content and delivery (see movie business consent degree disallowing studios from owning the theatre chains) but they can allow one company to control one or the other, at least a majority of it. Therefore the worst I see for ATT is being forced to divest a portion of their cable holdings. Maybe they'll dump Portland and Florida on someone else (gg). Maybe they'll end up with 5-60% of the cable market instead of (what is it?) 80%? In any case I don't believe there will be a national law allowing full access for these reasons: ATT just paid hundreds of BILLIONS for that pipeline (to disallow freedom of useage for ATT would be to bankrupt them), also as I understand it there is only so much bandwidst to go around and they'll need a lot for such services as on-demand movies, telephony, internet, TV, interactives, audio and video, etc.
Bottomline, ATT will be willing to make modest concessions but no more. And they can battle in the courts for years. Therefore it is in everyone's interest, especially ATT and congress, to come to a workable compromise which will not be that unfriendly to ATT.
PS: If ATT becomes a toll-taker, they could charge a lot for those tolls making ISP's like AOL less attractive to subscribers. I get AOL for $20 a month but I am already looking at the possibility in the near future of getting that service for free.
There is a reason Magellan is buying ATT and not AOL. AOL may have a few good years left but their future is more in doubt that ATT's IMHO. In any case I consider ATT an undervalued stock. |
