I will be expanding on this thesis, but I need criticism and objections from everyone.
If you really mean "from everyone," I will give you my comments.
It is hard for me to be critical, because I agree with everything in your post. However, such agreement would add nothing to your thesis, so I will comment on the following.
Say AOL wants access. They go to T and say, we'll sponsor, provide our stock as collateral, to issue revenue bonds to HFC upgrade x quantity of installations, in exchange for access in this market amortized at a rate proportional to yield/term on the bonds.
Although that makes sense to me, from AOL's perspective they might not be willing to contribute to infrastructure enhancements, prefering to lay back and hope to become a new media provider that can stand on their own, playing a similar role as HBO or MTV plays to cable. In particular, Pittman's background might slant his thinking that way. The advantage for AOL is that they could profit from the content side, while letting T bleed red in the infrastructure. The disadvantage is the risk that they would be left holding the bag while others produced content just as rich. One danger of having developed a successful MTV is that the entire world might look like another potential MTV.
BWDIK |
