AUTOHOME, Inc Message Board

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

ATHM 24.08

-3.1%

Nov 14 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Boplicity who wrote (10588)	6/6/1999 12:47:00 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (3) of 29970

You don't seem to mind the FED playing god with the economy. The government has been taking this role throughout the 20th century much to the satisfaction of the people. They feel protected. No one knows what Ford or GM could have become without the unrelenting interference from government. The interference never had anything to do with maintaining competition. The foreign competition ended up building plants here in order to satisfy government's demands and so you missed my point because this is the equivalent of ordering Ford and GM to let others use their facilities. Those plants built by foreigners should have been built by our manufacturers, but the government thought labor needed the protection and so effectively made sure Ford and GM didn't have the financial wherewithal to compete. Labor lost in this arrangement too. This is much like your three MSO suggestion. Behind it is a protection scheme. How Americans love to pay the protection money. You can't blame the government for the cable monopolies. Most of the blame lies with the public and much with the companies. Government just went along with the demands for protection from the public. It happened during a period still steeped in the university generated "robber baron" perception of corporations. The companies took the tack that they were also protected against competition. The entire Portland issue is not about riding free, it's about maintaining the cable monopoly so that most of the revenues go to one operator. The companies rationalize this by saying they need their investment protected. It was this approach which precipitated the last disaster in cable tv, so it isn't hard to understand why Portland seeks a remedy against what they think they will have to do in the future to avoid shooting themselves in the foot one more time. One line for three different MSOs is more absurd than any of the positions yet considered. Whose truck rolls? How are headends provisioned? What does this achieve? You still have the problem of ISPs and you still have the bandwidth problem plus a complex switching problem. The way this kind of issue was resolved as is evident in the legal precedents presented by the Portland defendants is that users like ISPs have to pay rent to maintain the facilities, but one operator is still the owner. There is an advantage in such ownership initially, but in time there is little added value in the physical infrastructure. The value is in what is carried on it. Does anyone care about who owns the Brooklyn Bridge? I'll bet you own a Lexus.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next